I was wandering around the blogs and hit on Greg Laden's How do you explain Judith Curry? again and see the comment thread has developed somewhat with weapons grade Dunning-Kruger Gish-Gallops of diarrhoea proportions which are hard to swallow (hint). I see Bernard J has been watching and prompting so will understand the hint.
Did you all know that the Merriam-Webster dictionary is the be all and end all WRT defining the meaning of words, life and 42?
Hello, my little Deltoids, long time no visit and alas, on this occasion I bring you sad news. Your stalwart for Truth 'n' Justice in science (heh-heh-heh!), Mr. Michael Mann, has just lost his case against Canadian climatologist, Tim Ball. This will also collapse the case against Mark Steyn. He is now being counter sued for absolute 'zillions' and will almost certainly be forced into bankruptcy - oh dear what a pity never mind! The reason for his collapse is his absolute refusal to disclose his original data.
Anyway, I do realise that your numbers here at the Deltoid Chapel have shrunk enormously but even so, as you wander the streets chanting "I belieeeeeve, I belieeeeeve" and rattle your collection tins, I do hope you will spare a few bob for poor - and I mean like absolutely flat broke - Michael Mann. Now, he needs your money, not just your silly faith!
Ah Duffer, so that echo has reached you at last, after all it was broadcast enough through the denial-o-sphere, you must have had yer head up yer arse!
Now the reason it is quiet around here is that you and your kind are running out of cogent, believable (if you have a brain the power of GWBs), argument and skirmishes are occurring in other fields.
Fellas, D. Richard Betts wonders who briefed Emma Thompson the current status of climate science. I very much suspect Jeffie Harvey or one of his toddlers here at Deltoid.
You stupid crass individual Oily. Thompson may have been wrong in detail but she is correct in principle.
Is Thompson a scientist - no, and was Richard Betts slamming her as David (serial misleader) Rose makes out, no simply putting her right on the details. Rose is despicable.
But here is the rub, Betts' mention of 2070 is something of an advance on dates previously quoted so there is no room for crowing complacency. What is more, as the ecological dominoes begin to fall faster then mass migrations may be driven by those products of climate change plus over exploitation, and sooner. Syria and the middle east in general is a wake up call, and South America and other parts of Africa are under stress right now.
You really are clueless clot who misses more nuanced reports than found in Rose's rag.
Furthermore Oily, Richard Betts himself has come in for criticism for tweeting unfortunates on this and highlighted by Eli Richard Betts Puts the Frighteners on Eli which is very nuanced and besides has more background which you should pay attention to.
Olaus. you are a clot, really not worth of a polite response. But here you go: if temperatures, as Betts, suggests rise by 4C by the 2060w, humanity is toast. A 4C rise in the time span discussed will annihilate many of the planet's ecological systems and destroy many key ecological services that permit humans to exist. Thompson may indeed be wrong by 3 decades, but what's the point? Betts does not get it. Its like he's saying, "We won't face calamity until 2060, not 2030! What was Thompson thinking???". Is there really a difference? Thirty years? We are already well on our way there. Even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow the planet is committed to significant warming.
You may jest but you are an irresponsible idiot. I hope for their sake that you don't have kids. Because if you do, you are ridiculing a runaway train that is going to make their lives hell down the road. You may not think so, buffered in your technological den, but its inevitable.
Olaugh, I appreciate the fact that you respect my status as a scientist to the point where you think that I liase with and influence the opinions of well known celebrities. But alas, on this occasion I was not involved.
So sheer is Oily's vacuous thinking that there is a book that describes his wardrobe. It is pitched at a reading level such that even Oily will understand.
If editorial control were to be exerted on SB to pander to Murdoch's political ideology, that would have to be send in written or (recordable) verbal form.
Yes, denier mouthpieces have done this, but only because they have been making editorial insistence to people who WANT to do it anyway. And still their scamming comes out.
So I'm not worried. Any attempt to fuck things up would do more damage than they could possible save by interfering and shutting down inconvenient truths.
Was Dutton ever a bouncer or front row forward, he seems to have his brains scrambled.
But it is the likes of these who have their fingers in the financial pies that are sucking peoples of the UK and elsewhere of their money from high prices of utility provision - power, water, rail and also health and increasingly education whilst opening the same to the risks from the many forms of negligence risks. This is extremely well described in a book by James Meek, 'Private Island' which deserves wider readership.
“One activity in which Britain leads the world is privatisation. From Thatcher to Cameron, prime minister after prime minister has flogged off our public assets at rock bottom prices to the private sector. The result has been massive returns for investors and middle men, poorer services for the public – and a downgrading of our entitlements as citizens. All this is detailed by James Meek in a book that stands as one of the most powerful critiques of the mess that is Britain’s economy.”
If only electorates would realise the massive frauds perpetrated on them by the self interested politicians who allow vulture capitalists to flourish at the expense of nearly every one else then change may be effected. Sadly, with the UK political landscape, and the encroaching media presence of such as the Murdochs, the general public will continue to be mislead and thus confused as to what is wrong.
No, the UK is beginning to get fed up. And the increasing lack of anything to lose is making the situation worse for those in power.
No need for armed insurrection.
A million in the London Streets. Not there to protest. There to walk into the Houses of Parliament, grab every MP there and throw them out into the Thames and tell them to fuck off can't be stopped.
Throw the PM out. Blockade No 10 so the little shitbag can't get back in.
Close the bloody government down until the get their act together and actually listen and change.
A government whose EVERY MEMBER is refused entry and whose head is unable to get to work CANNOT claim to have a mandate for the people.
Keep it up until MPs that most people WANT to have the job are there.
In another generation, if things don't correct themselves, we have a revolution, and one where those who are sitting pretty won't be losing their money. They'll be losing EVERYTHING. Family, possessions, and life.
None of it needs an armed populace.
A million people cannot be stopped without weapons of mass destruction. If they're willing to risk death. And if things get worse, there's nothing to lose.
Lionel @#20: Not a bouncer, no, but a former copper.
But it remains to be seen how long he will last in any case, now that Abbott has been rolled.
While I can hardly celebrate the rise of yet another private-school, Rhodes scholar, lawyer to the summit of Australian politics (and this one an ex-merchant banker to boot), a man with a string of political failures behind him, and no doubt in front of him too, he does at least accept the science, has previously supported a price on carbon, and does a passable imitation of a grown-up, unlike his predecessor.
Perhaps Australia now has a chance to inch slightly forward in our quest to not be the most recalcitrant nation on the planet. Not exactly the highest aim, but politics, as the saying goes, is the art of the possible.
As people internalise the fact that the powerful get to ignore the law, they will conclude that obeying the law is a chump's game. There's no mileage in it if it's not a law.
People will stop worrying about what they're doing being "against the law". Especially since it's pretty damn obvious that it doesn't HAVE to be against the law for it to be make "against the law". Even if it becomes "resisting arrest" only.
It's only more culturally effective for the people to ignore the claims of the law in Australia.
IMO everyone who wouldn't vote for ANY of the fuckers up for grabs ought to arrange a crowdsource of some no-chancer being voted for.
Honest incompetence is far better for society than malign incompetence.
Just dropped by to tell people that Murdoch just bought National Geographic, and thereby, if I’m not mistaken, now owns ScienceBlogs, too.
ScienceBlogs is owned by Seed Media Group, not NGS. NGS has editorial control, but I suspect that Seed can get out of their contract if NGS partnership with 21st Century Fox significantly changes the editorial direction.
But the partnership (73% control but Fox, 27% by NGS) is bad news in any case.
Turnbull was previously party leader when they were in Opposition, and was deposed by Abbott because he supported the Labor Government's ETS proposal. Following his demise he remarked: “Climate change is real, it is affecting us now, and yet, right now we have every resources available to us to deal with climate change, except for one, and that is leadership. We cannot cost-effectively achieve a substantial cut in emissions without putting a price on carbon.”
Like most of the "wets" in the party, he understands the economic (at least) benefits of a steady transition to a low/zero carbon economy. In contrast, Abbott and the right wing of the party brought all the intellectual nuance of Olaus - "Coal is good for humanity".
He can't afford to scare the conservative wing of the party, but there are some levers that can be engaged should he choose to spend some minimal political capital in that direction. The existing "direct action" scam can be minimally rejigged to turn from "pay pollutors" to "pollutors pay". But I suspect he will find it difficult over the rest of their term (about 14 months) to find the (politically) correct balance between doing enough to hold onto potential Green or independent voters and doing little enough to avoid being white-anted by the right wing.
Don't get me wrong - there is a likelihood the CRRK has it right, and it will be the same action with better rhetoric. And the best Turnbull could do is still pretty piss-weak. I'm restraining my hopes to only an incremental improvement over his excremental predecessor.
Turnbulls coalition partners just extorted a bunch of concessions to maintain their participation. Relevant to this discussion:
1. No change to existing climate policies
2. Just for kicks management of the Murray-Darling basin returning from the Dept of the Environment (which prioritised sustainability) to Dept of Agriculture (which, during its previous reign, prioritsed maximum supply to irrigators).
Frank D.
The Dept of Agriculture (federal) in its previous reign had no say in water prioritising and therefore could not prioritise water for Agriculture or anything else. Water was owned and operated via State Governments until the Water Act 2007.
Thus it is clear that Exxon knowingly put profit ahead of future human existence - that is genocide on an epic scale. That is a statement of sorry fact and not a hate filled outburst.
And then we have Duffer upthread mistaking the lack of posts here for apathy about AGW when the fight now is being taken to a broader front of what to do about it, and that includes continuing the push-back against the now criminally exposed deniers such as Booker, Delingpole, Montford, Ridley etc. etc.
So, far from 'our church' (hah!) whithering it is the denial ship that is sinking faster as more holes appear in the fabric one such being Edelman ends work with coal producers and climate change deniers. It seems there is a list developing, and it is nothing like that of another arch' denier Peter Lilley who should be reminded of that 'Little List' he had a few decades ago when he stood up at a Tory party conference and uttered: "I am closing down the something for nothing society. This summer I announce tougher rules respecting so called New Age travellers. Most people were as sickened as I was
by the sight of these spongers descending like locusts... etc. etc.."
Well I know what sickens me, those with conflicts of interest who try to fly under the radar of oversight and if caught out trying to get away with it, and often succeeding, with only a slap on the wrist. And they address each other as 'honourable'. Orwell speak is alive and well.
As is his wont, Stu2's quibble is simply an attempt at misdirection from the main point.
Prior to the establishment of the Murray Darling Basin Authority, water allocations were managed by the states, but their allocations were ultimately controlled by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission's Ministerial Council, controlled by Warren Truss from 1999 in his capacity as Minister for Agriculture, and now the very man who "pursuaded" Turnbull into handing the the Authority over to the Department of Agriculture. Perhaps Stu2 thinks that neo-con David Kemp or the risible Ian Campbell who, as Minsters of the Environment, sat with Truss on the Council would have been anything other than Truss' lapdogs on questions of water management...
The overallocations permitted by the Minister of Agriculture via the MDBC meant the health of the river continued to degrade through the 2000's. With the establishment of the MDBA, reporting to the Minister of the Environment, the health of the river has been given a greater priority than before (although they are only about 40% of where they need to finish up). Now that the MDBA will report to Agriculture, I'm sure we won't see a return to the bad old days, dear me no, not at all...
Stu2's "correction" is, as ever, a difference which makes no difference.
Frank D.
Minco was not controlled by Warren Truss nor the MDBC.
Minco was made up of the STATE ministers in the MDB.
Until the Water Act 2007 the feds had no say in allocations.
It also looks like you don't understand that there is a difference between allocation and entitlement.
The Water Sharing Plans determine how much of entitlement is allocated, not the department of agriculture or any other department.
Which are the 'bad old days' that you are referring to?
As Stu 2 is still around I would like to know his, and other deniers that linger here, reaction to the nail bomb (knowing how they just love to use the last nail in the coffin meme) that has just gone off in Exxon's closet which threatens to spill over to the rest of the fossil fuel body-incorporate and their aiders and abettors in the media and governments,
and then explain how the funding of climate change denial can be argued away as a figment of our imagination.
As I have mentioned before citing books by Professor Callum Roberts and others we are heading for an ecological and sociological cliff:
The marine Living Planet Index (LPI) presented here is
roughly in line with the global LPI, which shows a 52 per cent
decline in vertebrate populations since 1970. That alone should set
off alarm bells. But it’s what’s hidden in the overall marine LPI that
foretells an impending social and economic crisis.
When we look at the fish species most directly tied to human
well-being – the fish that constitute up to 60 per cent of protein
intake in coastal countries, supporting millions of small-scale fishers
as well as a global multibillion-dollar industry – we see populations
in a nosedive. The habitats they depend on, such as coral reefs,
mangroves and seagrasses, are equally threatened.
The picture is now clearer than ever: humanity is collectively
mismanaging the ocean to the brink of collapse.
Lionel.
Where have you proved that Stu 2 is an 'other denier'?
What are you claiming is being denied?
There is much funding associated with climate: I would not attempt to deny that at all.
Humans impact environment, including the ocean environment: I would not attempt to deny that either.
I chose to comment this time because Frank D's assertion about who or what allocates Water Entitlement in the Murray Darling Basin in Australia was incorrect.
The Federal Agriculture minister has never had control of Water Entitlement or Water Allocations in the MDB.
Until the Water Act 2007, the Federal Government had little say in water management in the MDB and other than now owning a big parcel of Water Entitlement it still does not have any power to ALLOCATE water entitlement.
The State bodies do that via State legislation and such things as the Water Sharing Plans.
I should have expected you to play the stupid card.
What has been denied by you and your ilk here, the AGW effect for starters and the fact that deniers have been funded by fossil fuel interests and their cheerleaders in media and governments across the world.
This is obvious to anybody with a scintilla intelligence, a smidgen of comprehension ability and honest intent to follow links and read the contents at the source.
I had no intention to get into arguing the toss about any Murray Darling Basin.
Lionel.
AGW effect?
What does that even mean? (As opposed to anthropogenic global warming).
Where has anyone denied that funding influences all sorts of things : including media and politics?
I care deeply about the MDB environment.
I live and work in that environment.
Frank D 's assertions about water management were incorrect.
"Frank D ‘s assertions about water management were incorrect."? What does that mean other than "I haven't a frigging clue, but I don't want to admit to Frank being right"?
Come on OP. You can do better than that. Or perhaps you didn't notice there was a clickable link at the bottom of that graphic. The newer version with _all_ the necessary information.
Olaus the poor fool and village idiot, the slow down in posts here is because of a lack of cogent arguments from such as you, this as the evidence which supports our understanding that climate change is real, is being caused by human activity and is dangerous mounts up.
This has been explained to you before. Now go away with that message and tell your village - which misses you.
The scientific community has moved on. Olaus and his acolytes are becoming increasingly desperate for support. The Arctic has reached its 4th lowest ice extent this year - http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ -
so the death spiral continues. 2015 is set to be (by far) the warmest year in recorded history. Its well on its way now to the 2 C critical point as stipulated by the IPCC. The cries of hiatus are now history - there never was one. Its just another example of the rank dishonesty of this vile bunch of people who are distorting science in support of a political agenda.
Still watch them shift the goalposts again. Or else, given that temperatures may level off again for a few years until the next Godzilla El Nino, they will start going on about hiatuses again in 2018 or 19. But they are history. Their ranks are shrinking and soon they will all be laughingstocks. The sooner the better.
You should read it. The post is about global temperatures but the same argument applies to Arctic ice. Even if you struggle to understand what he's written (which I'm sure you will), look at the red line on the graph _ it's the trend line. Is it going up?
The black dots represent the noise; a bit like you walking home pissed after visiting GSW for an evening of debauchery.
You'll be staggering left an right, sometimes a bit more left and sometimes a bit more right, but you're heading in the direction of home and eventually you'll make it there. Well, for the purpose of the analogy I'm assuming that you'll make it home.
I'm surprised O'louse didn't mention Jeff in his latest post as he seems to be obsessed with him.
If I'm not mistaken, a couple of months ago he was even telling him how he was having an orgasm. Yuk!!
Advice to Jeff: if you see an inbred looking denier type idiot with an erection walking towards you....RUN!!!
hahahaha
Jp, given your stalkish kind of knowledge about me I’m the one who should be prepared. Please keep your distance and get a life, you tragic little voyeur.
And why is it so unpleasant when I point out that the Arctic ice is still there? I know it should be gone, but it isn’t. Deal with it and be happy. And Jeff too. :-)
"Jp, given your stalkish kind of knowledge about me "
If people aren't supposed to be reading what you write, why are you writing it? If people ARE supposed to be reading it, how the hell does that constitute a "stalker"?
Truly, lappers, you're a yipping little porkpie of a dog.
Jp, Olaus isn't the only one who has exhibited - let me say - unhealthy tendences on Deltoid. Jonas N, his hero and mentor, is even worse. Go into his insanity thread and all he writes about is me. He clearly cannot stand the fact that I am a bonafide scientist and he isn't.
In the case of Olaus, he's merely a copycat. Somebody makes a smear, and he copies it. He cannot invent his own smears, so here merely copy/pastes those of others.
Now about that Arctic ice. Of course the death spiral continues. Its just reached its 4th lowest extent on record, barely behind 2011 and 2007, and outside of the 95% confidence interval. Olaus, like other simpletons who don't know basic science, appears to think that by saying that there has been a linear decrease in ice extent then every year must show less ice cover than the previous one. Yes folks, he's that stupid. That ignorant. He clearly has no clue as to the concept of scale and is unable to disentangle a stochastic process from a deterministic one. In other words, we must extrapolate trends working on such large temporal and spatial scales, and the trends in the Arctic are patently obvious, just like they are for glaciers and global temperatures. Over the past 30 years the Arctic has been losing ice steadily and alarmingly. This will be the warmest year on record by far, following on from the warmest year. All of the 17 warmest years have occurred since 1998. And glaciers are retreating faster than even the models predict. AGW is a fact, and the prognosis is indeed not good at all.
The scientific community knows all of this. There's not a scientist working in the Arctic who will downplay what is happening there. Only third rate Swedish idiots. Like - Olaus.
Jp, Olaus isn’t the only one who has exhibited – let me say – unhealthy tendences on Deltoid. Jonas N, his hero and mentor, is even worse. Go into his insanity thread and all he writes about is me. He clearly cannot stand the fact that I am a bonafide scientist and he isn’t.
In the case of Olaus, he’s merely a copycat. Somebody makes a smear, and he copies it. He cannot invent his own smears, so here merely copy/pastes those of others.
Now about that Arctic ice. Of course the death spiral continues. Its just reached its 4th lowest extent on record, barely behind 2011 and 2007, and outside of the 95% confidence interval. Olaus, like other simpletons who don’t know basic science, appears to think that by saying that there has been a linear decrease in ice extent then every year must show less ice cover than the previous one. Yes folks, he’s that stupid. That ignorant. He clearly has no clue as to the concept of scale and is unable to disentangle a stochastic process from a deterministic one. In other words, we must extrapolate trends working on such large temporal and spatial scales, and the trends in the Arctic are patently obvious, just like they are for glaciers and global temperatures. Over the past 30 years the Arctic has been losing ice steadily and alarmingly. This will be the warmest year on record by far, following on from the warmest year. All of the 17 warmest years have occurred since 1998. And glaciers are retreating faster than even the models predict. AGW is a fact, and the prognosis is indeed not good at all.
The scientific community knows all of this. There’s not a scientist working in the Arctic who will downplay what is happening there. Only third rate Swedish idiots. Like – Olaus.
The big problem with all those studies projecting 3C _ 4.5C of temperature rise under BAU and doom and gloom is that they didn't consult with Stu2. Had they submitted their papers to Stu2 for review he would have made them realize that the planet actually undergoes much greater variation in temperatures between day/night, summer/winter, not to mention having a hot shower or going for a sauna (ask O'louse and GSW how hot and steamy it gets when they share a sauna, hahahaha. And they're alive and thriving...sigh).
In short, there's nothing to worry about. Hotter temperature = more people going to the beach = more happy people.
Ok, there might some minor negatives such as ocean acidification resulting in loss of shellfish and corals, more droughts in parts of the world where most poor people live, no water for those who rely on glacial melt for their water supply, a billion people having to move from low-lying coastal cities. Oh, and apparently the difference between now, a generally liveable climate and the last ice age was only about 5C. But these are only minor points. If it gets too uncomfortable in the tropics they always move to the poles and we can give them air-conditioners too.
When it's a choice between believing science and reality on one side and WTFUWT and Stu2 on the other you'd be silly not to go for the latter. Going by Stu2's logic, we could have a mean global temperature increase of 20C or more and still be OK. Most people experience that sort of change everyday, even without going for a sauna.
O'louse, if you see a car with dark-tinted windows following you, don't fret, it's only me. hahaha
HAPPY DAYS!!, let's burn all the coal, get rich and enjoy the warmth.
Sadly there is still no discussion of science. It much easier to insult people than answer questions such as why the accelerating increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has not caused global temperatures to rise: https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/12/16/countering-consensus-…
One question: what planet are you on? 2015 is set to be the warmest year on record by a mile; following on from the warmest year on record (2014). At present the planet is 0.10 C warmer than any previous year, a stunning level for such a deterministic system, and 6 months this year have already broken all-time records. So your comment (and link) are pointless.
An alternate explanation is that you have been hibernating for the past 20 years. Wakey, wakey...
I see GC still likes to spread his nasty smelling camel turds all over the place. Isn't it ironic that he complains about "lack of discussion of science" then sends us to a link full of the most anti-science nonsense around.
Gallop off into the distance, you dishonest troll.
Of course, you have to remember to look at this from an idiot denier POV. The science of AGW is wrong, therefore the ONLY valid discussion is HOW it is wrong.
Galloping camel clearly has been hibernating for the past 2 years. 2015 is by far the warmest on record - 6 of the first 9 months broke all time records. 2015 is a whopping 0.10C warmer than any other year in recorded history, which is stunning given we are talking about a largely deterministic system.
I checked GCs link and it is hilarious. Talk about non-science. Its comic book stuff.
Since you surely have read every comment since your last visit, you're blatantly lying ... but that's what deniers do; it's fundamental to their personality.
It much easier to insult people
Well yes, of course, it's trivial. But with dishonest scum like you, it's also morally justified.
than answer questions such as why the accelerating increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has not caused global temperatures to rise
The burden on you is to show that this is true, but all you have shown instead is that you're a moronic, incompetent ideologue.
Note how whiner there appears, insults EVERYONE here, then complains about how easy it is for EVERYONE ELSE to just criticise rather than do something useful.
"the accelerating increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has not caused global temperatures to rise"
They have risen.
And the rise is log(CO2), therefore can be accelerating yet still seeing a less than accelerating rise.
But I guess what deniers need to do, rather than whine about how nobody has proved their wild claims correct (which is due to them being bollocks, not being uncorrected), is show that there has been a statistically different temperature rise than predicted.
This remains 100% neglected by even those whining shitholes complaining about the lack of science.
Oh, reading Gormless Camel I see where he is coming from. Like Roy Spencer, he dismisses surface temperatures for satellite based atmospheric temperatures. But there's a problem there - its warming in the place that counts - the biosphere. The 12 km thin surface is warming and warming rapidly. Last time I looked, this is where the planetary life support systems are located. Atmospheric temperatures are irrelevant except insofar as they may or may not be correlated with surface temperatures. But it is across the planet's biomes where warming is occurring.
GC is stuck in his own myopic universe. He takes a swipe at McElroy and others for arguing that CFCs destroyed the ozone layer, and when the ozone hole decreases in size and extent after the Montreal Protocol is passed claims that it might be due to 'dumb luck'. I don't know how GC, who is not a scientist, can call any qualified expert 'dumb', but then deniers of every persuasion are seriously afflicted with Dunning-Lruger syndrome, as has been well documented. These armchair self-taught "experts" don't actually do science or publish it in recognized journals; they don't attend scientific conferences where these issues are discussed and debated. Instead, they read a few denier screeds, sift through the denial-os-phere blogs, and sit away at their keyboards proclaiming they are the 'real' experts; education and relevant degrees are irrelevant. Note how GC puts the IPCC in quotations when describing in his view the science; again, I am sure he would not do that for WUWT, Climate Depot or any of the shills he supports. This is what deniers do and why, if truth be told, they are an army of laughingstocks.
McElroy.
He was a speaker, a passionate speaker at the Nijmegen 1988 Ozone Symposium.
There, I met the revisionist coorporate thugs for the first time. At some dinner they positively flocked onto me to press the message that McElroy was like a nutter and and radical. They'd infiltrated even the RIVM and worked from there to try destroy the world.
They probably thought I looked like a pushover. Well, I remained inert (I've the mass of neutron star anyway). Too bad. Today I'd have slugged them. Verbally, of course.
"he dismisses surface temperatures for satellite based atmospheric temperatures. But there’s a problem there"
the problem is that the satellite requires a model to get temperatures from. Worse, models that depend on the output of the same climate models to determine what the radiance levels MEAN at the surface or volumes of the atmosphere.
If the climate models can't be used for interpreting and prediction, then the satellite data is unusable.
Jeff Harvey, October 2, 2015:
" I don’t know how GC, who is not a scientist, can call any qualified expert ‘dumb’, but then deniers of every persuasion are seriously afflicted with Dunning-Lruger syndrome, as has been well documented. These armchair self-taught “experts” don’t actually do science or publish it in recognized journals; they don’t attend scientific conferences where these issues are discussed and debated. Instead, they read a few denier screeds."
You got that wrong. I spent twelve years helping to build the worlds' brightest gamma ray source using "Inverse Compton Scattering". This is the process that powers the "Gamma Ray Bursters" that are the most luminous events in the universe. Enjoy the video: http://www.tunl.duke.edu/web.tunl.2011a.howhigsworks.php
SLR is a reality, part because of the above but also from thermal expansion.
Why is the stratosphere cooling? Why are nights getting warmer on average at a faster rate than days? Why are the seasons shifting with spring-like events happening earlier and autumn gold later? This coupled with milder winters in many areas are threatening the link between the crops and pollinators and the setting of buds for normal fruit development. Research penology, this isn't all about physics you know.
"I spent twelve years helping to build the worlds’ brightest gamma ray source using “Inverse Compton Scattering”
That is a long time to hold a spanner, didn't your arm get tired?
Seriously, it matters little what you tell us you have done if your own words and links betray you as one lost in the world of information. Clearly your ability to sort out the truth from fiction is severely limited.
BTW I spent twenty years helping to prevent WW3 so there!
SLR is a reality, part because of the above but also from thermal expansion.
Why is the stratosphere cooling? Why are nights getting warmer on average at a faster rate than days? Why are the seasons shifting with spring-like events happening earlier and autumn gold later? This coupled with milder winters in many areas are threatening the link between the crops and pollinators and the setting of buds for normal fruit development. Research penology, this isn't all about physics you know.
Now I don't know where you are getting your info from, other than crank tallbloke but the organisations which matter tell a very different story, one that is consistent with what we see going on around us in the wider, more varied world. A world where the biosphere is already responding to the changes that we have triggered, and where extreme weather events are becoming more violent and frequent.
As for such as:
"I spent twelve years helping to build the worlds’ brightest gamma ray source using “Inverse Compton Scattering”
That is a long time to hold a spanner, didn't your arm get tired?
Seriously, it matters little what you tell us you have done if your own words and links betray you as one lost in the world of information. Clearly your ability to sort out the truth from fiction is severely limited.
BTW I spent twenty years helping to prevent WW3 so there!
GC: what has your background got remotely to do with climate science? That one should be easy to answer. But I will save you the effort.
Nothing.
Like the other deniers who write in here and essentially most across the internet, your views on CC are driven by your own inherent political/economic/scientific bias. Your ineffective swipe at McElroy told me that.
But I digress. You claimed that increased atmospheric C02 concentrations are not driving increases in global temperatures, and had to parrot a deniers site fyi. We are talking about the planet's living surface, the biosphere, where temperatures very certainly have increased. Your argument therefore is invalid.
Until you can come up with anything better, do us all a favor and go away.
As expected none of you can explain why the monotonic rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration has failed to produce the predicted "Catastrophic Global Warming".
So you act like a bunch of juveniles who call people names to cover their own shortcomings.
Jeff Harvey was not big enough to apologize for stating that I am not a scientist. He doubled down by claimed that my knowledge has nothing to do with climate science. Wrong again.
This model calculates temperature from a body's surface through the troposphere, through the tropopause and through the stratosphere. The model performed well when tested against observations on all seven bodies in the solar system.
On the face of it an amazing piece of work but is it just "curve fitting"?
Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree can you cite a better model than Robinson & Catling's?
Those of you who take the trouble to read that lengthy letter in NatGeo will notice that the R&C model does not include clouds. Currently I am working to add clouds to the R&C model.
Notice that the rate of sea level rise is much lower than it was, mainly because there is very little continental ice left. The total ice inventory is ~30,000,000 Giga-tonnes and the rate of melting is ~300 Giga-tonnes/year.
So you are right to claim that Greenland is melting along with other continental ice but it will take roughly 10,000 years at the present rate to finish the job.
You claim to be a scientist, but you employ logical fallacy in your spurious questions about CO2 and warming.
Rebuttal of your fallacious thinking is well dispersed across the internet, but if you are sincere in wanting an expert answer to your question I suggest that you ask Tamino. This is his Thing, and he publishes in the peer-reviewed scientific literature on this subject, so if you are genuine you will put it to him at the earliest opportunity.
Of course, if you are just spreading emeritus emeritus crap you'll just bluster here and avoid Open Mind like the plague.
Given the known science of CO2 forcing, is the currently observed increase in mean global temperature inconsistent with the physics? If you claim that it is, what is your mathematical proof?
GC, OK I apologize. You are a crappy scientist. Is that better? I'd like to see your bonafides. How many of your papers are on the Web of Science? How often were they cited? And why write your Earth-shattering opinions on denier blogs? Why aren't they being published in the peer-reviewed journals?
My guess is that you hardly published anything, and certainly nothing that us well cited. The fact that you deny the link between atmospheric C02 concentrations and surface warming is instructive. Of course there is a strong connection and that is why >95% of the scientific community, including leaders in the field of climate science, agree.
I am a well published scientist GC, so I know very well how the system works. I also know that there is a parallel universe on the internet that lives in its own myopic world and which tends to avoid mainstream venues, publications and debates. You are part of it. Deniers for the most part do not do their own primary research but either put their garbage up on blogs where it is not scrutinized by experts, or else they cherry pick studies they like and distort the meaning of what the authors were actually saying. You are doing both.
... and your blog Digging in the Clay DOES NOT count as a serious scientific site. Heck, your blog roll is a potpourri of anti-science sites. I want to see your peer-reviewed publications that are in reputable journals.
We all know here what your reply will be. You don't have any. End of story, GC. As I said, go away.
As expected none of you can explain why the monotonic rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration has failed to produce the predicted “Catastrophic Global Warming”.
Because nobody predicts catastrophic global warming yet.
Only morons think it even exists.
Do you agree or disagree?
Disagree.
If you disagree can you cite a better model than Robinson & Catling’s?
About 20,000 years ago the Earth started to recover from a glaciation. Since then continental ice has been melting causing sea level to rise:
Nope, bullshit.
The graph has nowhere near the resolution and by denier canard, IS FLAT. No rise at all.
the peak of the interglacial warm period is very short and then begins to decline. This is what it was doing for the last 8000 years until the recent century.
Notice that the rate of sea level rise is much lower than it was
Notice that sea levels aren't temperature measures.
So you are right to claim that Greenland is melting along with other continental ice but it will take roughly 10,000 years at the present rate to finish the job.
And this won't be the case: it will increase markedly.
The present inter-glacial is not as warm as some of the previous ones.
Nope, its warmer.
That Vostok temperature is based on the 1950's thirty year average, and we've gone up by over 1C since then, and polar amplification means for the same location, we're something around 4-6C warmer than the endpoint location.
Well past any previous value in the last million years.
Today we have 3,200 meters of ice at the GISP site yet the oldest ice there dates from only 70,000 years ago. This would imply that it was much warmer back then.
No it doesn't.
You know NOTHING about the climate, nor sea levels, nor anything relevant to what you pontificate on, all you have are denier BS repeated again and again as some sort of charm against being wrong.
Repetition in the face of contrary facts doesn't mean it's right.
You're an ignorant old fart pretending to know shit when you know nothing at all.
and you have the nerve to offer diggingintodirst as a source - not even fit for blog paper.
Today we have 3,200 meters of ice at the GISP site yet the oldest ice there dates from only 70,000 years ago. This would imply that it was much warmer back then.
OK brains, if true, tell us what is very different about today's world and why the differences matter.
Greenland is melting along with other continental ice but it will take roughly 10,000 years at the present rate to finish the job.
Today we have 3,200 meters of ice at the GISP site yet the oldest ice there dates from only 70,000 years ago. This would imply that it was much warmer back then.
Is Galloping Camel so stupid as to not see these statements are contradictory? Or is he just stupid enough to think that we wouldn't notice?
Each is logically fallacious of and by itself as well, but I'm more impressed that one mind can hold both despite their mutual exclusivity. If Galloping Camel has anything better than a sack of hammers for a brain, he must have an alar like a blade of Ramston steel...(Patrick Rothfuss fans will get it; others may need a well-known search engine).
Tomorrow I will be back to work teaching quantum electro-optics. I hope some of the students will be as feisty as y'all but less inclined to name calling.
And so the camel gallops away as soon as he is caught out, suddenly remembering important teaching work to prevent him posting again. Somehow, I manage to post between my important UN addresses, running a small African country and curing cancer, but I guess a camel doesn't have my mad time-management skillz...
Just to be explicit on my last:
1. GC concedes that current temperatures are more than sufficient to melt all of Greenlands ice.
2. GC remarks on the absence of ice older than 70,000 years ago and concludes that this "implies" temperatures were much higher.
Therefore current temperatures are both sufficient (1) and insufficient (2) to melt the GIC. Marvellous!
In fact, given that there is a lag between temperatures and melt rates (due to the time taken for heat to penetrate deeper into the icecap) the opposite of GC's claim is all we can infer: clearly current temperatures are sufficient to prevent overall accumulation. Temperatures from 70,000 years ago permitted overall accumulation. Therefore temperatures from 70,000 years ago must have been much cooler than today. QED.
I hope quantum electro-optics doesn't require a minimal grasp of syllogistic logic, because if it does, the camel's students are in for a world of hurt...
Time for some other denier to dish up the faux-bonhomie...the camels left, y'all (rolls eyes).
"That will enable me to spend more time helping you folks understand that “Global Warming” is a blessing rather than a problem"
This comment from GC alone disqualifies him from being taken seriously. It reflects a profound ignorance of the relationship between biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and human well-being, and ignores the fact that warming will (already is) unraveling species interactions, food webs and communities in ways that makes them much more prone to collapse. This was made clear in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2006 and is clearly illustrated in thousands of studies in the empirical literature which GC has neither read nor understands. Its this well of ignorance that me and my fellow ecologists are up against. All of this is over GCs head, as he has never studied complex adaptive systems. So he parades his ignorance here and on his appalling blog for all to see.
By the way, GC, I looked you up on the ISI Web of Science. As expected, there was not much there to impress me.
... as addendum, I'd like to know how someone who studies fiber optics thinks they are experts in environmental and climate science. The mind boggles...
"“Global Warming” is a blessing rather than a problem"
Yeah, right. Just like the murder of children in the bible is an example of god's mercy, since they're now sinless (uh, what happened to original sin,guys) and are going to heaven, whereas before they would grow up believing in the "wrong" god, and go to hell.
"You should be happy to hear that I will retire again in 2017. "
Why? I couldn't give a rats ass about your work status. All that happened is you claimed to be a retired eminent engineer/physicist and then claimed to be a not-yet-retired teacher.
Obviously your earlier retirement must have been because you were crap at your job and it was leave or get pushed out at altitude.
… as addendum, I’d like to know how someone who studies fiber optics thinks they are experts in environmental and climate science. The mind boggles…
I think GC missed his calling, he would make a useful brain surgeon but would need to practice on his first - if he could find it. The D-K is strong in this one.
Isn't it curious how his type always flounce off only to mince back within a day or so.
none of you can explain why the monotonic rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration has failed to produce the predicted “Catastrophic Global Warming”.
Global warming is still occurring at the rate of around 1.8 degrees C/century. Most months in the past year have been warmer than this long term trend. This rate of global warming will produce catastrophes sooner or later.
Why do you only care about the warming that has happened so far? Are you too old to care about the future such as the next century?
@Chris O'Neill,
Gistemp is funded by the US federal government. The UAH satellite record is also federally funded.
UAH shows no temperature rise in the last 18 years while Gistemp soars. They can't both be right so please tell me why you choose to believe NOAA GISS given their shameless data tampering.
The question you need to ask NOAA/GHCN and NASA/GISS is "Were you lying then or are you lying now?" You can't get away with this kind of fraud when so many people have stored the earlier versions on their hard drives.
1. GC concedes that current temperatures are more than sufficient to melt all of Greenlands ice.
2. GC remarks on the absence of ice older than 70,000 years ago and concludes that this “implies” temperatures were much higher.
So are current temperatures warm enough to melt the GIC, or not? Camel, the question you need to answer is “Were you lying then or are you lying now?”
How easy is that game?
UAH shows no temperature rise in the last 18 years
.
I call camelshit. Numbers to support this bogusness....
Tell me why you choose to believe a mathematical model of temperatures around 30,000 above sea level. How many people live there?
"Gistemp is funded by the US federal government. The UAH satellite record is also federally funded."
And GisTEMP uses thermometers, whilst UAH needs an atmospheric model and observation of humidity,pressure, etc to arrive at some guess as to the temperature.
GISTEMP figures and corrections are publicly available, UAH code isn't.
"UAH shows no temperature rise in the last 18 years"
Nope, it doesn't.
Also, RSS. USED to be the deniers' favourite until they FINALLY fixed a bug in the processing.
"while Gistemp soars. They can’t both be right so please tell me why you choose to believe NOAA GISS"
Because GISS is far more reliable. And, unlike satellites, read surface temps, where we live, rather than the atmosphere, where even birds only temporarily reside.
" given their shameless data tampering."
Given they haven't been shamelessly tampering, your lies are shameless.
UAH shows no temperature rise in the last 18 years
You are simply wrong. UAH does not show no temperature rise in the last 18 years. It simply fails to show whether there is or isn't a temperature rise because it is so noisy and inaccurate. UAH has a 95% confidence interval of 0.079± 0.179 ℃/decade while GIStemp's is the statistically significant 0.118± 0.105 ℃/decade. Thus GIStemp's warming estimate falls entirely within UAH's confidence interval.
UAH does not disagree with the warming estimate of GIStemp. It's just not as accurate as GIStemp. There is nothing wrong with UAH being so noisy. It's simply a fact of the thing that it measures (the whole bottom 8,000 metres or so of the atmosphere).
They can’t both be right
They can actually. But one is not as accurate as the other.
So global warming has not stopped. Sooner or later the catastrophes will mount up, even if you ignore the "relatively" small catastrophes that are already happening: 150,000 deaths annually.
Re: #16 and #18 - my bad, I was thinking of TMT, which has its peak response at around 8,000 metres.
The UAH TLT band includes some input from up to 13,000 metres, but over 90% of the weighting is 8,000 metres and below.
Note that UAH version 6 was released earlier this year, which reduced the contribution of surface temperatures by 1/3rd, raised the peak response altitude by 2 kilometres and (amazingly, not) reduced the warming trend (but didn't eliminate it.
GC doubles down on his dishonesty. Anytime a denier chooses a time period (in his case 18 years) so that the data starts at the largest El Nino in modern times it just shows how dishonest they are. For GC's information, cherry picking is one of the most dishonest things AGW deniers do. He is no scientist since true scientists abhor dishonesty and lies.
"What a nasty person you are. Hundreds of thousands of people are dying and all you care about is a little light relief."
Remember, it's not happening to him, and the cost *may* come out of his pocket (though the increased spending on new technology would increase the market and economic uplift therefrom would more likely lead to him being BETTER OFF), so it doesn't matter of some impoverished wogs die.
Following 4 centuries of the coldest period in the Holocene we have enjoyed 0.76c of warming for the last 165 years since the end of that little ice age.
You've made no claim as to what you intend by your first link. No claim at all.
The second link has a claim that is a false dichotomy or vacillation error associated with it. YOU claim the alternatives, but have no evidence those ARE the alternatives.
And nothing about your third link is claimed.
So what are we meant to do with this empty post, spanky? What "point" can I "prove" when there was nothing said in the post I replied to?
And a googleuser content link???? What claim are you supposing to make from that?
Again, a complete lack of any content AT ALL from a denier. Yet an attitude that implies that there is something there, other than the vaguest of hints impossible to assess as to their validity or error.
Good grief, what a joke this scrambled donkey is. The link he gives does not even spell the person's name correctly. It should be "Ottmar Edenhofer". If you google the incorrect spelling you find that a large number of denier sites used the wrong spelling, the same as the scrambled donkey. If deniers cannot even get someone's name right what are the chances that anything else in a link using the incorrect spelling is also correct? My guess is zero.
You better read it again and try harder this time, Wowsie.
My claim is quite easy to understand even for you: total [measured, not reconstructed] warming since the LIA [arguably the longest cold period of the Holocene] is 0.76c which is less than the average natural variability per century during the Holocene.
Goddit now???
Following that, my question was: how much of that less-than-average warming then must be due to ACO2?
BTW, the Doltoids may recall that when we were last discussing SLR and I mentioned that one of the most reliable tide gauges on the east coast was Fort Denison and it had only showed an average SLR of 0.65mm/y for the last century with no acceleration and that Bob Carter had mentioned that the site was sinking by at least a similar amount, you all howled your ridicule and proceeded to butcher the messenger as you so love to do.
Chris O'Neill, October 11, 2015,
" Hundreds of thousands of people are dying and all you care about is a little light relief."
Many thanks for introducing the moral argument against Climate Alarmism, an evil that wastes untold billions on a non-problem while real problems are ignored.
I met Alex Epstein while he was a undergraduate at Duke university. He impressed me then and even more now he is pointing out the immorality of robbing the poor to feed the rich: http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com/
I note that gc has given up defending his lies about UAH showing no temperature rise in the last 18 years and that UAH and GIStemp cannot both be right.
From his photo, you'd think GC was an elder with some wisdom. Not so. His views are straight out of the sandbox:
"Many thanks for introducing the moral argument against Climate Alarmism, an evil that wastes untold billions on a non-problem while real problems are ignored"
Here we go with the triage argument again. Where to begin deconstructing this nonsense? First of all, GC doesn't mention the trillions of dollars the US alone spends killing people in its foreign wars and its military-industrial complex; he doesn't mention the fact that since the 1980s wealth has been concentrated more and more and that US foreign policy in the developing world has been singularly based on looting resources and capital repatriation. That human rights, freedom and democracy are empty slogans used as propaganda for public consumption. These facts alone scupper his vacuous argument. But there's more, of course.
Climate change is already altering communities and ecosystems across the biosphere. Food webs are unraveling trophic chains are being disrupted, and ultimately ecological systems and the services they freely supply to mankind that permits us to exist and to persist are being seriously degraded. Of course this is all over GCs head, like most other related topics. I have read some of his commentaries and they are nauseatingly puerile. Again, he thinks he's some hot shot scientist when the evidence says something quite different. In other words, with respect to climate and environmental science, he does not have a clue what he is talking about.
SD is again relying on denier blogs for his worldview and data. What else is new. These kindergarten-level sites are where all of the deniers glean their information. Since none of them have any relevant expertise, this is their 'world'.
Note SDs latest comic book contribution. His graph. Where in the empirical literature was this copy-pasted from? It wasn't. It comes from some shill blog he inhabits.
That is why among the actual experts people like SD and others on blogs are laughingstocks at best and ignored completely at worst. They claim to want 'debate' but since they are an army of lunatics, with virtually no scientists of note among them, one has to wonder what it is they want to debate. The truth is that they don't want to debate the science that they hate. Science is a smokescreen that camouflages their far right deregulatory agendas. In other words, its all about politics and economics.
Just what I was saying. You have pretty much the entire scientific community on one side, complete with page after page of empirical evidence in the scientific journals saying one thing, and then you have a few shills and their acolytes like SD on the other claiming it ain't so. SD comically claims that I don't 'do data' when I work in a different field. But the data are there, collated by the latest IPCC report and agreed upon by >95% of the scientific community. SD is such a dork that he thinks the data is only discussed on blogs. Last time I looked, there were a large number of international conferences where these issues came up or were the central theme. Problem is, SD isn't even on the academic fringe. He's well outside of it and of course neither attends these conferences nor publishes in the scientific literature.
Makes you wonder why every National Academy of Science in every country on Earth, along with every major scientific body agree that AGW is very real and poses a profound threat. I tend to go along with them, and not simpleton silly-billy's like SD.
If truth be told, I am amused by the sheer audacity of people like SD, GC, GSW, Jonas N, Sunspot et al. who have no expertise whatsoever in any field within a light year of environmental or Earth science yet who parade on here as if they know what trained experts in the field don't. The only one who has given me an indication that they know anything relevant is GC, and his field is light years away. The rest are self-professed armchair experts - 'Dunning-Kruger' sufferers who contaminate the blogosphere with their profound ignorance. But again, they are such a funny lot in that they think they know a lot. That is is what amuses me so.
jiffy prefers a discussion in the third person because he can't bear to look anyone in the eye when he spews his garbage.
But at least this shows he feels guilty that his argument is crap.
"page after page of empirical evidence in the scientific journals"
Woo Hoo !!!
But he should try getting it right for a change, he doesn't discuss data on or off blogs. It's completely foreign to him.
He foolishly thinks because the 97% claim has been spruiked over and over by his fraudulent mates it must be right.
His thoughts on the subject are so evidence-free and light weight that he isn't capable of considering something as fundamental, basic and simple as the total unadjusted global warming that has occurred since the LIA and comparing it with what has happened on average over the last few thousand years when human numbers were much less.
And then considering if the ECS is still of concern.
There are other factors that also need to be applied to that modest warming but jiffy couldn't cope with too much at once so I will leave them aside until his brain and/or his courage warms up a bit.
Go on jiff, give it a go. You might learn something.
"You better read it again and try harder this time, Wowsie."
I did. STILL nothing.
"My claim is quite easy to understand even for you: total warming since the LIA is 0.76c which is less than the average natural variability per century during the Holocene."
Except it isn't.
Either true OR the claim you made.
"Goddit now???"
Yes, I get that you had to MAKE A CLAIM in this post to actually make a claim. Your original post had NO CLAIM in it.
This claim is wrong, however.
But even if it were true, SO WHAT? It still doesn't mean anything. What are you claiming here now?
If average climate natural variability as per that paper is 0.98c per century and total global warming since the LIA is ~ 0.8c [about half average NV] then it is quite reasonable to claim that the GHG effect of ACO2 is non-existent. Simply conjecture. It can't be measured.
When these warming temperatures measurements have all occurred since the industrial revolution and most of the long-term thermometers are in UHI areas which are getting hotter all the time and not being taken into consideration by the gate keepers, ECS could well be a negative quantity.
"If average climate natural variability as per that paper is 0.98c per century and total global warming since the LIA is ~ 0.8c [about half average NV] then it is quite reasonable to claim that the GHG effect of ACO2 is non-existent."
No it isn't.
Because it doesn't make any sense to ignore the GHG effects.
"and most of the long-term thermometers are in UHI areas which are getting hotter all the time and not being taken into consideration by the gate keepers"
Not when you go ahead and remove their adjustments in the crusade against "reconstructed data". You see, in the "RECONSTRUCTED" data, the UHI effect is taken care of. Indeed it likely is overadjusted.
So next time, if you want to account for the UHI effect, don't use raw data, use the corrected dataset from, for example, GISSTemp.
Strange why SD doesn't try and explain why every major scientific organization on the planet verifies both the reality of AGW and the serious consequences of not dealing with it.
Well, its not so strange really. SD believes that these organizations do not exist. Nor does the IPCC, or the opinions of the vast majority of scientists. He seems to think the debate is confined to a few idiots like him.
Spangles conveniently links to a copy behind a paywall, hoping we will take the conclusion on faith. But facta non verba and all that, so I found a copy that was not paywalled, read it, and let me just say, "Hahahahahahahahaha! What an idiot."
If Drongo is plugging this paper having actually read it (which I doubt), let me just say, "Hahahahahahahahaha! What an idiot."
And if he is plugging it without having read it, let me just say, "Hahahahahahahahaha! What an idiot."
The paper contains several fatal problems, but the best is a statistical boner so epic that it just made me laugh (see above). This error is so obvious I won't insult the collective intelligence by labouring the point. But if Drongo doesn't get it, I will happily do so (both labour the point, and insult his intelligence). Is that what you want, Drongo?
But I'll say this much: Having read Drongo's rubbish for years, I had thought his claims couldn't get any stupider. But this latest is definitely a candidate.
Gee you're a dumb clown. Of course you're going to get much greater variation in temperature from effectively just two localities in the world compared with the entire world average.
It's a pity you weren't paying attention (at best) when I pointed out above:
"UAH does not show no temperature rise in the last 18 years. It simply fails to show whether there is or isn’t a temperature rise because it is so noisy and inaccurate. UAH has a 95% confidence interval of 0.079± 0.179 ℃/decade while GIStemp’s is the statistically significant 0.118± 0.105 ℃/decade. Thus GIStemp’s warming estimate falls entirely within UAH’s confidence interval.
UAH does not disagree with the warming estimate of GIStemp. It’s just not as accurate as GIStemp. There is nothing wrong with UAH being so noisy. It’s simply a fact of the thing that it measures (the whole bottom 8,000 metres or so of the atmosphere).
GIStemp and UAH are both right. UAH is just not as accurate as the GIStemp.
So global warming has not stopped. People who pretend it has are just dumb clowns.
@Jeff Harvey,
"First of all, GC doesn’t mention the trillions of dollars the US alone spends killing people in its foreign wars and its military-industrial complex;."
I guess you could not defend the alleged death toll that Chris imagines to be caused by a non-existent Climate Catastrophe, so you switched the subject yet again.
For 12 years I danced to the tune of the federal officials but I did not have to like it. The trouble with "Climate Scientists" is that they feed from the same trough and they love it.
"Gee you’re a dumb clown. Of course you’re going to get much greater variation in temperature from effectively just two localities in the world compared with the entire world average."
Can't quite see the logic in that.
But silly me. I should have remembered you can only use these proxies to show the CAGW argument.
The hubris of the Doltoid argument from authority continues. They just don't do data.
When they refuse to consider that below average warming since coming out of the coldest period in the history of civilisation totally fails to support their case for catastrophic greenhouse but instead supports the logical natural variability of climate to only a mild extent...
When they refuse to consider that satellite recordings of temperature which agree with millions of radiosonde balloons and likewise avoid the UHIE show no warming for the last 18+ years in spite of record greenhouse emissions...
But instead embrace data reconstruction produced by gatekeepers who have continually demonstrated their similar alarmist inclinations and are now being pressured to make the best warmist case for Paris...
A normal, sceptical person has to ask themselves why they would do this.
And of course the answer is they are either after an ever increasing slice of the huge taxpayer funds being wasted here, they are believers in the Edenhofer philosophy as linked above or they simply embrace it as the new religion.
Don't you love it when veritable Dunning-Krugerites GC and SD try and take the scientific high ground with nonsensical quips like, 'they don't do data'?
I have 159 papers on the Web of Science with 4639 citations and an h-factor of 40. I most certainly do analyze data guys. A helluva lot more than you both do. I would like to see where you both do your 'data' in relevant fields other than on blogs. Where are the peer-reviewed papers? The fact is that the pages of these journals are filled with papers full of data proving that AGW s very real and is having effects on complex adaptive systems. Since neither of you has ever published a paper in a peer-reviewed journal on a relevant topic, methinks you ought to put up or shut up. The scientific community by and large has moved on to talk about the effects of AGW and solutions. That it is down to us is well beyond doubt. And with this year being by miles the warmest in recorded history, bolstered by a huge El Nino, deniers like you two are melting away.
The way SD writes, one would think that the debate on GW began yesterday and that this is the starting point. Of course I argue by authority. Every major scientific body on Earth verifies the reality of AGW and its seriousness. Every major conference that discusses it takes it as a 'given'. This means that the scientific community including all of the data crunchers are in broad agreement. Its clots like SD who try desperately to give the impression that our understanding of GW is still in its infancy.
If SD and GC were top scientists I'd be inclined to at least give them some attention. But they aren't. Both are on the fringe at the very best, but pound their chests trying to give the impression that they are experts. If they want to do data, then why not go to a major scientific conference where these issues are the main theme? Why venture onto blogs? The answer is obvious - they'd be laughed out of any scientific venue - so they end up as flotsam here where they vainly try and take the high ground.
"Yet when it comes to your religious rapture in CAGW you always fail to produce evidence"
Wake up SD! Its not my job to provide you with evidence for AGW (no need to add the C - yet) on a blog! What are you - some kind of nut? Its all there in the IPCC reports, and in page after page after page in scientific journals. Its also discussed and debated and argued over at reputable international conferences. There is so much data that every major scientific body in every nation on the planet acknowledges it. You appear to think that evidence for AGW hinges on what we say here at Deltoid. How dumb is that?
I have my own science to do and I defer to the experts who are in the relevant fields. YOU ARE NOT AN EXPERT AND DO NOT DO RESEARCH ON GW. Neither do I but I accept what they agree upon. The evidence is in and its over. Now we need to find ways to deal with GW before it so simplifies natural systems that they are unable to function effectively. There is evidence already pointing in that direction.
Repeat that until it sinks into your head. When every huge scientfic organization draws consensus then that means something. Do you think that climate scientists listen to an anonymous entity like you? Seriously? That they want to lower themselves into the benthos to debate a layman with an axe to grind? I am only pointing out the obvious. I do research on plant-insect communities and soil ecology. I do know that warming is having very real effects on a range of ecosystems and their biota. I leave it up to the climate science community to look for causation. I believe them over a few laymen with delusions of grandeur like you and GC. Sorry.
How fast can you travel without the weight of evidence In your saddle bags?
"YOU ARE NOT AN EXPERT AND DO NOT DO RESEARCH ON GW."
Jeff, when we are all aware of the small amount of warming and SLR that has taken place after centuries of the coldest period in civilisation you don't have to be a climate scientist to suspect that little bit of warming could be due to many other things besides ACO2/GHGE generated warming.
None of your "experts" can quantify this warming except to get their ever more incorrect GCMs to make ever wilder projections that are diverging further from reality by the day.
When scientists can't properly assess the chaos of weather and climate forcings and feedbacks how can they ever get their GCMs right?
To be anything other than sceptical of climate science is feeble-minded cult worship.
Your consensual science - that no true scientist should ever remain unsuspicious of - eventually becomes a hugely unaffordable joke.
What does it take for you to face reality and be scientifically sceptical about this crazy charade?
Climate changes. Always has, always will, but there is nothing happening with climate now that hasn't happened before.
"Don’t you love it when veritable Dunning-Krugerites GC and SD try and take the scientific high ground with nonsensical quips like, ‘they don’t do data’? "
Especially after they try to show data to make a point and it fails.
Unfortunately it looks like galloping dysentry is our latest hanger-on. And worse, he's as dumb a fuck as any of the other deniers.
So you think providing warm reconstruction under orders and inclination is more accurate science, eh?
No.
However, GISSTemp is not providing a warming reconstruction under orders and inclination.
it's an accurate record of the warming anomalies around the world, taking into account the reduction needed for some stations that are showing a trend increased by the UHI effect.
You think that a model that uses other models to guess at the surface (ish) temperature that shows less of a trend by virtue of its methodology, whose code and methods are hidden and still not revealed is more accurate MERELY BECAUSE IT SHOwS LESS OF A TREND?
“Gee you’re a dumb clown. Of course you’re going to get much greater variation in temperature from effectively just two localities in the world compared with the entire world average.”
Can’t quite see the logic in that.
Because it is devastating to your case.
And just too smart for you. It's not taught until 10th grade maths.
So if you are such a genuius why is your brilliant analysis confined to blogs? Why do i not see your stunning results in scientific journals? I want to see them go through vigorous peer-review. Put up or shut up.
Right now this is where the scientific community is at:
1. Its warming well beyond rates that could be caused by natural forcings.
2. Based on a huge data set and on models, it has been concluded well beyond a reasonable doubt that the human burning of fossil fuels is the primary driver behind this warming.
3. If nothing is done, and we continue to burn fossil fuels at the rate that we are, then this will drive the climate system to produce surface temperatures well above what natural and managed ecosystems are adapted to. Normally such changes would take many thousands of years. They are occurring in a century or less.
4. The consequences for ecosystems across the biosphere are dire. Food webs will (already are) unravel, systems will break down, extinctions will spike and ecological services that sustain us will be reduced or eliminated.
5. Urgent measures are required to mitigate these effects. If the temeprature is allowed to exceed 2-3 C in the time span predicted, then humanity is in deep trouble. We simply do not have the technology to counter the destruction to our ecological life support systems.
This is where the debate is currently situated amongst the vast majority of scientists. You aren't even remotely qualified to comment on it because if you were, we'd see your papers in the rigid journals. You would not be an anonymous nobody on blogs. Science has moved on from the 'íts natural' perspective. Well on. Its known who the major culrpit is in various aspects of global change including climate. We are.
Chris @60 raises an interesting question. Wolfgang Pauli is reputed to have commented on some sub-standard work: "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!". I thought this was the worst criticism that could be made, but I'm revising that opinion.
Chris correctly identifies where the paper is "not even wrong". But that is only the second worst error in the paper, IMO. The worst is simply wrong, but so fundamentally wrong that it is even worse than the normally-ultimate "nicht einmal falsch". An error that the neophyte stats student, say Year 8 or 9, is cautioned against.
Drongo's statistical chops are such that he can only wave away Chris's devastating comment with "Can’t quite see the logic in that." No, I imagine he can't - but this argument from ignorance is as flatulent as anything Drongo has ever said here. And I imagine he'll have even less of a clue about the following, but I'll cut to the chase.
You can't determine the global variation at intervals by calculating the station variation and then averaging those, as the author does. This is the stats equivalent of breaking BODMAS rules (the acronym varies, but should be familiar). I'm honestly gobsmacked anyone would put their name to such idiocy.
Variation then average, as per this paper? No! Average then variation! That is, after all, what the author, and Drongo, are comparing it to - the variation in the averaged data from thousands of stations. The author should have averaged the points from the multiple (well, four, pathetically enough) stations and then calculated the variation. The author has failed the most basic understanding of what he is supposedly trying to do.
To add to my last comment, like other brainless deniers who write in here from time to time, SD has not got a clue about the importance of scale. Of the scale required to turn a stochastic process into a deterministic one, and how much forcing is required to shift a deterministic process out of equilibrium in a short time. Not a friggin' clue. I see it all the time with these simpletons who are seriously afflicted with D-K syndrome. They aren't trained in any relevant fields but think they know more than those with pedigree. They don't. Not even close. SD cannot debate his way out of a soaking wet paper bag. He avoids the reality - that AGW is taken as given by the scientific community, and focuses on pedantics. And if Galileo were alive today, he would not in a million years associate with this bunch of thugs. Its actually a smear of a great scientist like him to even suggest that he would.
As for authority, the Faily Express yesterday ran a hilarious story about a 'top geologist' who dimisses AGW. This 'top geologist' is an old guy with 2 papers in his scientific career with 2 citations. It shows how utterly desperate the denial community is to be scraping up detritus from the anoxic layer and parading them as 'top experts'. As Wow said, they try and argue from authority, but there are so few qualified scientists in their ranks that any Tom, Dick, Harry, or drunk who says what they want to believe is called a 'top scientist'.
Jeff, can I just point out that referencing your citations, patents and so on is genuinely impressive to the non-idiots here, but counterproductive with reference to the morons you are addressing these to.
The don't understand, they will never understand, however many times you tell them. They wouldn't know the significance of an h-factor if it bit them on the arse, but they know its important to you so they will simply use it to troll you.
Lastly, the appalling article SD lined to is published in Energy and Environment. Home journal for contrarians. Impact factor 0.15. Virtually invisible. A comic book IMHO.
Following on my 85, if anyone doesn't quite get this - Drongo, pay attention - below is a worked example. Lets take an analogy from the relatively uncontroversial area of track and field athletics.
At the last world championships, the men's triple jump saw the medallists post the following results in the six rounds of competition:
The average and standard deviation between rounds for each competitor were 17.51 (0.34), 17.52 (0.10), 17.28 (0.11).
Suppose I want to know the round-to-round variation in the competition (analagous to the global average temperature variation between centuries). This idiot would have us believe that the way to do this is to average the variations of the individual jumper's (0.34, 0.10, 0.11) giving a result of 0.19. The other result is the derision of peers, because that is completely wrong.
If I want to know the global inter-round variation, I must first average the results and then calculate the variation:
So not only is this result little more than have the nonsensical average of the individual variations, it is actually smaller (at the third decimal place) than the smallest individual variation!
I would bet a shiny penny that if one performed the process correctly on the data used that one would find a similar result - a much, much, smaller global centennial variation than claimed based on his bullshit mathturbation.
tl;dr probably. But elementary mistakes imply total ignorance, so you really have to go from first principles.
Of course you don't see it. you are far too dumb and ignorant to see it.
But silly me.
At least you got that right. That's what it takes to be in denial of climate science.
I should have remembered you can only use these proxies to show the CAGW argument.
So, so stupid. If I look at the temperature record of, say, Laverton Aero, then the annual average temperature can vary by more than 1.5℃ over just a few years. The annual global average surface temperature, on the other hand, varies by no more than about 0.4℃ over periods of a few years. So you simply cannot assume global variance in temperature is going to be the same as two combined temperature records (Antarctic and Greenland ice-core proxies). Especially Greenland which is known to have very large short-term variations in temperature.
Actually, I just looked at one of the Greenland records and it has short-term variations of more than 2.5℃. Anyone who thinks that you just need a Greenland record and an Antarctic record to estimate global variability is just being a dumb clown. Like you sd.
satellite recordings of temperature show no warming for the last 18+ years
Just pathologically dumb. I already explained that UAH does not show no warming which is patently obvious from the confidence interval of its trend: 0.079± 0.179 ℃/decade. To show no warming, the confidence interval would have to be entirely non-positive. Instead, the confidence interval spans from -0.1 to +0.258 ℃/decade. So UAH can't tell us that it's not warming or that it's not cooling with just 18 years of data. UAH can only tell us that it could be either. There is just too much noise in UAH to tell from it what sign the underlying trend is.
They just don’t do data.
I go and get the data about the confidence intervals of UAH etc. and this clown says "They just don’t do data"? What an incredibly stupid claim.
"Poor foolish Chris thinks that data from less than 1% of the globe is going to contain more data than 100% of the globe."
The globe is 100% of the globe, spanky. And that's where Chris gets his data from. Where do YOU think he gets it from???
"That’s right, Chris dear, those scientists would have CHERRYPICKED that data."
What data? Data from every observing station in the world that has thermometers and a record of its history so that it could be assessed for changes in siting, such as UHI?
"And the only data you DO is when you DO it over with false reconstruction and throw away the original."
And by "false reconstruction" you mean "not what I want to use", right?
Problems: it still shows much warming.
It isn't false reconstruction. The only reconstruction is the satellite data, which reconstructs a temperature profile from a computer model of radiance intensities.
"OK FrankD, tell us in your own words what YOU think is a reasonable natural variability temperature per century for the last 80 centuries."
Since this isn't natural variability, why does that matter?
"And if you think: “UAH does not disagree with the warming estimate of GIStemp.”
You better look again:"
And if you think that is disagreement over whether there's a warming trend, you better look again. But why do you continue to preach use of a reconstructed data set here?
"Has it ever crossed your mind, Chris, why Gavin’s reconstructions are diverging from the satellite records at such an accelerating rate? "
It isn't diverging at an accelerating rate.
"Could it be that the cooling just completely undermines the whole religion of climate science?"
No, because it doesn't show it is cooling. Duh.
"And you have the stupidity to question why so many people are a just little sceptical."
Just because Chris isn't as gullible as you doesn't mean you can label that stupidity, retard.
"And a method used.
The primary mechanism they use for this data tampering, is to simply fabricate data. Fake data is marked with an ‘E’ like this data for Baudette, MN. It means they have no underlying data for that station during that month."
You folks need to admit that there is no "Climate Catastrophe". NASA/GISS, NCAR and NOAA/GHCN makes a fuss over a few tenths of a degree which they created by tampering with the ground station data. Fortunately they have not managed to get control of RSS and UAH satellite data yet. HADCRUT4 and balloon data agrees closely with the satellite data.
A pretty serous accusation with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Made up on the spot.
"Fifty million years ago the polar oceans were 20 K warmer than today and that was when mammals became dominant"
Now this comment is a REAL no brainer. It could only be made by a complete simpleton with no understanding of basic evolutionary biology. GC shows his stuff. Actually its so utterly stupid that I do not know where to begin deconstructing it. First, of course we know it was warmer in past epochs. But it took a long time to get there and biota at the time had time to evolve and adaptively radiate in response to ambient conditions. When abiotic conditions change, organisms respond within their genetic boundaries. However, until recently, the planet had higher biodiversity - genetic and species richness - than at any time in the planet's history. Forget the warmer epochs - diversity was higher in the recent Holocene. Thus high temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are not a pre-requsite to high diversity. Stability is a major driver. The problem at present is that temperatures and CO2 concentrations are rising faster than at any time in hundreds of thousands if not millions of years, radically changing conditions to which current biota is adapted. This is occurring against a tapestry of many other anthropogenic stresses, exacerbating the effects of warming. We already know that the current warming is stressing many natural ecosystems and the species in them, and rapid further warming will push many over the brink.
GCs comment is so utterly simple that it makes me shake my head. I have to deal with this kind of insidious stupidity all the time, but its the reason i write in here.
"The primary mechanism they use for this data tampering, is to simply fabricate data."
Pretty serious claims.
There's a word which to deniers is like garlic to a vampire; the word is "substantiate". Any fool can make accusations, as our Spotty Idiot is doing here, but the real test is wheter they can substantiate their claims. Can you do that, Spotty luv? We don't even require hard proof at this stage; just some form of evidence.
Even before proving or demonstrating the "tampering" and "fabrication", can you even show that the data is wrong. That would require actually doing real work; like data collection, calculations etc. as opposed to spouting drivel on a blog.
And then the laser expert links us to WTFUWT and MicroNova. So, smart enough to work with lasers but too dumb distinguish real science from shit.
It's a sad story which we see again and again: supposedly smart, scientifically competent people whose powers of reasoning are neutralized by ideology. It would be interesting to know what the psychological processes are behing this phenomenon. Does integrity play a part in it? Do these people have a relativistic notion of the truth, of facts; do they believe that something is only true if it conforms with their
deological worldview?
Spotted Idiot goes into delusional mode _ "Here’s some more evidence that has never been found". Couldn't be bothered looking at what he's talking about, but just the statement itself says all I need to know. Denier finds evidence that world's scientific community missed. Holly shit! Time to rethink everything. Sure, there's always more to learn and its highly likely that new understandings about climate science will be acquired but the likelyhood of that happening through some idiot posting crap on blogs is very, very remote. In my opinion anyway.
"As with Climategate in 2009,"
Ah yes, that great conspiracy where they colluded to conceal the data etc.etc. Hey Drongo, I haven't followed the whole story very closely. Have you guys managed to get hold of that data, code, or whatever it is, which would expose the whole global warming thing as a sham, a hoax? I'm waiting with bated breath.
But seriously, as soon as a denier mentions "climategate" you know that he's a dribbling idiot without anything to contribute to the discussion.
And so, the denier puppet show goes on and on. Sigh.
Do you know what so utterly embarrassing about Spangled's posts? That virtually all of his links are to sites run by shills or hacks. WUWT, Nova, et al ad nauseum. Sies that don't do data or publish in journals for the most part.
One of the few papers he does site is in a bottom feeding contrarian journal (E & E) with an Impact Factor of 0.15 by an author - PJ Lloyd - who has hardly published anything in 20 years and whose pedigree is therefore highly suspect. If he wants the world to take notice, why submit it there? The answer is obvious. Because it would be bounced just about everywhere else.
Folks: this is the best that deniers can do. They are not mainstream, but are fringers. They desperately want to be heard, but nobody is listening because they are a veritable bunch of nobodies. The very fact that SD comes on here parading links to sites that we don't give a rat's ass about is telling. I have seen the 'quality' of these sites before and tehy are to be avoided. They make my stomach roll they are so utterly bad. That SD etc. rely on them is all that I need to know.
thinks that data from less than 1% of the globe is going to contain more data than 100% of the globe
And this clown thinks that data from just two localities, Greenland and Antarctica, is going to be just as good for estimating global temperature variance as data from many stations spread around the world.
You just can't make up hypocritical stupidity like that.
the only data you DO
Oh so I do do SOME data and NOW you tell us that wasn't actually the problem. Good to know you can change your version of the facts when it suits you.
BTW, you don't seem to have found out yet that UAH is not the only data set that agrees with Gavin's (aside from UAH including more noise). Even HADCRUT4, the successor to your beloved HADCRUT3, only differs by an insignificant 0.4 standard deviations over 18 years. Not to mention Berkeley, NOAA, Karl(2015), and the global versions HADCRUT4 krig v2 and Karl (2015) global are all insignificantly different from GISTemp with 18 years of data.
But of course, we all know the biggest conspiracy of all time is making them all insignificantly different from each other, don't we now?
And if you think: “UAH does not disagree with the warming estimate of GIStemp.”
I don't think, I know that UAH has no statistically significant difference from GISTemp you dumb, ignorant clown.
Where are Tisdale's confidence intervals? Hint: he doesn't have any. Only arrogant ignoramuses like yourself and Tisdale think that confidence intervals or error bounds don't matter.
why Gavin’s reconstructions are diverging from the satellite records
There is no statistically significant divergence between UAH and GISTemp, or any other global temperature record for that matter. Only ignorant clowns, like sd who wouldn't know what a confidence interval was if one bit him on the bum, think there is any significant difference, statistical or otherwise, between any of them.
Can you just tell us what point there is in averaging two data sets, UAH and RSS, that differ in their trend means by more than 0.1℃/decade over 18 years? By your logic, doesn't that mean that at least one of them is WRONG?
But judging by your self-confessed, I-haven't-got-a-clue, evidence-free rants, you are absolutely incapable of anything so constructive so your only resort is to take the meat cleaver to any messenger you disagree with.
"Jeffy, if you were half as smart as you think you are you would discus climate science with David Evans at Jo’s blog and point out his shortcomings."
Why on earth would THAT prove Jeff is smart? Or did you mean that literally, that if Jeff were half as smart (i.e. dumber) then he'd be going where deniers can go to make any old shit up and hang out with mates who also know how to make shit up?
"Check it out, he’s way ahead of anything here and he’s much more polite."
No, he's a moron.
“There is no statistically significant divergence between UAH and GISTemp, or any other global temperature record for that matter.”
I take it this is ANOTHER case of you not saying anything because what you can only mean is "Oh dear, looks like there ISN'T any statistically significant divergence!".
I visit sites like this from time to time in the hope of finding some common ground. For example it is clear that the "Catastrophic Warming" predicted by Al Gore and others a dozen years ago has not happened.
Poor silly jeffy thinks that less than 0.8c of warming over 165 years following the coldest 4 centuries of civilisation [during which the average nat var is 0.98c per century] is:
"warming well beyond rates that could be caused by natural forcings"
Quelle science, jeffy !!
And that a "huge data set of models" [which, btw, are wrong and getting wronger by the day] are telling us that this below normal natural variability is all due to the sins of the fathers for smoking too much or something [blither, blither, blither].
Well, SD, you illiterate dope, then you are pretty well impugning the entire scientific community if you say that the current warming that has occurred since 1980 - which is highly significant ~No- is natural. Aside from the shills and hacks whose information you believe, every scientific organization on Earth agrees with my assessment. Every one. Read that again. Every one. Every one. I repeat it because its your Achilles heel, or one of many. You cannot explain why pretty much the entire scientific community is in agreement, and your views and those of the clowns you cite are even well outside the fringe.
I rest my case. In a court of law, its obvious who'd win. You;d be laughed into oblivion.
...and then we have another clot, GC, going on about Al Gore. As if he alone came up with the idea of AGW.
The effects of GW are clearly being manifested on natural systems. GC, given he's not been near an environmental lecture class in his entire life, expects deleterious effects to be virtually instantaneous in space and time. He has not got a clue how natural ecosystems work, of the the huge array of interactions across various scales that enable them to function. He thinks it warms in 10 years and then in one or two years everything is supposed to collapse. Again folks, this is the sandbox level of debate I am forced into with AGW deniers. They are vacuous and do not understand basic relevant environmental science. SD is the same. He's a nothing. He does not do scientific research but spends his days sifting through denial blogs where he finds solace. He tries - unsuccessfully - to give the impression that the GW debate is in its infancy and that the scientific community is more-or-less evenly split on the issue. He tries to paint me, a scientist with about a million times more pedigree than him as an outsider. He does this by refusing the acknowledge that I am merely echoing the views of >95% of the scientific community including, most importantly, climate scientists. He tries to suggest that shills like Watts and Nova and Morano are more qualified than James Hansen, Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann or Gavin Schmidt.
This is the basal intellectual level we are dealing with here.
"Poor silly jeffy thinks that less than 0.8c of warming over 165 years following the coldest 4 centuries of civilisation [during which the average nat var is 0.98c per century] is:"
Well, it is actually completely false.
And NOTHING disproves AGW there. Not one thing. Nothing shows how CO2 doesn't effect the global temperature. Nothing shows how the change in temperature happens at all.
It's all just a mystery to idiots like you.
Tide goes in, tide goes out, you can't explain it.
And think you don't have to.
Whereas the people who actually think with their brains rather than their paycheck go and work out WHY the tide goes in and the tide goes out.
"Anyone who compares NOAA v2 data with later versions can see the tampering (unexplained “Adjustments”). "
Anyone would also be looking for the explanation for the adjustments, rather than just looking for something to convince themselves of their conspiracy theory.
Funnily enough, if you look at the unadjusted data, you see that the unadjusted data shows a higher warming trend than either of the adjusted figures (which we in the engineering and science world call "quality control of data", knowing that if you don't have quality data, you have garbage data, and GIGO then follows).
But you don't know anything about quality. Or engineering, do you, you senile old prune.
SD thinks that climate science should only be studied by people who have never been to university or else who have no relevant degrees. If he was correct, he wouldn't be effectively banished to a tiny little innocuous corner of the blogosphere. He's instead be putting his brilliant (guffaw, guffaw) ideas out in the mainstream via academic journals and in conferences where they would be open to scrutiny. That he doesn't says it all.
The scientific community agrees that it is warming well outside of natural forcings, and that humans are culpable. We also broadly agree that if left unchecked, warming is likely to serious consequences for natural and managed ecosystems. There is nothing remotely controversial about this.
There's where we stand right now. SD is left with his own army of D-K acolytes to mutter and complain.
The current rate of warming is most certainly NOT within natural variability. Again, this is a fact and not at all controversial. All indicators point towards the human combustion of fossil fuels as the primary driver. Every major scientific organization on Earth agrees about it. We are now discussing ways to mitigate AGW so that critical thresholds or tipping points are not exceeded. This is where the scientific community is at the moment. SD and people like him on blogs are outliers. Fringers.
Jeffy just doesn't get that all that is needed to critique his "experts" [ that science is the belief in the ignorance of] is simply a rational awareness of what's going on around you.
The crazy consensual science that jiffy genuflects to is based on IPCC GCMs which are diverging from observed reality by the day.
But he doesn't have the scepticism to check it out for himself.
He's simply a mindless believer.
Witness his complete inability to discuss my proposition that the mild warming that has occurred since the end of the LIA is below average.
Instead he does two things: 1] he has to claim authority without evidence and 2] shoot the messenger.
Jeffy, if you had any idea what was really happening in the real world you could explain it convincingly to your local garbo but in your present state of [un]knowledge you are a liability even to yourself.
Sadly, most, if not all, of your fellow Doltoids are in a similar leaky boat and the funny thing about this is you have the hide to call we sceptics, deniers.
But don't think it hasn't been fun.
I'll drop by again at the next king tide to remind you all once again just how deluded you are in that aspect of climate change, too.
Isn't it amazing how utterly arrogant SD is? He thinks he and few other libertarians on the far right have 'seen the light' and somehow that the vast majority of scientists and scientific bodies are 'mindless believers'.
The evidence for AGW is incontrovertible. There's a huge amount of biological evidence as well, but forget all of that, the only apparently intelligent people are those driven by political agendas who want us to put those aside and believe in some vast scientific conspiracy. Because that is what SD is implying, after all. Let's cut to the chase. He thinks that the scientific community is engaged in a vast conspiracy. Why? He hasn't said, but its obvious, or should be. Because we are apparently all Marxists (GCs words) and want a global government to control the people and to suppress liberty. That is almost certainly what SD believes. I am sure he also believes in the tooth fairy, but I digress. There is no other way he can explain it.
Its this kind of insanity that drives this bunch of people. They need the Tea Party and Donald Trump and Rush Limbaugh. They have little scientific acumen, but that does not get in the way of their hilarious musings.
Its strange that Keeling, Revelle and others predicted warming back in the 1950s if humans continued to burn fossil fuels at increasing rates. The US government in the 1960s was aware of it, then Hansen formally raises the issue in 1988. Here we are in 2015, with the 10 warmest years all occurring since 1998, and we still have those like SD saying its natural (even contrarians like Pat Michaels don't say that any more). We are seeing Arctic ice decline at incredible rates, large scale biotic shifts, an epidemic of coral reef bleaching, and every scientific organization on the planet saying that we are the culprit. Against this we have many comical non-peer reviewed blogs run primarily by disaffected people on the far end of the political right denying, denying and denying. 2015 will be by far the warmest year on record, and they still deny.
Bernard J was right. These people are gambling with our future and when the shit really hits the fan they should be held accountable.
I visit sites like this from time to time in the hope of finding some common ground.
That's funny, I thought you visited sites like this from time to time to let everyone know that you're too stupid to check whether your citations agree with your claims.
“Anyone who compares NOAA v2 data with later versions can see the tampering (unexplained “Adjustments”). ”
Anyone would also be looking for the explanation for the adjustments, rather than just looking for something to convince themselves of their conspiracy theory.
YOU HAVE TO BE AWARE THAT NO EXPLANATION OF THE ADJUSTMENTS HAS BEEN GIVEN DESPITE MANY REQUESTS.
PEOPLE LIKE MICHAEL MANN,THOMAS STOCKER AND JAY SEVERINGHAUS "LAWYER UP" WHEN ASKED SIMPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT THEIR WORK (FUNDED BY TAXPAYERS).
Funnily enough, if you look at the unadjusted data, you see that the unadjusted data shows a higher warming trend than either of the adjusted figures (which we in the engineering and science world call “quality control of data”, knowing that if you don’t have quality data, you have garbage data, and GIGO then follows).
UNTRUE. YOU MADE THAT UP.
IF THE FOLKS HERE BELIEVE YOU IT MEANS THAT THEY ARE TOO LAZY TO LOOK AT THE RAW DATA FOR THEMSELVES.
As you are aware the choice of starting point is critical. Thus it is no accident that the IPCC chose 1850 as its base year.
Thus I am a little surprised that you chose 1998 as your start year given that it was a strong "El Nino" year as 2016 is likely to be. Here in Florida we can expect cooler than normal weather while California gets mud slides.
If I was trying to show that there has been no significant warming for 18 years all I would have to do is pick 1998 as my start year.
Those trend lines you show are a little strange given that the detail data for RSS and UAH (and HADCRUT4) are very similar. I guess the problem stems from having a scale in hundredths of a degree Centigrade while error bars are more like +/- 0.5 degrees.
Jeff Harvey said:
"Its strange that Keeling, Revelle and others predicted warming back in the 1950s if humans continued to burn fossil fuels at increasing rates. The US government in the 1960s was aware of it, then Hansen formally raises the issue in 1988. Here we are in 2015, with the 10 warmest years all occurring since 1998, and we still have those like SD saying its natural (even contrarians like Pat Michaels don’t say that any more). We are seeing Arctic ice decline at incredible rates, large scale biotic shifts, an epidemic of coral reef bleaching, and every scientific organization on the planet saying that we are the culprit. Against this we have many comical non-peer reviewed blogs run primarily by disaffected people on the far end of the political right denying, denying and denying. 2015 will be by far the warmest year on record, and they still deny."
While it is true that the Keeling curve is rising at an accelerating rate, temperature has not risen significantly in 18 years. Thus the predicted "Catastrophic Warming" did not happen.
Six years ago Kevin Trenberth said ""I said it was a travesty that we couldn't account for, essentially, the global warming in some sense".
The "Pause" has continued and is likely to keep going unless El Nino does something remarkable in 2016. The "Travesty" endures.
That "Hottest Year on Record" is a joke showing that it is time to defund the EPA, NASA/GISS, NOAA/GHCN and NCAR. Even though that charlatan Hansen has retired Gavin Schmidt is doing a great job maintaining the illusion that CO2 drives climate. The temperature increases claimed are tiny and would be less than zero without shameless data tampering.
Your government is lying to you. The Affordable Care Act is not affordable.
Catastrophic Global Warming is a not happening. The "War on Coal" is a war on the states of Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky, yet it will have absolutely no measurable effect on climate. Real people are losing their jobs. They are being sacrificed on the altars of the false gods of "Catastrophic Global Warming".
The oceans have been rising for 15,000 years and recently the rate of rise has slowed as the continental ice inventory is only 30 million Giga-tonnes.
We have only been able to measure Arctic ice accurately for 38 years and even NSIDC admits coverage is increasing since the lows in 2007 and 2012: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
I have devoted many years to correcting real problems that humans have caused. For example I worked to reduce pollution to the river Thames so that I could rear rainbow trout using Thames water. Today there are salmon in the Thames.
Jeffie, I give you a first warning concerning your untolerable arrogance as well as your weakness in your argumentation. It is absolutely meaningless to say that Hansen is right because his penis is longer.
Kim, or whichever cock puppet you are, bugger off. I have more important things to do than to respond to vacuous idiots. But I will say this: the fact that every major scientific organization on Earth verifies the reality of AGW, and that we have irrefutable proof of biotic responses is more than enough evidence for me. Every link SD puts up here is to a shill site run buy amateurs with no expertise. All of them have an axe to grind. None of us here read these sites or shouldn't because they are NOT scientific at all but are distorting science in pursuit of political (deregulatory) agendas. Heaven knows why SD puts WUWT ad Nova links here because nobody reads them except himself and his similar intellectually challenged sidekick GC. I'll stick with the major journals and scientific bodies where the views are pretty well unanimous.
Then we have a laser guy (GC) who has never been near an environmental science lecture theater in is life talking about conditions 50 mya as if that is relevant today and then about a hiatus that does not exist. The first point is kindergarten level science that I easily dispensed with. The second is completely wrong. 2015 is 0.10 C warmer than any year in recorded history so far. At the global level that is a staggering amount. The warming continues.
Deniers are continually shifting the goalposts. Its what they do. In 1990 global warming wasn't happening. It was a doomsday myth. Then it was happening but is natural. Then there was a hiatus. And then there is an imminent ice age, predicted back in 2008. Then its the sun again.
I am fed up with dealing with this dishonest bunch of right wing thugs. Because that is what many deniers are. They aren't interested in science because very few of them are scientists. They are driven by their political ideologies.
temperature has not risen significantly in 18 years
in data subject to lots of noise. Only fools consider nothing but the noisiest data. Such data sources that fools consider to the exclusion of all else have NEVER achieved statistical significance in 18 years because they are simply TOO NOISY.
Thus the predicted “Catastrophic Warming” did not happen.
“Catastrophic Warming” is formally expected at 2 degrees C of warming above pre-industrial. That is not predicted to happen until around 2050. gc may have a different view of time from the rest of us, but to most people 2050 hasn't happened yet.
The “Pause” has continued
According to the only data sets your ideological blinkers allow you to use, IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A PAUSE.
What point is there in saying a "pause" if that's how it has always been?
Your government is lying to you.
We all know who is lying to us and his words are not very far away at all.
The oceans have been rising for 15,000 years
At what rate?
NSIDC admits coverage is increasing since the lows in 2007 and 2012
It's wider (but thinner) than the smallest of the small. Whoopee doo.
I study climate change effects in insects and have a new paper coming out on the subject in Current Opinions in Insect Science (in press). But there's lots of studies out there. Note that some of the studies I have linked are published in journals with very high Impact Factors - not the drivel from blogs that Sd and Gc link to. And this is just a tiny example of studies with insects - there are many more across the plant and animal kingdoms. But AGW is taken as give among biologists - just as it is among climate scientists. I could link to hundreds of studies given the time, but here is a snippet:
And one last response to the thing known as 'Kim' and I will leave it there...
Considering some of the smears aimed at esteemed scientists like Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, Kevin Trenberth, Ben Santer, Michael Mann, Paul Ehrlich, Ed Wilson and many others by AGW deniers/anti-environmentalists, as well as me over the years by the attack hounds on Deltoid, it takes remarkable hubris to accuse me or anyone of being arrogant in the face of this behavior. Gc accused defenders of AGW of being Marxists recently. So don't come on here with this contrarIans are holier-than-thou crap. I've been around long enough to know exactly how vile your lot can be.
Oh, and just read this comedy statement from Gc based on gsrbage from the Western Fuels Auth... er C02 Science (the Idso clan's attempt at a humorous blog).
"Humanity creates huge problems for other species but the production of CO2 is doing more good than harm"
I and others have repeatedly demolished this statement dozens of times on Deltoid alone. Do I have to educate Mr. laser beam on this as well?
Gc: ever hear of a term called 'stoichiometry'? Ever read about secondary plant metabolites and whether they are C or N-based? Ever read about C3 and C4 pathways in plants? Do you understand what the term non-linear means? How up are you on trophic interaction networks, the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning and complex adaptive systems?
Here's a simple analogy. Some - but not all - plants accumulate more biomass as C02 concentrations increase. So, the 64,000$ question: does increased foliar C translate into increased fitness? For that matter, is a man who weighs 160 kg healthier than a man who weighs 80kg? In other words how do you tease apart quantitative for qualitative measures of plant vitality? This brings us back to that pesky little (or not so little) word again: stoichiometry.
I'll let Gc work it out from there. But here's clue. Nature DOES NOT thrive under high ambient C02 regimes. Read that and repeat it. The planet accrued higher species and genetic richness in the late Holocene (recently that is) under relatively low atmospheric C. The reason is: stability. Change can drive diversity within certain boundaries, but relatively stable conditions are the main driver. The current rise in atmospheric C02 are - and I think even the dumbed down denier brigade cannot dispute this - down to Homo sapiens. This rate of change is by any measure incredibly fast. Plants and animals that evolved under regimes between 200-250 ppm C02 are now having to rapidly respond not only to AGW but its cause - increasing concentrations of C02. They are having to do so against a tapestry of human-induced assaults across the biosphere.
Concluding remark: the Idso's don't know what they are talking about.
Jeff Harvey,
"I’ll let Gc work it out from there. But here’s clue. Nature DOES NOT thrive under high ambient C02 regimes. Read that and repeat it. The planet accrued higher species and genetic richness in the late Holocene (recently that is) under relatively low atmospheric C. The reason is: stability. Change can drive diversity within certain boundaries, but relatively stable conditions are the main driver. The current rise in atmospheric C02 are – and I think even the dumbed down denier brigade cannot dispute this – down to Homo sapiens. This rate of change is by any measure incredibly fast. Plants and animals that evolved under regimes between 200-250 ppm C02 are now having to rapidly respond not only to AGW but its cause – increasing concentrations of C02. They are having to do so against a tapestry of human-induced assaults across the biosphere. "
What bewildering hodge-podge of nonsense!
High levels of [CO2] are lethal to most animals, including humans. That is why submarines must maintain [CO2} at less than 8,000 parts per million or 20 times the 400 ppm found in our atmosphere.
At the other extreme plants die when [CO2] falls below 150 ppm, Thus it would be reasonable to suggest that the safe range for [CO2] that allows animals and plants to survive is 250 to 8,000 ppm.
Jeff Harvey, October 17, 2015,
I read all those abstracts about insects. While they are way above my pay grade I did notice a similarity to grant applications from my colleagues at the Nicholas School of the Environment.
GC, you are full of it - and you know what 'it' is. You are out of your depth on every issue you discuss here. Every one. Why you attempt to challenge to debate me in my own field is amusing, given again that you posses no basic knowledge of plant or animal ecophysiology. You don't cite the primary literature at all, but instead rely on shills like the Idso's and Moore, who have been on the corporate payroll and don't publish their findings in the relevant journals. I'd love to debate you face to face - a piece of cake. You are a clot.
Plant quality is based on much, much more than atmospheric C. N and P are often limiting nutrients - and especially for consumers up the food chain, but also in terms of plant fitness. There are many studies showing that insect herbivores damage plants in high C02 regimes more in order to obtain sufficient C02 for their development. Plants with N-based defenses become less well defended as they shunt N out of their tissues to accommodate more C, whereas plants that have C-based defenses - such as eucalyptus - become more toxic. C3 and C4 plants exhibit different ecophysiological responses to increased atmospheric C - and this generates competitive asymmetries amongst them. This is just for starters. But the bottom line is that there are virtually no statured experts in the field - including myself - who argue that increasing atmospheric C02 is good for nature. Get that through your head. We know that complex adaptive systems function in decidedly non-linear ways, and that tinkering with various properties of the system leads to disproportionate and often unpredictable and nasty results. You appear to think that cause-and-effect relationships in complex adaptive systems are linear. They are not. This "C02 is plant food" meme of the denial community is pure and utter garbage. Nothing less.
As for 'global warming is pure fantasy' , that's your layman's Dunning-Kruger-infested position. It is not the position of the rank-and-file of the scientific community. The very fact that you lace your posts here with utter bilge from the likes of Moore, the Idso's, Goddard, etc., with nary the primary literature in sight, is telling. You call yourself an aging teacher. Don't flatter yourself.
You endlessly cite known shills like Patrick Moore up here; the same Patrick Moore who claims 'clear cuts are temporary meadows' and who has been associated with the logging industry for years. The same Patrick Moore who was recently humiliated in an interview when he said that Roundup Ready, the herbicide, is safe to drink. When challenged to drink it he stormed out of the interview with his tail firmly between his legs. He's long been discredited by the scientific community - as if he ever had any to begin with.
Its so refreshing getting up in the morning and demolishing your wafer-thin arguments GC. Give it up; you've lost and that is that. Stick with the shills is what i have to say.
Thanks, GC. I only hope the Doltoids do themselves a favour and read it.
They won't read the message, of course, just shoot the messenger.
And did you notice that every one of jeffy's links [messages] above on the effects of climate change on insects all ASSUME that the slight, below average warming that has occurred since the LIA is the result human emissions yet this has never been quantified.
Also, where are the equivalent studies that compare that to previous, similar, known to be natural, warming events?
Naturally there are none and consequently these papers are dubious science. Simply based on ignorant assumption.
I hope your papers are a little more sceptical and balanced than that light weight foolishness, jeffy.
Here's a tip:
Saul Perlmutter, an astrophysicist at the University of California, Berkeley, says: “Science is an ongoing race between our inventing ways to fool ourselves, and our inventing ways to avoid fooling ourselves.” So researchers are trying a variety of creative ways to debias data analysis — strategies that involve collaborating with academic rivals, getting papers accepted before the study has even been started and working with strategically faked data.
So now, mend your ways and start by reading and absorbing Patrick Moore.
A sampler of studies on C02 effects on plants and insects for 'the teacher'. And these actually are published in leading journals - not on sites run by shills. Hopefully 'the teacher' will learn something from them as well as by the labs working on the topic. Bottom line: enhanced C02 is NOT GOOD for nature, given the time scales involved. This is FACT. The results will be non-linar - with winners and losers in terms of plant responses and primarily losers in terms of consumers. However, some insects feed on phloem (e.g. aphids, thrips) and others are chewers (e.g. larvae of Lepidoptera, Coleoptera etc.). These different feeding guilds differentially activate the SA (salicytic acid) and JA (jasmonic acid) pathways, sometimes leading to 'cross talk' and/or facilitation. Chewing insects will certainly suffer under increased atmospheric C02 unless plant defenses are N-based; this may lead to trade-offs. But the main point is that we will see and are seeing already complex non-linear responses. Moreover, given that plant quality and fitness is also based on innumerable processes in the soil involving mutualists and antagonists, then the effects are even more difficult to predict except that food webs will unravel and become less resilient to further stressors. And this is just under increased C02; factor temperature in and the concerns grow. Humanity is conducting a single non-repeatable experiment with outcomes that will simplify nature. Of this the scientific community agrees - well, except for a few 'teachers' like GC.
Enough about Moore. He's a wonderful comedian. Now to finish off the teacher:
A sampler of studies on C02 effects on plants and insects for ‘the teacher’. And these actually are published in leading journals – not on sites run by shills. Hopefully ‘the teacher’ will learn something from them as well as by the labs working on the topic. Bottom line: enhanced C02 is NOT GOOD for nature, given the time scales involved. This is FACT. The results will be non-linar – with winners and losers in terms of plant responses and primarily losers in terms of consumers. However, some insects feed on phloem (e.g. aphids, thrips) and others are chewers (e.g. larvae of Lepidoptera, Coleoptera etc.). These different feeding guilds differentially activate the SA (salicytic acid) and JA (jasmonic acid) pathways, sometimes leading to ‘cross talk’ and/or facilitation. Chewing insects will certainly suffer under increased atmospheric C02 unless plant defenses are N-based; this may lead to trade-offs. But the main point is that we will see and are seeing already complex non-linear responses. Moreover, given that plant quality and fitness is also based on innumerable processes in the soil involving mutualists and antagonists, then the effects are even more difficult to predict except that food webs will unravel and become less resilient to further stressors. And this is just under increased C02; factor temperature in and the concerns grow. Humanity is conducting a single non-repeatable experiment with outcomes that will simplify nature. Of this the scientific community agrees – well, except for a few ‘teachers’ like GC.
Jiffy's very impressed with Greenpeace's hatchet job on Dr Moore and thinks that settles the debate.
Name calling and insults are what really count, hey jiff?
Just train more guns on those messengers.
That wins the science debate every time, hey?
BTW, when you make those evidence-free assumptions of AGW in your papers does anyone in peer review ever tap you on the shoulder and ask for an explanation of your opinion on this or do they just allow it to pass?
Jeffy, what I don't like with guys like you is your shouting self-complacency and constant appeal to authority. YOU never question anything from your authority which is the dictate of climate consensualism, a new pseudoscience discipline. And as critical thinking is so strange to you, you are not a true scientist, but only somebody with strong beliefs and prejudices. Your exclamation "AGW is true" is no scientific argument, also "every scientific body on earth bla bla ..." is no scientific argument. If you want to argue scientifically avoid political or, even worse, ideological slogans, but cite clearly demonstrated scientific results without credulity but sincere reasoning and argueing (abstaining from offensive wording which has no place in true scientific exchanges among true scientists). Your self-description of "I am somebody bla bla with reputation" is not representative for a true class scientist, but rather an ill-mannered pubertarian brat.
You said that you study insects. Fine. You said that you see signs of global warming in your insects, that they are some kind of stressed. Have you done experiments exposing 1000 insects each during various defined lengths of periods to air with 0ppm CO2, 100ppm CO2, 200ppm CO2, 300ppm CO2, 400ppm CO2, 500ppm CO2, 600ppm CO2, 700ppm CO2, 800ppm CO2, and investigated with all series the predefined parameters? If so, what were the results between different C02 concentrations?
"I did notice a similarity to grant applications from my colleagues at the Nicholas School of the Environment."
Goodness. Another fiction of your life. How Walter Mitty of you!
And moreover, grant applications look like grant applications to you. Who would have thought THAT possible!?!?
Of course, it's all more "proof" of a worldwide conspiracy that has somehow managed to remain secret despite being known by any old moron on the internet....
Of course, you're all over the houses every other topic you talk on in those other posts, so who knows where you will go next in your insanity.
Jeff, Galloping Diarrhea here isn't even bothering to engage their forebrain here. Go reread his post you replied to and he just plain makes up what you talk about and then "refutes" that.
Jeff Harvey,
Thanks for sharing your expertise on matters biologic. As noted earlier that stuff is way above my pay grade.
However your expertise has no relevance to the main issue. Why is the predicted catastrophic global warming not happening?
As SD points out you can't explain the pause so you resort to attacking the messenger (argumentum ad hominem) and citing authority (argumentum ex cathedra).
Plant ecology is not my subject so I would welcome your input on a couple of issues:
1. The Duke university FACE experiment seems to indicate that enhanced levels of CO2 are beneficial to trees. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F3-540-31237-4_11
The problem, Gc, with your superficial analysis, is that you correlate biomass with fitness. Bigger is better in your book, whereas quality does not enter into it. And you also assume that consumers up the food chain do not exist. Thus one can only assume that in your world trophic webs stop at the first - plants - and exclude herbivores and their natural enemies. I can see from your posts on the subject that your understanding is pretty basic. I am not about to lecture you on lasers; don't try to get one past me on plant-consumer interactions. Nature is not some simple system whereby bigger more carbon-enriched plants create a better world. Carbon is not a limiting nutrient for most animals and many plants. N and P are. Are certainly N will be shunted out of plant tissues as they accumulate more C. Moreover, evolutionary history plays a profoundly important role in determining the adaptive (or now) nature of plant and animal responses, and the changing rate of atmospheric C02 is well beyond anything the planet has experienced in millions of years.
As for your 'why is catastrophic global warming not happening?' you are creating a strawman. I am not fooled by it. We do know that warming is negatively affecting many ecosystems and the species in them. However, complex adaptive systems do not suddenly collapse due to the application of some forcing. there are time lags involved between cause-and-effect relationships. Tilman and May wrote a seminal paper in Nature in 1994 in which they described what is known as an 'ecological debt'. In the paper they said that changes inflicted by mankind on natural ecosystems often are only manifested many decades or even centuries later. Thus, the widespread extirpation of top-level predators can ripple downwards through the food chain and affect plant communities many, many years after they disappeared. Warming is happening and we are the cause. Period. The potential effects and consequences are less clear, but certainly the emerging patterns are of great concern. We are seeing widespread changes in the biology and ecology of species and communities in response to it. Species are migrating polewards or to higher elevations, altering their season life cycles and phenologies and tracking warming in other ways. Last week a pandemic of global coral reef bleaching was reported. Eight of 19 polar bear populations are declining and populations are being skewed towards older animals with lower recruitment and juvenile survival. Such patterns are being repeated across the animal kingdom. Page after page of scientific journals are filled with articles detailing biotic effects.
Your problem, or one of your problems, is that you are not trained in ecology or environmental science and are clearly unaware of differences between stochastic events and deterministic events. To you, 50 or 60 years is a long time, but its the blink of an evolutionary eye. If anyone here is the teacher, its me teaching people like you basic principles in my fields of research. We are approaching tipping points. And if we reach and pass them, then even humans will not be able to fail to notice. Our species has not evolved to perceive what we think are gradual threats which are, in the context of natural systems, very rapid. That's something that may be our ultimate undoing.
If you were to present a lecture on this based on your summary you'd be torn apart. Metaphorically of course. You can get away with writing simplistic drivel because its a blog. That's why Moore, the Idso's etc. are pretty much confined there. Its deregulated by design and that has both benefits and costs. One of the latter is that people can write almost anything on here and get away with it, like they are sages of wisdom. I've published enough papers in top journals to know the perils and pitfalls of the internet.
SD, in that glyphosate interview Moore did a pretty good job of humiliating himself. He ought to retire; clearly he doesn't seem to be thinking very logically these days.
The empirical literature is full of studies detailing effects of enhanced C02 concentrations on insects and other consumers. Its not my job to tell you what the general patterns show. But as I said earlier, those using the 'C02 is plant food meme' are for the most part shills. Its not true, and it certainly simplified a suite of profoundly complex chemical and ecophysiological processes to the simplest common denominator.
Moreover, you and people like you seem to believe that its up to scientists to prove that some anthropogenic process is not harmful. This is distorted thinking. The onus should be the other way around. Using your logic, a pesticide manufacturer should be allowed to patent and see their product with no internal checks, no regulations until the government or scientists can prove its harmful. Humans are effectively experimenting on immensely complex systems that sustain us and permit us to exist and persist and you are telling me that we should be allowed to continue with a slash-and-burn approach the the biosphere until scientists can prove beyond any doubt that its harmful. By the time that evidence is in it will be well too late. As the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2005 showed, human activities are seriously degrading more than 60% of critical ecosystem services. These services, as I said, underpin our material economies.
I've been dealing with contrarians of one form or another for the past 15-20 years and you are all so predictable. You try and take the scientific high ground with little in the way of acumen. There are so few real experts that you are left with the likes of Watts, Moore and McIntyre. This fact alone should say something.
"Using your logic, a pesticide manufacturer should be allowed to patent and see their product with no internal checks, no regulations until the government or scientists can prove its harmful"
And that's what retards like kim think should be the case.
Because making money is the only thing you should EVER do, and getting in the way of doing so is WHY they are poor and struggling and not a powerful multibillionaire. YOU'RE KILLING THEIR FAMiLY!!!!!
It's the fault of government. Goodness knows that it's not THEIR fault!
Jeffy, you evade my question "have you investigated ..." completely and refer scornfully to the "literature". You should have said honestly "no, I have not". Instead you again express youself in offending speech. I explicitly asked you whether you have done certain experiments, and you evaded my question. Why did you evade my question? I did not ask you on your judgement of available literature, but on your personal study subject. Understood now?
And then your "Moreover, you and people like you seem to believe that its up to scientists to prove that some anthropogenic process is not harmful. This is distorted thinking" reveals your total misunderstanding of what science is about: science is about posing questions and answering them objectively and not by partisanism in the direction of what you like. "People like you" is also no scientific argument but again your way to talk to enemies you don't like.
What point is there in saying "the pause” if it has always been a "pause"? (UAH and RSS have NEVER shown statistically significant warming in any 18 year period. They're just too noisy.)
Looks like gc and sd have failed these intelligence tests.
Jeffy, this article from your publication list HAS NOTHING to do with global warming:
THE DEVELOPMENTAL STRATEGIES OF ENDOPARASITOID WASPS VARY WITH HOST FEEDING ECOLOGY
Jeffrey A. Harvey and Michael R. Strand
Department of Entomology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706 USA
Among the most important trade-offs in life history evolution is whether to grow larger at the cost of longer development time, or to develop more rapidly at the cost of reduced size. For insect herbivores, resolution of this trade-off is thought to be strongly influenced by feeding ecology and mortality risks. In contrast, how these factors might affect the developmental strategies of third trophic level organisms, like parasitoid wasps, is less understood. To address this question, we compared the development of larval endoparasitoids in the families Ichneumonidae and Braconidae that parasitize larval stage herbivores in the order Lepidoptera. The campoplegine ichneumonid Venturia canescens parasitized concealed hosts and exhibited a developmental strategy that favored progeny size over development time. In contrast, the closely related ichneumonid Campoletis sonorensis parasitized exposed hosts and exhibited the opposite strategy of favoring rapid development time over size. The microgastrine braconid Microplitis croceipes attacks partially concealed hosts and showed evidence of a trade-off between maximizing body size and minimizing development times. These results suggested that parasitoids attacking apparent, foliar-feeding hosts may favor rapid development time over size while parasitoids that attack concealed hosts favor size over development time. A broader survey of the literature supported the trends found in our experimental studies. The braconids and ichneumonids examined in this study also exhibit distinct differences in larval feeding and pupation behavior. These developmental traits did not appear to affect the size–development time continuum. However, these traits may affect the size range of hosts that larval endoparasitoids can successfully exploit.
Can you comment on your own what the cited study has to say about anthropogenic global warming? In my eyes nothing at all.
Um, Kim you silly twerp, that is one of my 159 papers on the web of Science. Why cite one of my papers to make a point? Are you out of your mind? Seriously?
What you have shown with this little stupid stunt is to essentially humiliate yourself - by suggesting that every one of my papers must be about GW. I am sure that many climate scientists are not 'only' publishing papers on climate change. And some leading authorities on C02 effects - such as Richard Lindroth - also publish studies in other areas.
I have said that many scientists are studying C02 effects on plant-insect interactions and that I have read them; one of my colleagues did his PhD on C02 effects on plant-aphid interactions and I personally know many scientists who work in the field. I recently also published a book chapter on herbivores, their parasitoids, and climate change, and I have a paper in press now on the same subject. But its clear that you have not got a clue about how science works and that I might as well be writing to an ameoba.
Again, how utterly dumb can one be? Your last post was so funny but alarmingly naive at the same time. Thanks for reinforcing my views on how utterly simple many AGW deniers are. Kim, you are seriously bidding for a gold medal in this on Deltoid, and, given some of the clowns I have encountered on here over the past 10 years, that is saying a lot.
One last point: no, I do not study effects of C02 enrichment on plant-insect interactions. I do not need to!!!!!! The data are there in the peer-reviewed literature!!!!!!!!!!!! I have met many peers working in the field and have attended many lectures at conferences where these areas are discussed. I have PhD students who do study AGW and its ecological and physiological effects in this area. But Kim's point is straight out of the sandbox. He/she writes like a little child. I am a scientist and this is the inane level i am responding to folks. Its utterly puerile.
One thing is for certain: Kimmy ain't no scientiist.
Jeffy, your recent posts (Oct. 18, #97 and #98) were rather stupid, full of ignorance and foul language. I present you now a list of your papers from your own selection and there is NOT A SINGLE ONE which deals with the effects of global warming or elevated CO2 concentrations on your study subjects (insects, plants):
Loxdale, H. Lushai, G., Harvey, J.A. 2011
The evolutionary improbability of 'generalism' in nature with special reference to insects.
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (in press)
Harvey, J.A., Gols, R. 2011.
Development of Mamestra brassicae and its solitary endoparasitoid Microplitis mediator on two populations of the invasive weed, Bunias orientalis.
Population Ecology (in press)
Harvey, J.A., Wagenaar, R., Gols, R. 2011
Differing host exploitation efficiencies in two hyperparasitoids: when is a 'match made in heaven'?
Journal of Insect Behavior (in press)
Harvey, J.A.,van Dam,N.M., Raiijmakers, C., Bullock, J.M., Gols, R. 2011
Tri-trophic effects of inter- and intra-population variation in defence chemistry of wild cabbage (Brassica oleracea).
Oecologia (in press)
Harvey, J.A., Pashalidou, F., Soler, R., Bezemer, T.M. 2011
Intrinsic competition between two secondary hyperparasitoids results in temporal trophic switch.
Oikos (in press).
Bezemer, T.M., Fountain, M., Barea, J.,Christensen, S.,Dekker, S.,Duyts, H., van Hal., R.,Harvey, J.,Hedlund, K.,Maraun,M., Mikola, J.,Mladenov,A., Robin, C.,de Ruiter,P., Scheu,S., Setälä,H., Šmilauer, P.,van der Putten, W. H. 2010
Divergent composition but similar function of soil food webs beneath individual plants: plant species and community effects.
Ecology 91: 3027-3036
Bukovinszky, T., Gols, R., Kamp, A., Oliveira-Domingues, F. de, Hamback, P.A., Jongema, Y., Bezemer, T.M., Dicke, M., van Dam, N.M., Harvey, J.A. 2010
Combined effects of patch size and plant nutritional quality on local densities of insect herbivores.
Basic and Applied Ecology 11: 396-405
Harvey, J.A., Bukovinszky, T., van der Putten, W.H. 2010
Interactions between invasive plants and insect herbivores: A plea for a multitrophic perspective.
Biological Conservation 143: 22512-2259
Harvey, J.A., Sano, T., Tanaka, T. 2010
Differential host growth regulation by the solitary endoparasitoid, Meteorus pulchricornis in two hosts of greatly differing mass.
Journal of Insect Physiology 56: 1178-1183
Harvey, J.A., Biere, A., Fortuna, T., Vet, L.E.M., Engelkes, T., Morrien, E., Gols, R., Verhoeven, K., Vogel, H., Macel, M., Heidel-Fischer, H.M., Schramm, K., van der Putten, W.H. 2010
Ecological fits, mis-fits and lotteries involving insect herbivores on the invasive plant, Bunias orientalis.
Biological Invasions 12: 3045-3059
Soler, R.,Harvey, J.A., Rouchet, R., Schaper, S.V., Bezemer, T.M. 2010
Impacts of belowground herbivory on oviposition decisions in two congeneric butterfly species.
Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 136: 191-198
Visser, B., Le Lann, C., den Blanken, F.J., Harvey, J.A., van Alphen, J.J.M., Ellers, J. 2010
Loss of lipid synthesis as an evolutionary consequence of a parasitic lifestyle.
Proceedings of the NationalAcademyofSciences(U.S.A.) 107: 8677-8682
Bezemer, T.M., Harvey, J.A., Kamp, A.F.D., Wagenaar, R., Gols R., Kostenko, O., Fortuna, T., Engelkes, T., Vet, L.E.M., van der Putten, W.H., Soler, R. 2010
Behaviourof male and female parasitoids in the field: influence of patch size, host density, and habitat complexity.
Ecological Entomology 35: 341-351
Harvey, J.A., Poelman, E.H., Gols, R. 2010
Development and host utilization in Hyposoter ebeninus (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae), a solitary endoparasitoid of Pieris rapae and P. brassicae caterpillars (Lepidoptera: Pieridae).
Biological Control 53: 312-318.
Harvey, J.A., Hamilton, J.G.C., Ward, R.M. 2010
Presence of fire ant, Solenopsis invicta (Westwood)(Hymenoptera:Formicidae) stimulates burrowing behavior by larvae of the sandfly, Lutzomyia longipalpis (Lutz & Neiva)(Diptera:Psychididae).
Neotropical Entomology 39: 137-139.
Gols. R., Harvey, J.A. 2009.
The effect of host developmental stage at parasitism on sex-related size differentiation in a larval endoparasitoid.
Ecological Entomology34: 755-762.
Harvey, J.A., Gols, R., Strand, M.R. 2009
Development and intrinsic competition amongst three endoparasitoid wasps with differing host usage strategies
Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 130: 138-148
Harvey, J.A., Wagenaar, R., Bezemer, T.M. 2009
Interactions to the 5th trophic level: secondary and tertiary parasitoid wasps show extraordinary efficiency in utilizing host resources
Journal of Animal Ecology 78: 686-692
Harvey, J.A. 2009
Preparing a paper for publication: an action plan for rapid composition and completion
Acta Zoologica Fennica 46: 158-164
Nakamatsu, Y., Harvey, J.A., Tanaka, T. 2009
Intraspecific competition between adult females of the hyperparasitoid Trichomalopsis apanteloctena (Hymenoptera: Chelonidae), for domination of Cotesia kariyai (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) cocoons
Annals of the Entomological Society of America 102: 172-180
Gols, R., van Dam., N.M., Raaijmakers, C.E., Dicke, M., Harvey, J.A. 2009
Are population-related differences in plant quality reflected in the preference and performance of two endoparasitoid wasps?
Oikos 118: 733-743
Soler, R., Schaper, S., Harvey, J.A., Cortesero, A.M., Vet, L.E.M., van der Putten, W.H., Bezemer, T.M. 2009
Influence of presence and spatial arrangement of belowground insects on host-plant selection of aboveground insects: a field study.
Ecological Entomology 34: 399-345
Bukovinszky, T., Poelman, E.L., Gols, R., Vet, L.E.M., Harvey, J.A., Dicke, M. 2009
Consequences of constitutive and induced variation in plant nutritional quality for immune defence of an herbivore against parasitism
Oecologia 160: 299-308
Qui, B., Harvey, J.A., Raaijmakers, C.E, Vet, L.E.M., van Dam,N.M 2009
Non-linear effects of plant root and shoot jasmonic acid application on the performance of Pieris brassicae and its parasitoid Cotesia glomerata
Functional Ecology 23:496-505
Gols, R., Harvey, J.A. 2009
Plant-mediated effects in the Brassicaceae on the performance and behaviour of parasitoids
Phytochemistry Reviews 8: 187-206
Verhoeven, K.J.F., Biere, A., Harvey, J.A., van der Putten, W.H. 2009
Plant invaders and their novel natural enemies: who is naive?
Ecology Letters 12: 107-117
Takai, N., Nakamatsu, Y., Harvey, J.A., Miura, K., Tanaka, T. 2008
Brood attending by females of the hyperparasitoid Trichomalopsis apanteloctena (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) on cocoon clusters of its host, Cotesia kariyai (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) and its effects on reproduction, development and survival
European Journal of Entomology 105: 855-862
Soler, R., Harvey, J.A., Bezemer, T.M. Stuefer, J.F. 2008
Plants as green phones: novel insights into plant-mediated communication between below- and above-ground insects
Plant Signaling and Behavior 38: 519-520
Engelkes, T., Morrien, E., Verhoeven, K.J.F., Bezemer, T.M., Biere, A., Harvey, J.A., McIntyre, L.M., Tamis, W.L., van der Putten, W.H. 2008
Successful range-expanding plants experience less above-ground and below-ground enemy impact
Nature 456: 946-948
Reudler-Talsma, J.H., Biere, A., Harveyu, J.A. van Nouhuys, S. 2008
Oviposition cues for a specialist butterfly-plant chemistry and size
Journal of Chemical Ecology 34: 1202-1212
Harvey, J.A., Kos, M., Nakamatsu, Y., Tanaka, T., Dicke, M., Vet, L.E.M., Brodeur, J., Bezemer, T.M. 2008
Do parasitized caterpillars protect their parasitoids from hyperparasitoids? A test of the 'usurpation hypothesis'
Animal Behaviour 76: 701-708
Gols, R., Witjes, L.M.A., van Loon, J.J.A., Posthumus, M.A., Dicke, M.,
Harvey, J.A. 2008
The effect of direct and indirect defenses in two wild brassicaceous plant species on a specialist herbivore and its gregarious endoparasitoid
Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 128: 99-108
Smallegange, R., van Loon, J.J.M., Blatt, S.E., Harvey, J.A., Dicke, M. 2008
Parasitoid load affects plant fitness in a tritrophic system
Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 128: 172-183
Blatt, S.E., Smallegange, R.C., Hess, L., Harvey, J.A., Dicke, M., van Loon, J.J.M. 2008
Tolerance of Brassica nigra to Pieris brassicae herbivory
Botany-Botanique 86: 641-648
Harvey, J.A., van der Putten, W.H., Turin, H., Wagenaar, R., Bezemer, T.M. 2008
Effects of changes in plant species richness and community traits on carabid assemblages and feeding guilds
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 127: 100-106
Harvey, J.A., Bezemer, T.M., Gols. R., Nakamatsu, Y., Tanaka, T. 2008
Comparing the physiological effects and function of larval feeding in closely related endoparasitoids (Braconidae: Microgastrinae)
Physiological Entomology 33: 217-225
Gols, R., Bukovinszky, T., van Dam, N.M., Bullock, J.M., Dicke, M., Harvey, J.A. 2008
Genetic variation in the defense chemistry of wild cabbage populations and its effects on native herbivores and their endoparasitoids.
Ecology 89: 1616-1626
In addition I don't like to hear from you that "you had listened to peers and lectures where effects of CO2 have convinced you about AGW bla bla". Listen, it's not important what you heard, what you want or don't want and which peer had told you what: THE ONLY THING THAT COUNTS IS THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE as documented in original scientific articles reporting undisputed scientifically valid facts from the real world.
My overall judgement of your scientific work:
1) Many me-toos without much added value to already existing knowledge
2) Not a single study that deserves special designation as specifically innovative or creative, therefore scarcely inspiring to read everything
3) No breakthroughs to exciting new grounds of knowledge could be detected
4) No relationship to global warming and rising CO2 levels
5) A great many papers in lower impact journals
In summary, you should not blather too much of an illusionist role you don't have or deserve in the climate debate. You are way too far away from the research topics there. So better shut up, twerp.
Jeff Harvey,
You come across as a pompous ass of the arrogant kind..,..quite common in academia. It turns out that your boasted expertise is both trivial and irrelevant. My training in physics and mathematics is more appropriate.
OK, I got that off my chest and won't make any more remarks aimed at you personally. However I doubt if you will reciprocate. You seem to delight in name calling. What is it about web sites like this that encourages people to behave more offensively they would in a face to face discussions?
According to respectable climate scientists like Gavin Schmidt the GHE (Greenhouse Effect) is 33 K. His proof rests on the assertion that Earth's average temperature is 288 K whereas it would be 255 K if there was no atmosphere. While I agree with the 288 K figure, the 255 K figure is wildly wrong. https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/challenging-arrhenius…
Thus a more realistic value for the GHE is 288 - 197 = 91 K.
Thus I contend that average temperature increases as the rotation rate increases. An airless Earth would have an average temperature of 209 K if the surface was similar to lunar regolith and 234 K if it was made of ice/snow.
You have failed to show that Catastrophic Global Warming is happening. Yet you attribute all kinds of ill effects to something that does not exist.
Poor Chris does not understand that he has shown there has been no significant warming since 1998. The natural variations which he thinks of as "Noise" are swamping the effect of CO2 induced warming.
UAH and RSS have NEVER shown statistically significant warming in any 18 year period.
Just checking with the internet calculator, RSS needs 17 years MINIMUM (the cherry-picked 1985 to 2002) to achieve statistical significance. Sorry, my data search wasn't quite extensive enough.
does not understand that he has shown there has been no significant warming since 1998
Dumb clown, of course I know that RSS and UAH are too noisy to show statistically significant global warming since 1998. They are both also too noisy to show global warming for the TWENTY-TWO YEARS from 1979 to 2001. By your logic this means RSS and UAH have always been in a global warming "pause", i.e. there is no global warming and there never has been. What is the point of calling it a "pause" if that's all there ever is? A "pause" after what?
GC, you come across as an old far contrarian emeritus type in academia who thinks they are experts in fields outside of their own training - quite common in contrarian circles these days. Your training in physics and mathematics is totally inappropriate for understanding the dynamics of non-linear systems. I looked you up on the Web of Science and I was not impressed. I will leave it at that.
OK, I got that off my chest. And don't you, of all people, call me arrogant - I saw how you smeared McElroy with your 'dumb luck' comment and how you labeled me and others who disagree with your nonsense as 'Marxists'. What you don't like is having your arguments - as weak as they are - demolished. As far as your CGW is concerned, again, its a strawman, and you know it. Such a remark reveals a complete inability to understand scale and the dynamics of natural systems and of tipping points. Qualified scientists know full well that natural systems function in non-linear ways and that alteration of important properties pushes these systems towards critical thresholds beyond which they enter into alternative and potentially must less stable states. You have not responded to a single argument I have made and there are many, so you have switched again.
I suggest you run back to your blog and to the appalling blogs where you source much of your information. You are a typical AGW denier in my experience. Your acolytes call me arrogant and there you are claiming to be a 'teacher'. If you taught my students some of the nonsense you have put up here in recent weeks I would have to make many correctives.
Kim, may ask you what you do for a day job? I ask because you clearly have never been near a university lecture theater in your life. You have now increased my publication list up to about 30 - 130 to go still - and you have gotten nowhere. Your posts are making me cringe and laugh at the same time. Please tell me from under which rock you have crawled so i can put you back.
FYI, I have been trained in many different aspects of plant-insect and community ecology. One of my closest colleagues and collaborators did their PhD on C02 effects on trophic interactions. My colleagues in microbial ecology study the below ground effects increased C02 on soil biota. I have been trained in relevant fields. What makes your simple little mind think that I have to personally conduct experiments to know about the field?
There are a number of my peers who do meta-analyses in areas dealing with relevant topics. None of them do experiments, but they collate the conclusions of various studies and publish these analyses as an indicator of patterns in the field. Using your ridiculous logic, since none of them do actual experiments, then they have no right to write about these fields.
And, having said this, what do you have to say to a guy who studied lasers (GC) or, like most contrarians like you, nothing at all in relevant fields? They come on here parading views that are at odds with the vast majority of scientists. You seem to like what they say - and ignore the fact that their 'expertise' is far, far more removed from C02-plant interactions than mine is. This proves that your views are driven not by science but by your own political bias. Well done
I will stop here because as I said yesterday I might as well be writing to a n amoeba, or, even more relevantly, to a wall...
Kim breaks me up... literally. He has the audacity to write this about my research:
2) Not a single study that deserves special designation as specifically innovative or creative, therefore scarcely inspiring to read everything
Really? Have you read two of my Nature articles? Or my reviews that are heavily cited? Since when are you the arbiter of my, or for that matter, anyone else's research? My standing in science is miles ahead of yours (well, you are'n't a scientist, that is clear) and in my field I am well respected. I used to be an Associate editor at Nature as well, but why do I need to defend my credentials to an absolute NOTHING like you?
3) No breakthroughs to exciting new grounds of knowledge could be detected
See my last comment. Having pasted a small snippet of my papers, Kim, or whoever this sock puppet is, think that they can judge me as a scientist. Really! I am not joking people! And they clearly have not read a single paper of mine (they linked one of my Nature papers) and then claim that I don't deserve to be in a 'climate change debate'. If that's the case, then Kim ought to write to GC and SD and chastise them. But he won't! Because he likes what they say.
Some advice Kim of whoever you are: you are way, way out of your depth. I told you to go to the Web of Science and to put relevant words into the search engine and to then read the primary literature, some of which I have already cited. You do not read scientific articles, that is for sure. You claim to say that the only thing that counts is scientific evidence and the pages of scientific journals are FILLED WITH IT.
So its you who ought to shut up... and get a life while you are at it.
I am too busy to engage in pedantic debates with you any more. I am fed up with your willful ignorance and blind political and ideological bias. Science has spoken - and these major bodies recognize it.
"Thus I contend that average temperature increases as the rotation rate increases."
So our planet was turning how many times a year during the MWP? How many times during the LIA? We have chronometers for those periods, so we can check.
And what has caused the recent "pause" you claim to see for the last 18 years in the accelerating spin of the planet? Is it reflected in the GPS chronometry?
Jeffy: "... Having pasted a small snippet of my papers, Kim ...". You want more? You can have it: also in the following list of further publications there is NOT A SINGLE ONE dealing with global warming or increasing CO2 levels and corresponding effects on your study topics.
Gols, R ., Bukovinszky, T., van Dam, N.M., Dicke, M., Bullock, J.M., Harvey, J.A. 2008
Performance of generalist and specialist herbivores and their endoparasitoids differs on cultivated and wild Brassica populations
Journal of Chemical Ecology 34: 132-143
Jervis, M.A., Ellers, J., Harvey, J.A. 2008
Resource acquisition, allocation, and utilization in parasitoid reproductive strategies.
Annual Review of Entomology 53: 361-385
Harvey, J.A. 2008
Comparing and contrasting development and reproductive strategies in the pupal hyperparasitoids Lysibia nana and Gelis agilis.
Evolutionary Ecology 22: 153-166
Talsma, J.R., Elzinga, J., Harvey, J.A., Biere, A. 2007
Optimum and maximum host size at parasitism for the endoparasitoid Hyposoter didymator (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) differ greatly between two host species.
Environmental Entomology 36: 1048-1053
Smallegange, R.C., van loon, J.J.A., Blatt, S.E., Harvey, J.A., Agerbirk, N., Dicke, M. 2007
Flower vs. leaf feeding by Pieris brassicae: glucosinolate-rich flower tissues are preferred and sustain higher growth rate.
Journal of Chemical Ecology 33: 1831-1834
Nakamatsu, Y., Tanaka, T., Harvey, J.A. 2007
Cotesia kariyai larvae need an anchor to emerge from the host Pseudeletia separata.
Archives of Insect Biochemistry and Physiology 66: 1-8
Soler, R., Harvey, J.A., Bezemer, T.M. 2007
Foraging efficiency of a parasitoid of a leaf herbivore is influenced by root herbivory on neighbouring plants.
Functional Ecology 21: 969-974
Giron, D., Harvey, J.A., Johnson, J.A., Strand, M.R. 2007
Male soldier caste larvae are non-aggressive in the polyembryonic wasp Copidosoma floridanum.
Biology Letters 3: 431-434
Harvey, J.A., Gols, R., Wagenaar, R., Bezemer, T.M. 2007
Development of an insect herbivore and its pupal parasitoid reflect differences in direct plant defense.
Journal of Chemical Ecology 33: 1556-1569
Gols, R., Raaijmakers, C., van Dam, N.M., Dicke, M., Bukovinszky, T., Harvey, J.A. 2007
Seasonal effects of plant chemistry in crucifers influence tritrophic interactions.
Basic and Applied Ecology 8: 421-433
Soler, R., Bezemer, T.M., Cortesero, A.M., van der Putten, W.H., Vet, L.E.M.,
Harvey, J.A. 2007
Impact of foliar herbivory on the development of a root-feeding insect and its parasitoid.
Oecologia 152: 257-264
Soler, R., Harvey, J.A., Kamp, A.F.D., Vet, L.E.M., van der Putten, W.H., van Dam, N.M., Stuefer, J.F., Gols, R., Hordijk, C.A., Bezemer, T.M. 2007
Root herbivores influence the behaviour of an aboveground parasitoid through changes in plant-volatile signals.
Oikos 116: 367-376
Elzinga, J.A., Zwakhaals, K., Harvey, J.A., Biere, A. 2007
The parasitoid complex associated with the specialist Hadena bicruris (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on Silena latifolia.
Journal of Natural History 41: 101-123
Harvey, J.A., van Dam, N.M., Witjes, L.M.A., Soler, R., Gols, R. 2007
Effects of dietary nicotine on the development of a herbivore, its parasitoid and secondary hyperparasitoid over four trophic levels.
Ecological Entomology 32: 15-23
Harvey, J.A., Witjes, L.M.A., Benkirane, M., Duyts, H., Wagenaar, R. 2007
Comparative suitability and ecological importance of Arabidopsis thaliana and Brassica oleracea as foodplants for the cabbage butterfly, Pieris rapae.
Plant Ecology 189: 117-126.
Nakamatsu, Y., Kuriya, K., Harvey, J.A., Tanaka, T. 2006
Influence of nutrient deficiency caused by host developmental arrest on the growth and development of a koinobiont parasitoid.
Journal of Insect Physiology 52: 1105-1112
Harvey, J.A., Wagenaar, R. 2006
Development of the herbivore Pieris rapae and its parasitoid Cotesia rubecula on crucifers of field edges.
Journal of Applied Entomology 130: 465-470
Dedov, I., Stoyanov, I.L., Penev, L., Harvey, J.A., van der Putten, W.H., Bezemer, T.M. 2006
Long-term effects of sowing high or low diverse seed mixtures on plant and gastropod diversity.
Acta Oecologia 30: 183-191
Nakamatsu, Y., Harvey, J.A., Tanaka, T. 2006
Emergence behavior of the endoparasitic wasp, Cotesia kariyai.
European Journal of Entomology 103: 355-360
Bezemer, T.M., Harvey, J.A., Kowalchuk, G.A., Korpershoek, H., van der Putten, W.H. 2006
Interplay between Senecio jacobeae and plant, soil and above-ground insect community composition.
Ecology 87: 2002-2013
Harvey, J.A., Vet, L.E.M., Witjes, L.M.A., Bezemer, T.M. 2006
Remarkable similarity in body mass of a secondary hyperparasitoid Lysibia nana and its primary parasitoid host Cotesia glomerata emerging from cocoons of a comparable size.
Archives of Insect Biochemistry and Physiology 61: 170-183
Harvey, J.A. 2005
Factors affecting the evolution of development strategies in parasitoid wasps: the importance of functional constraints and incorporating complexity.
Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 117: 1-13.
Soler, R., Bezemer, T.M., van der Putten, W.H., Vet, L.E.M., Harvey, J.A. 2005
A multitropic approach linking below and aboveground insects: the effects of root herbivory on the performance of an aboveground herbivore, its parasitoid and hyperparasitoid.
Journal of Animal Ecology 74: 1121-1130.
Gols, R., Bukovinsky, T., Hemerik, L., Harvey, J.A., van Lenteren, J.C., Vet, L.E.M. 2005
Effect of vegetation composition and structure on foraging behaviour of the parasitoid Diadegma semiclausum.
Journal of Animal Ecology 74: 1059-1068.
Bezemer, T.M., Harvey, J.A., Mills, N. J. 2005
Relationship between body size and adult nutrition on reproductive parameters in the parasitoid wasp, Mastrus ridibundus.
Ecological Entomology 30: 571-580.
Bezemer, T.M., De Deyn, G.B., Bossinga, T.M., Harvey, J.A., van der Putten, W.H. 2005
Soil faunal community composition drives aboveground plant-herbivore-parasitoid interactions.
Ecology Letters 8: 652-661.
Harvey, J.A., Witjes, L.M.A. 2005
Comparing and contrasting life-history and development strategies in the pupal hyperparasitoids Lysibia nana and Gelis agilis (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae).
Applied Entomology and Zoology 40: 309-316.
Elzinga, J.A., Harvey, J.A., Biere, A. 2005
Age dependent clutch size in a koinobiont parasitoid.
Ecological Entomology 30: 17-27.
Harvey, J.A., van Nouhuys, S., Biere, A. 2005
Effects of quantitative variation of allelochemicals in Plantago lanceolata on the development of specialist and generalist herbivores and their endoparasitoids.
Journal of Chemical Ecology 31: 287-302.
Harvey, J.A., Witjes, L.M.A., Wagenaar, R. 2004
Development of hyperparasitoid Lysibia nana in a multitrophic framework.
Environmental Entomology 33: 1488-1496
Harvey, J.A., Bezemer, T.M., Elzinga, J.A.,Strand, M.R. 2004
Host quality for development of the solitary endoparasitoid, Microplitis demolitor: host quality does not increase with host age and size.
Ecological Entomology 29: 35-43.
Eliopoulos PA, Harvey JA, Athanassiou CG, Stathas GJ. 2003
Effect of biotic and abiotic factors on reproductive parameters of the synovigenic endoparasitoid Venturia canescens (Gravenhorst) (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae).
Physiological Entomology 28: 268-275.
Sznajder B, Harvey JA 2003
Second and third trophic level effects of variation in food plant quality reflect dietary specialisation of herbivores and their endoparasitoids.
Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 109: 73-82.
Elzinga JA, Harvey JA, Biere A. 2003
The effects of host weight at parasitism on fitness correlates of the gregarious koinobiont parasitoid Microplitis tristis and consequences for food consumption by its host, Hadena bicruris.
Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 108: 95-106.
Kadash K, Harvey JA, Strand MR 2003
Cross-protection experiments with parasitoids in the genus Microplitis (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) suggest a high level of specificity in their associated bracoviruses
Journal of Insect Physiology 49: 473-482
Harvey JA, van Dam NM, Gols GJZ 2003
Interactions over four trophic levels: foodplant quality affects development of a hyperparasitoid as mediated through a herbivore and its primary parasitoid
Journal of Animal Ecology 72: 520-531
Van Dam NM, Harvey JA, Wackers FL, Bezemer TM, van der Putten WH, Vet LEM 2003
Interactions between aboveground and belowground induced responses.
Basic and Applied Ecology 4: 63-77
Biere A, Elzinga JA, Honders SC, Harvey JA 2002
A plant pathogen reduces the enemy-free space of an insect herbivore on a shared host plant.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B 269: 2197-2204
Harvey JA, Srand MR 2002
The developmental strategies of endoparasitoid wasps vary with host feeding ecology.
Ecology 83: 2439-2451.
Harvey JA, Harvey IF, Thompson DJ 2001
Lifetime reproductive success in the endoparasitoid wasp, Venturia canescens.
Journal of Insect Behavior 14: 573-593
Jervis MA, Heimpel G, Ferns P, Harvey JA, Kidd NAC 2001
Egg maturation strategies in parasitoid wasps: a comparative analysis of ‘ovigeny’.
Journal of Animal Ecology 70: 442-458
Putten, WH van der, Vet LEM, Harvey JA, Wackers FL. 2001
Linking above-belowground multitrophic interactions of plants, herbivores and their antagonists.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16: 547-554
Harvey JA, Corley LS, Strand MR 2000
Competition induces adaptive shifts in caste ratios of a polyembryonic wasp.
Nature 406: 183-186.
Pimm SL, Harvey JA 2000
The world at your fingertips.
Oikos 91: 209-212
Harvey JA 2000
Dynamic effects of parasitism by an endoparasitoid wasp on the development of two host species: implications for host quality and parasitoid fitness.
Ecological Entomology 25: 267-278
Harvey JA, Kadash K, Strand MR 2000
Differences in larval feeding behavior correlate with altered development strategies in two parasitic wasps: implications for the size-fitness hypothesis.
Oikos 88: 621-629
Conclusion: YOU did NOT investigate the effects of rising CO2 levels or air temperature increases on insects or plants.
We can abbreviate this going through your publication list if you name me the few papers you think have to do with global warming.
Again you tell me, that you have colleagues who have investigated the effects of rising air temperatures and elevated atmospheric C02 levels on insects and plants. Can you - as an example - cite a few of those original studies (please no reviews or IPCC reports, also not Wikipedia or other Internet pages)?
I will not read the Wikipedia article you cited as I read only scientific articles in scientific journals.
Wow, I second that. Can you seriously believe what a wack-job this 'Kim' is? He/she is so utterly stupid and naive that they think by pasting my entire publication list up here that they are making a point. As I said I DON'T HAVE TO STUDY CO2-PLANT-INSECT INTERACTIONS TO KNOW WHAT THE PRIMARY LITERATURE SAYS. I highlight this because 'Kim' is such a dolt that he/she thinks that this is the way that science works. I did my PhD, as it turns out, on the biology of host-parasitoid interactions, and since then I ahve branched out into plant-insect and community ecology. I study plant secondary metabolites (many which are C or N based) and I regularly attend conferences where the relevant issues are discussed. I also have access to the Web of Science, where a huge number of papers on climate change effects on trophic interactions are covered.
'Kim', this utter imbicile, claims only to read scientific articles but 'he/she clearly doesn't read any because he/she (or it) doesn't cite any here to discuss. He/she (or it) defends Gc and Sd who also do not cite the primary literature but instead link to blogs.
Has 'Kim. read any scientific articles by Julie Koricheva? Camille Parmesan? Brad Hawkins? of course not! But these are scientists whose primary focus is meta-analysis; they collate papers by other scientists in order to elucidate trends from them. For that matter has 'Kim' read papers by Lindroth, Bazzaz or others who study C02 effects on trophic interactions? No, of course not! Could 'Kim', even if they read them, understand the science? Of course not! I am sure 'Kim' could not understand any of my research.
What does Kim know about primary and secondary metabolism in plants? Plant stoichiometry? The jasmonic acid and salicytic acid pathways in plants? The breakdown products of plant herbivore damage and how this affects insect development and fitness? Top-down versus bottom up regulation in ecological communities? The effects of changes in plant chemistry and how this affects primary and secondary metabolism?
For that matter how many papers has 'Kim' published in the peer-reviewed literature? I have 160. What is your tally? Let me guess. Zero, zilch, nada, nil.
Kim also claims to read the primary ltierature, so I paste up these links and he/she/it ignores them. Seems Kim cannot read very well.
I study climate change effects in insects and have a new paper coming out on the subject in Current Opinions in Insect Science (in press). But there’s lots of studies out there. Note that some of the studies I have linked are published in journals with very high Impact Factors – not the drivel from blogs that Sd and Gc link to. And this is just a tiny example of studies with insects – there are many more across the plant and animal kingdoms. But AGW is taken as give among biologists – just as it is among climate scientists. I could link to hundreds of studies given the time, but here is a snippet:
Jeffie, my friend, I see that Kim too, like anyone not compelled by your grandiose and high pitched self idolatry, identified you for what you truly are: an ordinary climate scare geezer always inventing reality while streetwalking the shaking tents of fellow portentologist.
OP, my non-friend, you'd support a pekinese pissing against a lamp post if it shared your views on climate.
As it turns out, Kim makes big noises about the primary literature which, like you, he hasn't read. And what's more ironic is for him, you or anyone to be lecturing me about 'scientific evidence' when you all rely on third rate blogs run by non-scientists for your worldviews. I have yet to see Kim actually cite any of these vaunted studies he talks about. For that matter, neither have Gc or Sd, who always copy-past links to blogs like WUWT, C02 Science, Nova etc.
Truth is, you bunch are really very easy to demolish. And for the umpteenth time Olaus, please try and write your English more fluently. You use singular when you mean plural and you don't understand the basic meaning of words like 'instinct' and 'extinct'. You also don't have a lot to brag about - no relevant expertise in anything remotely scientific, so you are left to make vacuous smears that mask your deep, deep envy.
Jeffie dear, keep on inveting your own reality but the lack of accelrating global warming, lack of more intense hurricanes, the abundance of the thing of the past, etc, still exists.
You mean the lack of any global warming. There was no statistically significant warming from 1979 to 2001 in UAH or RSS and there was no statistically significant warming in UAH or RSS since 1994.
By global warming denialist logic, that means there has never been any global warming.
You said that you study insects. Fine. You said that you see signs of global warming in your insects, that they are some kind of stressed. Have you done experiments exposing 1000 insects each during various defined lengths of periods to air with 0ppm CO2, 100ppm CO2, 200ppm CO2, 300ppm CO2, 400ppm CO2, 500ppm CO2, 600ppm CO2, 700ppm CO2, 800ppm CO2, and investigated with all series the predefined parameters? If so, what were the results between different C02 concentrations?
Fuck but you deniers are ignorant and stupid. Local concentrations of CO2 have fuckall to do with the ecological stress resulting from global warming resulting from atmospheric GHGs.
@ianam, October 20, 2015
"Thus I contend that average temperature increases as the rotation rate increases."
BWAHAHAH! Oh my fucking god!
Crackpots R funny.
If you disagree with my conclusion why don't you offer your calculations? If you are not familiar with Finite Element Analysis I would be happy to send you my code and data files so you can point out my errors.
It was an interesting exercise to correct the obviously false 255 K estimate for the temperature of an airless Earth, yet It was just a training run on the way to calculating the GHE (Greenhouse Effect) from first principles.
An impressive GHE calculation was done by Carl Sagan in 1967 when he derived an accurate estimate of the temperature of the planet Venus even though he did not know the composition of the Venusian atmosphere. Here is the correction he made in 1968: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?db_key=AS…
To make predictions of temperature for planets with significant atmospheres you need a radiative-convective model. Ramanathan, Caballero, Pierrehumbert and others have offered theirs but I find Robinson & Catling's model particularly impressive given that it accurately predicts the temperatures from the surface to the top of the stratosphere for all seven bodies in our solar system with significant atmospheres: http://faculty.washington.edu/dcatling/Robinson2014_0.1bar_Tropopause.p…
Robinson & Catling's work is impressive but their willingness to interact with the general public is a refreshing change from charlatans who "Lawyer Up" rather than admit their theories are at odds with observations.
The R&C model lacks cloud layers so I am working on that in my free time. Progress is slow as my classes have become absurdly popular. My schedule has already filled into November 2016! http://www.bdidatalynk.com/PeterMorcombe.html
Although I am working for the next three weeks I will try to find some time to help you Deltoids. While I doubt if any of you will be persuaded by calculations and data you need to understand that the facts are not on your side. All you have is name calling, appeal to authority and untold billions of government money to support a political agenda.
Jeff Harvey, October 19, 2015
"GC, you come across as an old far contrarian emeritus type in academia who thinks they are experts in fields outside of their own training – quite common in contrarian circles these days. Your training in physics and mathematics is totally inappropriate for understanding the dynamics of non-linear systems. I looked you up on the Web of Science and I was not impressed. I will leave it at that. "
Congratulations Jeff, you finally landed a blow that stung a little. My publications in academia have been as second or third fiddle. However, it was an enjoyable experience to be a small cog in a machine with an amazing "Brains to Weight" ratio.
I "Retired" in 2002 but Duke university still has the world's brightest gamma ray source in the 10 to 100 MeV spectrum. The Duke High Intensity Gamma Source (HIGS) uses Inverse Compton Scattering which is the process that directs the energy from GRBs (Gamma Ray Bursters), the brightest events in the universe: http://www.tunl.duke.edu/web.tunl.2011a.howhigsworks.php
He is known for his research into atmosphere-biosphere interactions and atmospheric carbon dioxide.[3] He firmly supports action to avoid dangerous climate change and has said that the science behind it is "settled".[4][5] He has also argued that, if no action is taken on the matter, global warming could cause the climate of Colorado to resemble the current climate of its neighbors to the south, such as southern New Mexico, Texas and Mexico.[6]
Jeffy, I am getting increasingly angry with you, because you did not give me original article references but internet links or query statements, for which I did NOT ask you. I took my time, with anger, to browse through your cited pages and refer here now to your second link "https://peerj.com/articles/11/" which presents the following review article (BTW, I wanted original articles from you):
"Assessing insect responses to climate change: What are we testing for? Where should we be heading?"
BiodiversityEcologyEntomologyZoology
Nigel R. Andrew1,2, Sarah J. Hill2, Matthew Binns1,2, Md Habibullah Bahar1,5, Emma V. Ridley3, Myung-Pyo Jung1,4, Chris Fyfe2, Michelle Yates1,2, Mohammad Khusro1
Published February 12, 2013PubMed 23638345
and quote one paragraph from it:
There is a fundamental difficulty in interpreting biological responses to rapid climate change when the biology of species is not well known and experiments are only carried out over short time periods. Most studies which are considered long term usually have no more than 10 years of accumulated data, with older morphological and potential DNA data for single species found in museum collections (Lister, 2011). Very few directly comparable collected datasets have data constantly recorded over multiple decades and centuries, keeping consistent methodologies, collecting sufficient data, or sampling comprehensively across all biota (Magurran et al., 2010). Two of the most comprehensive datasets we currently have for insects are from Rothamstead in the UK, and of locust outbreaks in China. In Rothamstead, moth records date back to 1933 with light traps at 80 sites around the UK, and aphid populations have been monitored via suction traps since 1964 when a national network of sixteen aphid collection sites were dispersed throughout the UK (Harrington & Woiwod, 2007). In China, migratory locusts records were haphazardly collected over a 1,910 year period (Tian et al., 2011) from historical documents. The general lack of long-term datasets globally and across taxa challenges our ability to make strong comparative generalisations about species responses and the biological impacts of climate change.
This is an honest assessment of the weakness of knowledge and data with insects and warming climates. YOU should be decent enough to accept the lack of data and ABSTAIN from idiotic slogans like: "bla bla ... the community has consensus that .... is true ... bla bla".
We are dealing with a fruitcake here, folks. Kim is getting angry with me! Oh dear! I cringe! I cower!
Kim, or whoever this weirdo is, claims to only want to read published articles, but leaves it up to me to provide them for him/her/it/whatever. Note how Kim has not made similar demands to galloping camel or spangled drongo, who only link to blogs and not to the primary literature.
Kim, take some advice. I wil try and be polite here, but with you this takes amazing patience on my part. LOOK UP SOME OF THE THOUSANDS OF STUDIES I SHOWED EXIST ON THE WEB OF SCIENCE YOURSELF. I am not your sole provider of published studies. But if you persist in your childish ways, I will get you booted off of this site. And I can do it. I do not have the time to deal with this kind of kindergarten level behavior, or of your stupid threats.
Jeffy, calm down, you are too emotional. I quoted a scientific article in #33 and you evaded my point 100%. WHY? Get back soon to decent reasoning, otherwise I will stop argueing with you, as I have much better use of my time.
Kim, you have been warned. Any more indirect threats etc and you are out of here. In the meantime, since you are incapable of finding papers for yourself, start with these. AND DO NOT BOTHER ME AGAIN.
Tim, by no means did I intend to threaten Jeff Harvey. He overreacts, as always, and HAS no reason to feel endangered. I just reacted to a lot of foul, overly arrogant speech from him.
Jeffy, again you presented me two review articles. Don't you know what ORIGINAL journal articles are?
Why not giving me the refrerences from your fundus of two ORIGINAL arrticles, instead of reviews? What is so difficult with it? I can't understand this.
PS: don't threaten me with banning, that's NOT your blog but just again very selfish and arrogant.
KIm, and you don't think I don't have better use of my time?!?!? I have 4 PhD students now, 2 are writing up and I am working on 10 manuscripts. I just wonder why AGW deniers never seem able to look for the primary literature themselves. It seems that I have to provide it on a plate for you. Journals like Ecology Letters, Nature Climate Change, Nature, Science, PNAS, PLoS Biology, PLos One, Ecology, Global Change Biology, Oikos, Oecologia, Ecosystems, Journal of Ecology, Functional Ecology, Biological Invasions, and many others are FILLED with articles detailing effects of warming on terrestrial and marine ecosystems. I am working at present on a multitrophic system involving two parasitoid wasps that are from more southern parts of Europe that have recently expanded their range into Holland. Both are thermophilic - one is essentially Mediterranean - and they are competing now with native parasitoids of the same host. Their host is a pest moth that originally came from Africa and the Mediterranean but which now is found over much of the world. Thanks partially at least to warmer winters, it now overwinters in southern UK and Holland and thus emerges earlier in the spring where it is a serious pest of cabbages and related crops. Another major pest, the Oak processionary caterpillar, spread from the south into Holland in 1991 and now thrives here. It likes warm conditions and has recently arrived in the UK where it is also spreading. The caterpillars produce toxic hairs that are a very serious health hazard. The related Pine processionary caterpillar is currently expanding its range north through France and into Belgium due to warming. We are experiencing warmer winters and especially warmer minimal night temperatures. These are just a few examples from my own research. The scientific journals are filled with similar articles covering a range of biota. We also know from work here that winter moth caterpillars, important food for breeding songbirds, are becoming desynchronized with the optimal stage of their food plants (young Oak buds) due to the earlier springs we are having. What I am saying is that trophic interactions underpin the health and vitality of ecosystems and food webs. Warming is unraveling these interactions. As I said, look up the articles for yourself. Just because I don't hand them to you on a plate does not mean that they are not there.
If you are also such a stickler for 'facts', why aren't you having a go at Gc, who has beein attacking scientists like McElroy and Santer elsewhere, or Sd who takes swipes at scientists like Schmidt. I have been battling anti-environmentalists for the past 15 years and to be honest I am sick of it and of them. I read some comments yesterday on another blog where Gc actually claimed that melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets as well as Siberia would have potential benefits in freeing up land for growiong crops or living. Where are his scientific studies to support this nonsense? This is below kindergarten level science and I am sick of having to stoop into the mud to debate it. Forget the 20 meter or more sea level rise that would accompany loss of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, such an event in the time scale envisaged would utterly annihilate most life on this planet. It would generate and extinction event that exceeded the Permian-Triassic event. Vertebrates and vascular plants would go, along with most invertebrates as well that depend on the plants either directly or indirectly. What would be left are bacteria, viruses and perhaps some fungi. The reason is because species and populations are not genetically predisposed to respond in such a short time frame to such an apocalyptic change. These kinds of changes normnally take hundreds of thousands or even million of years, and not a century or less. This is what deniers and contrarians just do not understand. They think that humans are exempt from the laws of nature. That no matter how much humans assault the natural world, that we will always persist.
You feel that you are clearly qualified to judge my research. So what is itn that you do for a day job? Are you a trained scientist with papers in the peer-reviewed literature? I would certainly admit that Gc knows much more than I do about his field of endeavor (lasers, physics) than me, but what I find is that all kinds of laymen do not hesitate to suggest that they are more qualified than me in a field in which I have a PhD and have been trained. Gc is not trained in ecology or environmental science, yet that doesn't stop him making outrageous assertions about the net costs and benefits of warming and of increasing atmospheric concentrations of C02 on plant-insect systems. I am certainly more trained in this area becaused I studied ecology as an undergraduate and currently study plants ion my research. This brings me into contact with many peers working in relevant fields as well as in the papers in the journals I mentioned. I amke no apologies about saying that I know more about plant-insect interactions, ecology, and ecophysiology than Gc. Its because its true.
As for banning, I can and will do it if you persist. You write like a mediocre high school student. Perhaps that is what you are. One thing is fir sure: you aren't a trained scientist. The shallow level of your posts makes that abundantly clear to me. You demand that I provide articles for you when they are cited in the reviews I linked. You clearly are able to use a keyboard so look them up for yourself and tell me when you get back how many downplay AGW or C02 effects. Until then, I will continue to do my day job: as a scientist.
Jeff, yes you have given me references of review articles. Yes, I can find of course original articles on my own as I am used to it. My idea was only to get references of specific original articles, which YOU personally find most or very convincing in presenting the study results. I accept, that you were not willing to do so for whatever reasons and therefore I dig out now myself original articles from the literature.
I am no science denier at all and of course no contrarian to any honest and decent scientist of any scientific discipline. I do not adhere to any political ideology. Now let's slow down our exchange as you have lots to do as well as myself. If I find something necessary to discuss with you from the literature I will do so.
PS: I did not know that you are either the blog owner here or somebody with administration rights.
Kim, OK, now we are gettign somewhere. Let us be polite to each other.
One thing I would like to stress. Read the posts of Gc and Sd and then tell me where they have argued using the primary scientific literature. Ds linked to a paper in the contrarian journal Energy and Environment - that has an impact factor of 0.15. Both of them rely on blogs, which don't do science at all but instead interpret the published studies selectively. Yesterday you said that my research was niether ground breaking nor original (if you don't work in my field or a related one, then you clearly do not know what is original or ground-breaking) and that I publish a lot in low impact journals. Certainly I do, although the lowest I regularly go to is about 1.5, which is still light years ahead of Sds E and E one. But you will notice I also have papers in higher journals. The mean impact factor of all my papers so far is about 4.5. That's pretty good and I am happy with it. My work is also well cited: 467 citations so far this year, and my career h-factor is 40. Only 5-10% scientists reach h-factors of 40 or more, so I am happy with this too. And I still have about 10 years to go before I retire, so I could arguably end up with an h-factor of 50-60.
I am willing to help you look for papers. However, there is a reason I am obstinate on this blog. A few years ago a denier wrote in here and when I countered his nonsense about GW effects on natural ecosystems, he demanded to know what expertise I had to disagree with him. I told him, and then suddenly I was 'waving my CV', 'self-valorizing' etc. Its a no win situation. If I respond I get 'you have no expertise in the field' and if then show my credentials I am being 'arrogant and showing off'. AGW deniers and anti-environmentalists hate scientists. Its as simple as that. This is because we are at the front lines doing the research that they hate as well. They are primarily driven by political agendas and wear their hearts on their sleeves. Heck, Gc implied that I was a Marxist last week. You should see some of the nasty things that Michael Mann, James Hansen, Paul Ehrlich, Ben Santer and others have been called. Many have received death threats. After I critically reviewed Bjorn Lomborg's book for Nature with Stuart Pimm I received nasty emails. This is not a debate about science; its more like a street fight.
Jeff, agreed. It was not my prime goal to offend you with my remarks on your impressive list of publications. The only thing which is really on my mind is getting as close to the 'truth' as possible and avoid falling into possible traps in perceiving and thinking. And if you support me on this journey I am just thankful.
Kim, its great to read this! Its amazing how far we can come in one day. One day I'll tell you some stories about some of the stuff I have been through. I am sure you will find it interesting.All the best.
@Jeff Harvey
"Forget the 20 meter or more sea level rise that would accompany loss of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, such an event in the time scale envisaged would utterly annihilate most life on this planet. It would generate and extinction event that exceeded the Permian-Triassic event."
I am greatly encouraged to find that "kim" and "Jeff Harvey" have found common ground.
My intention is also to find common ground. Most of the material I cite is based on my personal calculations. Given that I am an amateur my papers are not peer reviewed but I am ready to share my calculations with anyone who doubts my conclusions.
Scott Denning critiqued my work and I tweaked it until we reached agreement. Likewise with David Catling and Tyler Robinson.
I have corresponded with Tom Peterson, Albert Klein-Tank, Richard Alley and several scientists at KNMI and DMI (Danish Meteorological Institute). We don't always agree but these folks are real scientists who are not afraid to interact with the ordinary people who pay their salaries via taxes.
There are many other prominent "Climate Scientists" who won't engage with the general public. These are the people who hide behind lawyers. How can you trust anyone who "Lawyers Up" rather than answer a simple question? Why would a scientist need to hide behind a lawyer if his work is "Robust"?
Gc, on Desmog Blog you claimed that there were potential benefits if the Antarctic and Arctic ice sheets melted, as well as warmer temperatures occurred in places like Siberia. I simply said that if this were to happen, sea levels would rise no less than 20 meters and most coastal citirs would be flooded around the world. But more improtantly, in the time scale you envisage for this change to occur, it would precipitate an ecological collpase so great that it would dwarf that at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary or Permina-Triassic boundary. What I tend to find among contrarians is that they lack the basic acumen to understand the realtionship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, of the link between functioning and abiotic factors, and of the importance of biodiversity in sustaining humanity. Some think that we can creat a concrete-covered planet and that the consequences would be minimal.
Natural systems respond to change within genetic and phenotypic limits. If we do not reign in the current warming episode, it is certainly highly possible that we will exceed the capacity of many systems to adapt in ways that enable them to continue functioning effectively in ways that generate conditions permitting humans to exist and persist. I think that humans are conducting a huge, non-repeatable experiment on systems of immense complexity that we depend upon in numerous ways through supporting, regulating and provisioning ecological services. An apt anology is that there is a patient in a hosptial connected to a very complex life support machine. Without it he would die. The machine has all kinds of parts and inbuilt redundancy as well, but we know that it does its job. A doctor comes in and says he needs a part from the machine for his practice. He is told that is OK and takes a comnponent out of it. The machine continues to function depsite the part being taken out. Seeing this, another doctor asks if she can take a part out for her practice. OK say those who oversee the machine. She takes out a component and it still works fine. Many doctors see this happen and ask if they can take parts out as well.
We then ask ourself: how many working parts can be removed from this machine before it breaks down, leading to the death of the patient hooked up to it? The analogy is apt for what Homo sapiens is doing to ecosystems across the biosphere. We are simplifying natural systems at an alarming rate - the Living Planet Index suggests that around 50% of genetic diversity has been lost since 1970. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment showed that humnans have seriously degraded 60% of critical ecosystem services. We are well into the planet's 6th great extinction, but the first to be caused by an evolved inahbitant - us. Individual organisms, species, and genetically distinct populations are the working parts of our ecological life support systems, and in my anology they are like the parts of the life-support machine in the hospital that the doctors are taking away. The seminal 1986 paper by Vitousek and colleagues estimates that humans co-opt at least 40% of net primary production; we also co-opt 50% of net freshwater flows. We are trying to take over all over all of nature, and the consequences will rebound on us.
Climate change is forcing natural systems to adaptively respond against a background of many other anthropogenic stresses. We are truly living now in the Anthropocene and yet our species insists on taking us further and further down the bottleneck that we have created in the vain hope that everything will be alright in the end and that technology and human ingenuity will save us. Given our total dependence on nature, its the sprint of folly to believe this. Most scientists and even economists are well aware that we are headed in the wrong direction. Yet our economic and political systems are driven primarily by short-term agendas, masking our ability to project the consequences further. As I explained to Kim yesterday, the empirical literature is full of studies showing how humans are reducing the resilience of natural systems at all levels of organization. It would be prudent to take a cautionary approach but we are not doing that. We are continuing to fiddle while Rome burns, and are being told as scientists that without 100% unequivocal proof of an impending disaster that nothing needs to change. That we must 'stay the course' even as the evidence piles up.
I am seriously not optimisitic for humanity. It appears that we will not respond to what we are doing across the biosphere until its too late - until the shit really hits the fan.
"There are many other prominent “Climate Scientists” who won’t engage with the general public."
There are idiots who want to take up all the time that these climate scientists are supposed to take working. And those idiots with their crackpot theories and curve fitting BS then whine that they're not being listened to.
And why no whining from you about Mad Lord Monckfish or "Bashed Bishop" Montford who lawyer-up at the drop of a hat, I ask?
"Scott Denning critiqued my work and I tweaked it until we reached agreement"
Really? Proof of this agreement, plz.
" Likewise with David Catling and Tyler Robinson."
Likewise.
"How can you trust anyone who “Lawyers Up” rather than answer a simple question?"
Like "How much money did you take for this AGW scam, you liar!!!!!" (followed by much spittle flying)?
Meanwhile we have several pending questions for you. You've not answered them at all. You can't afford a lawyer and have no case either, but this doesn't make your avoidance of these simple questions acceptable.
a) Which of the UAH and RSS are right in your opinion and why do they disagree?
b) How does the rotation of a planet make it warmer?
Note that the graph Gc linked to has a scale going back 60 million years. Gc seem to think that its OK for humans to tinker with natural systems, including the climate, and as a result for the planet to rapidly revert to conditions that took hundreds of thousands if not millions of years to reach but instead in a century or two. He apparently thinks that natural systems can easily adjust in this blink of an evolutionary eye, and that humans have the capacity to deal with fraying food webs and collapsing ecosystems anyway because the laws of nature don't really apply to us.
Simon Levin at Princeton said in his book "Fragile Dominion" that one of the most important parables for a watchmaker is 'not to tinker'. In other words, once the watch is made and is working, do not keep fiddling with it because that will probably lead to it being broken.
Humans are meddling, fiddling, tinkering, and altering natural systems just like the tinkering watchmaker in Levin's analogy. In doing so, we are certainly reducing the ability of ecosystems across the biosphere to function effectively. Altering climate and increasing atmospheric concentrations of C02 and methane are classic examples of human tinkering, as our the loss and destruction of habitats we inflict on natural systems, the biological reshuffling of communities we impose via invasive species, other forms of pollution and overharvesting.
The point I am making is that it does not matter what the biosphere was like 52 or 40 or 20 million years ago. Its how long to took the systems to get there and to attain some level of equilibrium. At large scales, processes are largely deterministic and take some major forcing to get them out of this. Humans are altering systems at rates that far exceed most natural changes and therein lies the rub. Natural systems cannot adaptively respond at the rate of change that humans are inflicting on them. This is not that complicated for me to understand as an ecologist. But its so hard gettign this through to people who think that it would be delightful if winters in Manitoba or Minnesota were suddenly - say within a human lifetime - as warm as those in Florida. Yes, many people sadly think this about warming. They think that rapid climate change at this magnitude would have net benefits. Its this veneer of ignorance that I and my colleagues are having to cut through. Gc does not make it any easier.
"Note that the graph Gc linked to has a scale going back 60 million years"
It also has a baseline of the temperatures in the 1950's. Since when it's warmed quite a bit.
And, since the temperature refers to Vostock, does Galloping Dysentery know whether it refers to temperature changes in the polar region, or globally? Because with polar amplification, we've warmed a lot more at the poles than 1-2C. If he doesn't know, then how can be making claims on it?
@ Jeff Harvey'
"I am seriously not optimisitic for humanity. It appears that we will not respond to what we are doing across the biosphere until its too late – until the shit really hits the fan."
I must (reluctantly) agree with you. Over 99% of all species that have existed on Earth are now extinct. According to some, the human species came close to extinction during the last glaciation owing to the Toba catastrophe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck
I would be interested to get your take on this hypothesis.
Here is how I see it. The human race along with many other species was stressed during the last glaciation and then the Toba eruption made conditions much worse. The effects were so drastic that the human race came very close to extinction.
The planet will kill us if we don't manage to kill ourselves first. The only hope for the survival of humanity is to develop the ability to colonize new worlds. If we overcome that challenge we have a small chance of surviving for billions of years otherwise we will need luck to survive the next glaciation.
Kim, you should be nice to Jeff, even thankful for him taking the time to respond to you and the occasional deniers showing up here. They are really getting all worked up because of the upcoming COP21 meeting in Paris.
Spanky, just like Stupid, you post and that post contains absolutely nothing. Not even claims, just insinuated claims so we have to both work out what it is you're "trying" to prove AND disprove it. Which is hella lazy.
So, yet more adjustment to get his cooler trend, I guess. Not very reliable, is it, if he's on version 6 and it has point releases too.
When Doltoids et al can get away with this crap sci how easy is it then to fiddle the tiny amount of warming since the LIA to fool the public and keep the money rolling in?
Record SLR? Oooooooh!!!
Record coral bleaching? Oooooooh!!!
If you roolly want to know just how roolly bad it is, just keep paying us to live in paradise and we'll sure keep telling you.
Ever noticed, Wowsie, how those later versions of UAH consisting of necessary corrections for ongoing satellite problems only bring it closer to NASA RSS?
Yeah right, "necessary corrections" because you and christie want it to be cooling.
And, no, nobody notices that because it's not true.
Go look on the wikipedia site for the instruments for the corrections made.
However, you really don't care for the truth.
Or about secrecy of code, which there is no release of the code from UAH to verify what they are doing to it.
I guess it's only going to be a problem for you when it shows more warming than the actual thermometer readings, at which point, you'll scream "GARBAGE IN!!!!" ad whine about the conspiracy keeping the code from being audited.
As long as you prefer the results (which are STILL a warming trend, by the way), you'll not care WHY they say what they do.
Because you're a transparently ignorant blowhard on a crusade to lie about everything you don't want to believe.
More non-peer reviewed garbage from a blog copy-pasted by Spungled Dumbo in this, the warmest year BY FAR across the biosphere. Scientists know it. September broke the record by a country mile in terms of comparison with the same month the previous year. Of course there is no hiatus. Never was. The temperature increase was linear but not seems to be starting on an exponential trajectory. Our children very well know what warming is. Certainly children across much of central Europe do. Vienna had 17 days this summer where temperatures exceeded 35 C; the previous summer record was 5, set only two years ago. Heat waves that once occurred every 50 years are now occurring every 5. The Arctic death spiral continues, glaciers are melting at rates exceeding model predictions and biotic indicators of warming are everywhere.
And from Dumbo we don't get citations from the scientific literature, but from third rate non-scientist hacks on blogs. No wonder SD is stuck on blogs. He and his heros won't go anywhere near a scientific arena with their garbage.
And it is hilarious that the more corrections Spencer & Christy do, the more it looks like RSS, considering Spencer has been saying for years that RSS wasn't properly correcting for one of the satellite's orbits. Funny, eh?
Once again, SD is the only one aside from the shill blogs he reads who disputes the surface temperature record this year. This vile lot has been reduced to cries of, 'It's a conspiracy!!!' because its all they have left. Their scientific well has run dry. Once again as well, SD relies on a shill blog that nobody here but him reads. Why paste the link Dumbo? All of us here know that Watts is full of shit. WE DO NOT READ THAT CRAPPY BLOG. Geddit?
And Schmidt doesn't work for the NOAA. He works for NASA. And if you truly think that one scientist runs the entire global climate science network, then you are indeed more stupid than even I thought before. And trust me, that is saying a lot.
Note also how the media is finally coming around to what scientists already know: that AGW is real and that 2015 is going to smash all existing records. The reason SD writes in here because he is losing. Big time. The climate change denial blogs in general are falling apart. They don't do primary research; instead their mission is to distort existing scientific research, and they are doing this badly.
As for Patricia, if SD thinks 400 kph winds are trivial, then he is truly bonkers. They are the fastest straight line winds ever recorded in a hurricane. If this storm had made landfall on a relatively flat part of the US Gulf coastline, it would have been an utter calamity. That it made landfall in a less populated area with a rapid increase in elevation is a mercy.
Jiffy just can't handle the fact that evidence-free Doltoids like him are committed to the exaggeration of GCMs and surface temperature reconstructions to promote their religious belief awa healthy income.
No, that would take a bit of healthy scepticism.
Can't have that.
While surface reconstructions are only diverging from satellites and radiosondes at the rate of about 0.4c per century, they are doing their best with as much help from Barry and Gav as possible to catch up with the GCMs which are exaggerating any possible increases by up to 300%.
But let's just give them time.
When this "scientific" outcome ties in so well with their own desires I'm sure they will be able to eventually exaggerate a lot more without the need for any evidence.
Barry and Gav. That's the intellectual depth of Dumbo. If he was to meet them face to face he'd cower - but as an anonymous nobody on blogs he can be as colloquial as he wants. As the links I posted up here yesterday prove, even the supine corporate media accepts the NOAA data. I just put up here a small sample of what they are all saying. 2015 is a record warm year; miles ahead of 2014, in second place. Dumbo goes on about 'evidence-free' in a world where empirical journals are full of evidence that contradicts everything he says. His 'evidence' comes primarily from appalling blogs like WUWT run by laymen with guest posts by shills. Nobody here reads the rotten links he puts up, but like a spoiled brat he does not desist, pasting link after link to evidence-distorting blogs, with WUWT being his personal favorite. As I have said many times, SD stays well clear of academia, does not attend conferences and workshops and never publishes any of his musings in scientific journals. Instead, its blog link after blog link. He lost a long, long time ago, but again, persists in the deluded notion that he alone possesses wisdom that had eluded the scientific community (or else its all a big conspiracy, as I said yesterday). That is the latest desperate meme for the denial community: that surface temperature readings are being manipulated and exaggerated. Its so idiotic that it is hilarious, watching deniers move from one excuse to the next, as the data piles up. Biotic proxies along prove beyond any doubt that its warming and warming rapidly. I am sure that SD, who can't tell a mole cricket from a giraffe, will next come on with some crappy article from WUWT by old fart Willis Eschenbach arguing that range/altitude shifts, phenological changes and other biotic responses are all unclear or unimportant. SD will believe it of course because its on WUWT. He won't read a single primary paper (to be fair, he won't understand them because he has no relevant expertise) but instead if a clown like Eschenbach says its not important then SD will swallow it hook, line and sinker. BECAUSE ITS FITS IN WITH HIS CONFIRMATION BIAS.
By now most of us on Deltoid, know exactly how idea ideologically-driven SD is. His arguments have been demolished over and over again and yet he comes back with more links from WUWT as if they give him the upper hand. The views of 97% of the scientific community and every major scientific organization does not matter. Watts, Morano, they know the truth! This is the level of SDs science here folks. He's a natural comedian.
Jiffy is in denial that the leading CC authority's 102 GCMs are all exaggerating warming by about 300% even in comparison with Gavin's already exaggerated reconstructions.
What an evidence-free marvel you are.
Never mind your childish reflex action of quoting your "97%" that actually represents about 4% if you ever read the totally discredited paper.
Just try addressing those GCM exaggerations and convince me that you live in the real world.
I cannot wait for the next obscure pile of rubbish that SD will link up here as evidence of science. The French book was so bad it was hilarious. And the authors? Non-entities.
Of course I do because your science stinks. You aren't a scientist but some nobody with delusions of grandeur. And once again here he is into conspiracy theories. As I said yesterday, its all he's got left. Its like debating a spoiled kindergarten child. This kind of argument would be laughed out of academia. That's why he's stuck on blogs.
Ouch! SD can't debate this. Kinda' hurts his entire claim that only those who argue that humans aare dangerously driving warming are on Deltoid. Turns out 97% of the scientific community and every major scientific organization on Earth is on board too. Where does that leave SD?
Dumb clown was never told that global long term temperature trend excludes long term trend from locations affected by UHI. That's what happens when your "information" only comes from global warming denialist blogs.
Which has more than the UHI's effect removed from it.This is why the data from your pal Watts surfacestations investigation "well sited" climateology stations show a greater warming trend than the IPCC shows.
But this moron doesn't know what's going on, only what it's been told to repeat.
"excludes long term trend from locations affected by UHI."
Oh, dear !!! Some people are easily CoNned.
When all it takes to affect rural temperatures by one or two degrees is a wind-proof fence, do you really believe that the world's official thermometers are free of UHIE?
And how about those asphalt runways and central heating in the tundra?
Why science has given up is because it is impossible to quantify but it takes a Denier Doltoid to believe that it doesn't exist.
But they are into blind denial so much that they can't see that the small amount of warming [less than 0.8c] since the coldest period of civilisation doesn't go any way near accounting for the UHIE and climate natural variability.
Poor silly jiff links to our "unbiased" Wikipedia which sports a Gav GISS graph in all its splendour, reconstruction and exaggeration as though it is state of the art science on AGW but doesn't even get that while Gav is desperately trying to catch those wacky IPCC GCMs [that are at least 95% wrong but they still claim 95% certainty - can you bear it] he is still well within the bounds of Nat Var.
If he only checked the top graph of the ice cores on that biased site he would see that his religion is shot to hell with the data that the last interglacial was 2c warmer.
But then, the religion of ratbags trumps rationality every time.
You see, SD cannot explain why he and few other shills, fringers and outright lunatics can see that AGW is not happening, whereas the rest of the scientific community, meaning those with the best credentials, do.. So he has to claim that Wikipedia has misread the positions of the National Academies and bodies like the American Geophysicists Union. Yet just go to their web pages and its there. He must also think that those who run the web cites are also into some vast conspiracy and have not told their members exactly what is up on their web links. At the bottom of all of this dishonestly he thinks is Gavin Schmidt. His posts make Mel Gibson's character in 'Conspiracy Theory' look positively normal.
And CoN simply can't understand that when you can't say for sure that temperatures are not rising or that they are rising, a reasonable, rational person would surely conclude that it is a plateau in temperatures.
"“excludes long term trend from locations affected by UHI.”
Oh, dear !!! Some people are easily CoNned."
Yes, you are easily conned.
When you WANT to believe it, you'll believe any old shite.
When you DON'T want to believe it, you'll deny everything and anything.
Because you're an idiot.
Jeff, ignore the shithead and use him as stress relief only. He's not even making enough sense in his posts to make a fence-sitter (or even partisan) think he's legit.
"If he only checked the top graph of the ice cores on that biased site he would see that his religion is shot to hell with the data that the last interglacial was 2c warmer."
Thanks for confirming you were wilfully ignorant about Sydney observatory's long term trend being excluded from the global warming long term trend.
it is a plateau in temperatures
Er, no. Uncertainty in your cherry-picked one or two data sources does not mean the same as a plateau. But understanding the difference exceeds your IQ.
You can go back to your beta standard now. I'll stick with BEST which tells us that statistically significant global warming is still happening since 1998. Of course, to conspiracy theorists such as yourself, BEST and everyone else compiling their own surface record are all in a giant conspiracy with Gavin. There is no reasoning with such conspiracy theorists.
Next thing you know our D-K afflicted self taught idiot will claim that this isn't enough; that Gavin Schmidt runs all of the organizations listed; that its all a big, big conspiracy. Take your pick. Every major scientific organization verifies the reality of AGW. Wow is correct that the Arctic is warming at an incredible rate. And the effects of increasing atmospheric concentrations of C02 on climate have been known for well over a century.
Still, I am wondering when SDs genius is going to appear in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. I'll take a stab at guessing here.
Drongo crushed again. Its so easy. He tries vainly to give the impression that Wiki made it up so here is more evidence of the consensus. Ouch! Poor old Drongo.
Yes, it is.And it rather destroys your claim it was 2C warmer. Not to mention that we're nearly 1C globally warmer than the graph you crowed about. And haven't finished warming from the CO2 currently there.
Which is something that you cannot recognise, because you're batshit crazy.
"That explains your fever then."
Since I am not a geographical region above 70N or below 70S, it cannot.
Please stop pretending other people are landmasses. If you are unable to do so, then try not to type it out where everyone can see how insane you are.
CoN and the rest of the off-the-planet Doltoids live and breathe the Karl and Peterson "Pausebuster" paper because this Fakery at the Bakery reinvigorates AGW prior to the big Paris Party and now these two have been given the opportunity to present their evidence to Congress for assessment.
"CoN thinks that it’s great science to re-homogenise the past to extract whatever you want from it."
No, spanky, homogenisation is what averaging and trend determination IS.
And it is done by real people with working brains to find out what is going on.
Only you retarded deniers do it to find what you want to be there. Like the "pause" for example. Or the "GCM Divergence" by selecting where and what data set you want to pretend is true and accurate at the moment.
And isn't it interesting, CoN ol' luv, how the satellite thermometers in the past have shown el Ninos warmer than the ground "data" but just not this time.
But when you are honest enough to accept the global unadjusted data instead of the fakery at the bakery that really makes CoN and the doltoids look foolish.
Well lookit that ! Rather than "no recent slowdown in global warming", how about; NO SIGN OF WARMING AT ALL THIS CENTURY:
GC, it's great to have your support. I also got it years ago at Brave New Climate where, although I supported Barry's nuclear push, I didn't agree with some of his reasoning.
"On second thoughts SD is wiping the floor with you over educated “Useful Idiots”"
Says one old right wing deluded idiot who denies the reality of AGW. My reply is simple: "In your dreams".
Since you both have not got a friggin' clue about anything, its hilarious for one extremely biased fringe academic to claim who is winning debates when his stupid views are one and the same.
Note that both Gormless camel and Spungled dumbo rely on shill blogs for their information. What we get from the both of them are wretched sites like WUWT, Nova, BH and C)2 Science pasted up here ad nauseum. Both of them cannot argue their way out of a sodden wet paper bag. They don't even attempt top explain how and why the entire scientific community for the most part agrees that humans are driving climate warming. That is clear; evidence abounds.I have said it a million times but I will repeat it: check the views of pretty well every National Academy and relevant scientific organization on the planet. Either there is some immense conspiracy going on or 99.9% of scientists are idiots and those who do no research and publish nothing and who are on the extreme end of the academic fringe and their army of uneducated armchair experts are correct.
This is the level of intellectual debate from the deniers on here. They dodge, weave, avoid, and squirm around the fact that it is they who are way, way outside of the mainstream. They are a bunch of nobodies claiming the high ground. But they don't have science or scientists on their side. Instead they contaminate the blogosphere where they think they are big guys. Where are the peer-reviewed publications? SD linked one up here - in E & E, a comedy journal with an impact factor of 0.15. It ranks at the very bottom of climate journals. Its in the anoxic layer. This is it folks.
And gormless claims Sd is winning. It cannot get much funnier than that. Its massive self delusion, peppered with political ideology.
"Jiffy, if you’re only going to blither, please keep it short"
Alternative Drongo:
"I know more than pretty much the entire climate science community. I don't publish in mainstream scientific journals but on blogs because this is where real science is done. Conferences and workshops are a waste of my time as a self-taught expert. I don't need to explain why every major scientific organization on Earth agrees with AGW because I can't.... er, I mean they are all led by Gavin Schmidt. Instead, I pay homage to true experts like Anthony Watts and Joanne Nova, who, depsite their apparent lack of relevant qualifications, are in truth esteemed scholars".
My challenge to Drongo": put up or shut up. Let's see you write up your arguments into a paper and then submit it to a strong climate science journal. E & E does not count. I want to see you write something in a journal with an impact factor of at least 2. Over 3 would be preferable. Until then, you are a coward.
What Dumbo is saying is that we don't need universities. We don't need scientists to be taught in specialized disciplines. We don't need peer-review or peer-reviewed journals. Blog science will do. Furthermore, leave complex fields to self-taught 'experts' like him and to other like him who have never done an experiment in their lives, have never attended a relevant conference of workshop, and who don't write in the primary literature.
You see, this is what I have been trying to get our legend in his own mind to say for some time now. Finally, he's said it. This comes straight out of Dunning-Kruger's now famous 1999 paper. To reiterate: he's saying that a formal education and training do not matter. This is why he has Gc on his side. Gc, like him has no formal training in climate or environmental science. The reason I agree with those who do is because I am not an expert in climate science. It is not a field I was trained in. In this case I defer my views to concur with those who are experts in the field, I am always suspicious of laymen claiming to have the intellectual upper hand when they are self taught. I could easily debunk Gc when he veered closer to my own field: population ecology. He claimed that warming conditions benefit nature, and tried to invoke conditions tens of millions of years ago to support this argument. I knew right away that he was way out of his depth and that his views were gibberish. He's a laser researcher, not an ecologist. On another blog he even went so far as to explain that there would be benefits to humanity of the melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets. This was comedy gold. Again, he has not even a basic understanding of what he was talking about. He pastes up links to blogs like C02 Science - a WFA-linked site - as 'evidence'. Again, no primary literature.
Again, this is what deniers on blogs do. People like Sd, Gc, Sunspot, Jonas N, Olaus Petri and others have no relevant training or expertise and most hide behind anonymous handles because they'd be laughingstocks if they revealed their true identities. They are hit-and-run posters who make arguments that beggar belief and then run away. They only answer what they want. Inconvenient questions and facts are ignored. They routinely smear and impugn statured scientists, something they would never do in person. This is one of the perils of the internet. It allows mediocre people to act like they are authorities.
What Drongo is saying is that we don’t need universities. We don’t need scientists to be taught in specialized disciplines. We don’t need peer-review or peer-reviewed journals. Blog science will do. Furthermore, leave complex fields to self-taught ‘experts’ like him and to other like him who have never done an experiment in their lives, have never attended a relevant conference of workshop, and who don’t write in the primary literature.
You see, this is what I have been trying to get our legend in his own mind to say for some time now. Finally, he’s said it. This comes straight out of Dunning-Kruger’s now famous 1999 paper. To reiterate: he’s saying that a formal education and training do not matter. This is why he has Gc on his side. Gc, like him has no formal training in climate or environmental science. The reason I agree with those who do is because I am not an expert in climate science. It is not a field I was trained in. In this case I defer my views to concur with those who are experts in the field, I am always suspicious of laymen claiming to have the intellectual upper hand when they are self taught. I could easily debunk Gc when he veered closer to my own field: population ecology. He claimed that warming conditions benefit nature, and tried to invoke conditions tens of millions of years ago to support this argument. I knew right away that he was way out of his depth and that his views were gibberish. He’s a laser researcher, not an ecologist. On another blog he even went so far as to explain that there would be benefits to humanity of the melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets. This was comedy gold. Again, he has not even a basic understanding of what he was talking about. He pastes up links to blogs like C02 Science – a WFA-linked site – as ‘evidence’. Again, no primary literature.
Again, this is what deniers on blogs do. People like Sd, Gc, Sunspot, Jonas N, Olaus Petri and others have no relevant training or expertise and most hide behind anonymous handles because they’d be laughingstocks if they revealed their true identities. They are hit-and-run posters who make arguments that beggar belief and then run away. They only answer what they want. Inconvenient questions and facts are ignored. They routinely smear and impugn statured scientists, something they would never do in person. This is one of the perils of the internet. It allows mediocre people to act like they are authorities.
And another quote that has NOTHING to do with what he spews onto the internet from Spanky here.
Why quote something if you're not going to deal with it?
Rampant stupidity? Or did the claim REALLY hurt you, so you had to attack back, with a tu quoque fallacy?
You're a credulous and ignorant moron, spanky, and a coward who will never bother to change its mind because its pride is tied up with their Walter Mitty imagingings.
Shows you what rubbish using satellite radio receivers to measure surface temperature are. Even Spencer thinks they're only beta.
I could ask again do Karl and Peterson work for BEST but clearly sd has a policy of "avoid mentioning BEST unless absolutely necessary" (like Basil Fawlty's "don't mention the war").
Must be tough for global warming denialists like sd to deal with apostates like Richard Muller. Makes it obvious sd is a conspiracy theorist.
Poor silly CoN doesn't apparently realise that his link to NOAA is precisely the stuff that Karl and Peterson have refused to provide Congress the details of.
With a bit of luck they'll end up in jail over it.
Spanky has nothing to refute your claims, Chris, but he can't let them stand without putting a post after it, so he posts utter gibberish, quoting you as if it were relevant to what he will say.
The less relevant his "response" is to the quote, the more you're rattling him.
You're not suggesting you cite things you know nothing about? Say it isn't so!
Dumb clowns make a big deal about revisions of one temperature record in the 1880s.
If you had any gumption
"Gumption" isn't the right word here. "Shame" would be much more appropriate but global warming denialists like sd don't know what shame is.
Funny you should ask about gumption sd because if you had any gumption you would answer the question:
Do Karl and Peterson work for BEST?
We all know you think Karl and Peterson are part of the giant conspiracy who should all be in jail but have they sucked BEST into the giant conspiracy?
You're not suggesting you cite things you know nothing about? Say it isn't so!
Conspiracy theorists make a big deal about revisions of one temperature record in the 1880s.
If you had any gumption
"Gumption" isn't the right word here. "Shame" would be much more appropriate but global warming denialists like sd don't know what shame is.
Funny you should ask about gumption sd because if you had any gumption you would answer the question:
Do Karl and Peterson work for BEST?
We all know you think Karl and Peterson are part of the giant conspiracy who should all be in jail but have they sucked BEST into the giant conspiracy?
1.What Sd is saying is that we don’t need universities. We don’t need scientists to be taught in specialized disciplines. We don’t need peer-review or peer-reviewed journals. Blog science will do. Furthermore, leave complex fields to self-taught ‘experts’ like him and to other like him who have never done an experiment in their lives, have never attended a relevant conference of workshop, and who don’t write in the primary literature.
You see, this is what I have been trying to get Sd to say for some time now. Finally, he’s said it. This comes straight out of Dunning-Kruger’s now famous 1999 paper. To reiterate: he’s saying that a formal education and training do not matter. This is why he has Gc on his side. Gc, like him has no formal training in climate or environmental science. The reason I agree with those who do is because I am not an expert in climate science. It is not a field I was trained in. In this case I defer my views to concur with those who are experts in the field. I am always suspicious of laymen claiming to have the intellectual upper hand when they are self-taught. I could easily debunk Gc when he veered closer to my own field: population ecology. He claimed that warming conditions benefit nature, and tried to invoke conditions tens of millions of years ago to support this argument. I knew right away that he was way out of his depth and that his views were gibberish. He’s a laser researcher, not an ecologist. On another blog he even went so far as to explain that there would be benefits to humanity of the melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets. Again, he has not even a basic understanding of what he was talking about. He pastes up links to blogs like C02 Science – a WFA-linked site – as ‘evidence’. Again, no primary literature in sight.
This is what AGW deniers on blogs do. People who have no relevant training or expertise make outrageous claims. They are hit-and-run posters who make arguments that beggar belief and then run away. They only answer what they want to answer. Inconvenient questions and facts are ignored. They routinely smear and impugn statured scientists, something they would never do in person. This is one of the perils of the internet. It allows mediocre people to act like they are authorities.
Note how he's linking to shill blogs again. No matter how many times he is caught out on it, back he goes. He can't help himself. CA this time. Where is the primary literature? And why won't he try and debunk the NA/RS document I linked? A: because he can't.
You will also notice that Chris has linked to a peer-reviewed paper in one of the two top journals around: Science. Sd does not attempt to discuss the contents of the article, but instead impugns the authors and/or the NOAA. Its all a conspiracy! is his clarion cry. His sole foray into the primary literature was a paper in E & E. The worst journal there is.
Where is the scientific article where this stupid graph is published? On his blog that's where! Why has this not been published in Science or Nature? Or anywhere for that matter? Because its total crap, that's why!
You’re not suggesting you cite things you know nothing about? Say it isn’t so!
Conspiracy theorists make a big deal about revisions of one temperature record in the 1880s.
If you had any gumption
“Gumption” isn’t the right word here. “Shame” would be much more appropriate but global warming denialists like sd don’t know what shame is.
Funny you should ask about gumption sd because if you had any gumption you would answer the question:
Do Karl and Peterson work for BEST?
We all know you think Karl and Peterson are part of the giant conspiracy who should all be in jail but have they sucked BEST into the giant conspiracy?
It takes a form of perverse logic to write the following:
Poor silly CoN doesn’t apparently realise that his link to NOAA is precisely the stuff that Karl and Peterson have refused to provide Congress the details of.
and an amazing lack of self awareness eh spangles (aka fruit drops).
Anybody with the skill set of climate scientists would be able to download the data from the sources and proceed accordingly but then Lamar is a simple lawyer who believes in Noah's Ark saving all the animals, well at least those that lived near his house and were not so big they would sink the Ark - Brontotheriidae. Must have been fun keeping the predators and prey separated - then there are all the disease vectors flitting about and .... and.... and....!
This is the same Sd who Gc claims is 'wiping the floor' with the rest of us on Deltoid. That Sd supports a vile organism like Lamar Smith says it all - or should.
SCIENTIST 1: So why did Karl et al adjust the ocean buoy readings by a figure that is so uncertain as to be meaningless? From Kennedy et al 0.12 ± 1.7°C. What were you thinking?
KARL ET AL and co: snip [That's confidential. Stop this now. We're feeling harassed!]
What is the world coming to if congress succeeds in exposing objective, rational discussion about thermometers?
You’re not suggesting you cite things you know nothing about? Say it isn’t so!
Conspiracy theorists make a big deal about revisions of one temperature record in the 1880s.
If you had any gumption
“Gumption” isn’t the right word here. “Shame” would be much more appropriate but global warming denialists like sd don’t know what shame is. Funny you should ask about gumption sd because if you had any gumption you would answer the question:
Do Karl and Peterson work for BEST?
We all know you think Karl and Peterson are part of the giant conspiracy who should all be in jail but have they sucked BEST into the giant conspiracy?
@Spangled Drongo,
"GC, it’s great to have your support. I also got it years ago at Brave New Climate where, although I supported Barry’s nuclear push, I didn’t agree with some of his reasoning."
I have the greatest respect for Barry Brook even though he worships at the CAGW shrine. The Marxists on his site (e.g. Ms. Perps) are a class act compared to the juveniles and pygmies here. Often I found myself agreeing with them and they seldom indulged in personal insults.
Governments are looking for heroic problems that only they can solve.
Too bad they decided to focus on the non-problem of CAGW.
Here are a couple of real problems that governments should be addressing:
1. Hardening our electrical grid to withstand nuclear EMP and Carrington events: https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2015/10/28/emp-a-summary-starting-point/
2. Storing vast quantities of non-perishable food to maintain the human race when the next Mount Tambora or Mount Toba eruption occurs.
While the Mount Tambora eruption in 1815 caused immense loss of life, the Mount Toba eruption (77,000 years before present) came close to making us humans extinct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
Yes, GC, we are living in a magical age but the alarmists desperately believe that we are heading into climate catastrophe. When normalcy returns and real world catastrophes occur, they will be lost.
But don't think they still won't blame ACO2 and the GHGE.
Orbital decay: the required correction is in the order of 0.1°C/decade for TLT
Calibration changes: the correction is in the order of 0.1°C/decade for TLT and TMT
i.e. "some of the required corrections are as large as the trend itself"
Also, "In an attempt to remove the stratospheric influence, Spencer and Christy developed the synthetic "2LT" product by subtracting signals at different view angles; this has a maximum at about 650 hPa. However this amplifies noise,[13] increases inter-satellite calibration biases and enhances surface contamination".
2LT or TLT as it is now known is a combination of the MSU signals from various bands and directions designed to match, well, you'll have to look that up.
Believe it or not, some people want to stake humanity's future well-being on this.
Gc illustrates exactly what I said about the human inability to come to groups with what we perceive as slow. incipient change but which in evolutionary terms is remarkably fast. Yes, AGW on its own may drive humans towards extinction, as it unravels food webs and drives ecological communities beyond a point which they can sustain themselves and provide humans with a range of supporting and regulating ecosystem services that permit us to exist and persist. Gc understands the threat posed by immediate calamities like major volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, perhaps the impact of a large asteroid, but he simply is not evolutionary programmed, like many out there, to understand dynamics on a much slower scale. This is why humans are sleep walking towards extinction.
As for Sd, what we have shown is that he only does data he likes. That he doesn't he dismisses. The data he dismisses he does so on the basis of idiots like Lamar Smith and Steven Goddard, the latter with no relevant qualifications and who doesn't try and publish his stuff in peer-reviewed journals where it would be scrutinized and rejected.
Here we go again: Gormless camel with his Marxist comments. What a dork. His views on climate and the environment are so utterly puerile as to stagger the imagination. Like Sd, he doesn't do the primary literature. Sd bangs on about data all the time (the data he likes, that is), but neither of them do the scientific journals, with page after page after page filled with studies and data they don't like. What I won't do is shill blogs. I leave that to these two clowns.
I was wandering around the blogs and hit on Greg Laden's How do you explain Judith Curry? again and see the comment thread has developed somewhat with weapons grade Dunning-Kruger Gish-Gallops of diarrhoea proportions which are hard to swallow (hint). I see Bernard J has been watching and prompting so will understand the hint.
Did you all know that the Merriam-Webster dictionary is the be all and end all WRT defining the meaning of words, life and 42?
Amusing that one would use an American dictionary to refute British usage of a word.
Hello, my little Deltoids, long time no visit and alas, on this occasion I bring you sad news. Your stalwart for Truth 'n' Justice in science (heh-heh-heh!), Mr. Michael Mann, has just lost his case against Canadian climatologist, Tim Ball. This will also collapse the case against Mark Steyn. He is now being counter sued for absolute 'zillions' and will almost certainly be forced into bankruptcy - oh dear what a pity never mind! The reason for his collapse is his absolute refusal to disclose his original data.
Anyway, I do realise that your numbers here at the Deltoid Chapel have shrunk enormously but even so, as you wander the streets chanting "I belieeeeeve, I belieeeeeve" and rattle your collection tins, I do hope you will spare a few bob for poor - and I mean like absolutely flat broke - Michael Mann. Now, he needs your money, not just your silly faith!
http://www.principia-scientific.org/michael-mann-faces-bankruptcy-as-hi…
Ah Duffer, so that echo has reached you at last, after all it was broadcast enough through the denial-o-sphere, you must have had yer head up yer arse!
Here is a dose of laxative to ease your congestion: Ahhh, the echo-chamber seems on fire. Mr. O'Sullivan has spoken.
Now the reason it is quiet around here is that you and your kind are running out of cogent, believable (if you have a brain the power of GWBs), argument and skirmishes are occurring in other fields.
Fellas, D. Richard Betts wonders who briefed Emma Thompson the current status of climate science. I very much suspect Jeffie Harvey or one of his toddlers here at Deltoid.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3223826/Met-Office-boss-slams-E…
P
You stupid crass individual Oily. Thompson may have been wrong in detail but she is correct in principle.
Is Thompson a scientist - no, and was Richard Betts slamming her as David (serial misleader) Rose makes out, no simply putting her right on the details. Rose is despicable.
But here is the rub, Betts' mention of 2070 is something of an advance on dates previously quoted so there is no room for crowing complacency. What is more, as the ecological dominoes begin to fall faster then mass migrations may be driven by those products of climate change plus over exploitation, and sooner. Syria and the middle east in general is a wake up call, and South America and other parts of Africa are under stress right now.
You really are clueless clot who misses more nuanced reports than found in Rose's rag.
Yeah, and the whistle made you bring this up like the trained little dancing dog you are, right?
Two things: where did you pull that caricature out of, and what the hell did you think bringing it up would mean?
Apart from displaying your disgusting nature, there's really nothing AT ALL (and I really do mean AT ALL) in the post.
It's even more vacant of information or plain utility than Stupid's posts.
If that makes you feel proud, it shouldn't.
Furthermore Oily, Richard Betts himself has come in for criticism for tweeting unfortunates on this and highlighted by Eli Richard Betts Puts the Frighteners on Eli which is very nuanced and besides has more background which you should pay attention to.
Olaus. you are a clot, really not worth of a polite response. But here you go: if temperatures, as Betts, suggests rise by 4C by the 2060w, humanity is toast. A 4C rise in the time span discussed will annihilate many of the planet's ecological systems and destroy many key ecological services that permit humans to exist. Thompson may indeed be wrong by 3 decades, but what's the point? Betts does not get it. Its like he's saying, "We won't face calamity until 2060, not 2030! What was Thompson thinking???". Is there really a difference? Thirty years? We are already well on our way there. Even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow the planet is committed to significant warming.
You may jest but you are an irresponsible idiot. I hope for their sake that you don't have kids. Because if you do, you are ridiculing a runaway train that is going to make their lives hell down the road. You may not think so, buffered in your technological den, but its inevitable.
Jeffie dear, a simple: "Yes it was me who debriefed Emma" would have saved you some letters.
Sorry, lappers, what makes you think you have it right this time? The record indicates this is supremely unlikely after all this time.
Yes Olas you are 'a simple' bloody clown who is getting far to carried away in his idiocy.
Olaugh, I appreciate the fact that you respect my status as a scientist to the point where you think that I liase with and influence the opinions of well known celebrities. But alas, on this occasion I was not involved.
Yes Jeffie, he shear scientific ignorance of Emma T that made me think of you as her source of information. :-)
Why not your scientific ignorance, lappers? It's far more sheer.
So sheer is Oily's vacuous thinking that there is a book that describes his wardrobe. It is pitched at a reading level such that even Oily will understand.
Just dropped by to tell people that Murdoch just bought National Geographic, and thereby, if I'm not mistaken, now owns ScienceBlogs, too.
No, I'm not kidding.
If editorial control were to be exerted on SB to pander to Murdoch's political ideology, that would have to be send in written or (recordable) verbal form.
Yes, denier mouthpieces have done this, but only because they have been making editorial insistence to people who WANT to do it anyway. And still their scamming comes out.
So I'm not worried. Any attempt to fuck things up would do more damage than they could possible save by interfering and shutting down inconvenient truths.
Poor o' benighted; Olap, late of the Jonasuck cult.
Just like the Rorschach testee complaining that the tester should stop showing dirty pictures. he sees Jeff everywhere.
Too fucking funny.
Meanwhile the Black Abbott and his Abbottlings engage in cringe-worthy banter.
Was Dutton ever a bouncer or front row forward, he seems to have his brains scrambled.
But it is the likes of these who have their fingers in the financial pies that are sucking peoples of the UK and elsewhere of their money from high prices of utility provision - power, water, rail and also health and increasingly education whilst opening the same to the risks from the many forms of negligence risks. This is extremely well described in a book by James Meek, 'Private Island' which deserves wider readership.
from Private Island: Why Britain Now Belongs to Someone Else
If only electorates would realise the massive frauds perpetrated on them by the self interested politicians who allow vulture capitalists to flourish at the expense of nearly every one else then change may be effected. Sadly, with the UK political landscape, and the encroaching media presence of such as the Murdochs, the general public will continue to be mislead and thus confused as to what is wrong.
No, the UK is beginning to get fed up. And the increasing lack of anything to lose is making the situation worse for those in power.
No need for armed insurrection.
A million in the London Streets. Not there to protest. There to walk into the Houses of Parliament, grab every MP there and throw them out into the Thames and tell them to fuck off can't be stopped.
Throw the PM out. Blockade No 10 so the little shitbag can't get back in.
Close the bloody government down until the get their act together and actually listen and change.
A government whose EVERY MEMBER is refused entry and whose head is unable to get to work CANNOT claim to have a mandate for the people.
Keep it up until MPs that most people WANT to have the job are there.
In another generation, if things don't correct themselves, we have a revolution, and one where those who are sitting pretty won't be losing their money. They'll be losing EVERYTHING. Family, possessions, and life.
None of it needs an armed populace.
A million people cannot be stopped without weapons of mass destruction. If they're willing to risk death. And if things get worse, there's nothing to lose.
Lionel @#20: Not a bouncer, no, but a former copper.
But it remains to be seen how long he will last in any case, now that Abbott has been rolled.
While I can hardly celebrate the rise of yet another private-school, Rhodes scholar, lawyer to the summit of Australian politics (and this one an ex-merchant banker to boot), a man with a string of political failures behind him, and no doubt in front of him too, he does at least accept the science, has previously supported a price on carbon, and does a passable imitation of a grown-up, unlike his predecessor.
Perhaps Australia now has a chance to inch slightly forward in our quest to not be the most recalcitrant nation on the planet. Not exactly the highest aim, but politics, as the saying goes, is the art of the possible.
This AUS cabinet invested heavily on coal. Cabinet is still in place. Don't expect change now. Just some smarter retorics.
As people internalise the fact that the powerful get to ignore the law, they will conclude that obeying the law is a chump's game. There's no mileage in it if it's not a law.
People will stop worrying about what they're doing being "against the law". Especially since it's pretty damn obvious that it doesn't HAVE to be against the law for it to be make "against the law". Even if it becomes "resisting arrest" only.
It's only more culturally effective for the people to ignore the claims of the law in Australia.
IMO everyone who wouldn't vote for ANY of the fuckers up for grabs ought to arrange a crowdsource of some no-chancer being voted for.
Honest incompetence is far better for society than malign incompetence.
Just dropped by to tell people that Murdoch just bought National Geographic, and thereby, if I’m not mistaken, now owns ScienceBlogs, too.
ScienceBlogs is owned by Seed Media Group, not NGS. NGS has editorial control, but I suspect that Seed can get out of their contract if NGS partnership with 21st Century Fox significantly changes the editorial direction.
But the partnership (73% control but Fox, 27% by NGS) is bad news in any case.
On the Nat' Geographic and Murdoch issue Greg Laden has a post up which may be of interest: National Geographic: The Whole World Is Watching. Something..
WRT Turnbull, I had the impression that WRT climate and warming he didn't have particularly useful opinions. I'll have to do some back reading.
Lionel,
Turnbull was previously party leader when they were in Opposition, and was deposed by Abbott because he supported the Labor Government's ETS proposal. Following his demise he remarked: “Climate change is real, it is affecting us now, and yet, right now we have every resources available to us to deal with climate change, except for one, and that is leadership. We cannot cost-effectively achieve a substantial cut in emissions without putting a price on carbon.”
Like most of the "wets" in the party, he understands the economic (at least) benefits of a steady transition to a low/zero carbon economy. In contrast, Abbott and the right wing of the party brought all the intellectual nuance of Olaus - "Coal is good for humanity".
He can't afford to scare the conservative wing of the party, but there are some levers that can be engaged should he choose to spend some minimal political capital in that direction. The existing "direct action" scam can be minimally rejigged to turn from "pay pollutors" to "pollutors pay". But I suspect he will find it difficult over the rest of their term (about 14 months) to find the (politically) correct balance between doing enough to hold onto potential Green or independent voters and doing little enough to avoid being white-anted by the right wing.
Don't get me wrong - there is a likelihood the CRRK has it right, and it will be the same action with better rhetoric. And the best Turnbull could do is still pretty piss-weak. I'm restraining my hopes to only an incremental improvement over his excremental predecessor.
Gaak! sorry about the bold tag fail...
No worries, the FrankD. Message perfectly clear.
Well, that didn't take long...
Turnbulls coalition partners just extorted a bunch of concessions to maintain their participation. Relevant to this discussion:
1. No change to existing climate policies
2. Just for kicks management of the Murray-Darling basin returning from the Dept of the Environment (which prioritised sustainability) to Dept of Agriculture (which, during its previous reign, prioritsed maximum supply to irrigators).
One step forward, two steps back...
Frank D.
The Dept of Agriculture (federal) in its previous reign had no say in water prioritising and therefore could not prioritise water for Agriculture or anything else. Water was owned and operated via State Governments until the Water Act 2007.
Ready to answer BBD's question, yet, Stupid?
NOTE: I read no more than Stu 2.
To get any more off me, you can do something like use a temporary "Stu 2 says yes" name.
Graham in the August thread wrote:
Oops! Looks like you were wrong all along even Exxon knew in the 1970s that GHG build ups from fossil fuel use would warm the planet for their own scientist was telling them this.
Thus it is clear that Exxon knowingly put profit ahead of future human existence - that is genocide on an epic scale. That is a statement of sorry fact and not a hate filled outburst.
And then we have Duffer upthread mistaking the lack of posts here for apathy about AGW when the fight now is being taken to a broader front of what to do about it, and that includes continuing the push-back against the now criminally exposed deniers such as Booker, Delingpole, Montford, Ridley etc. etc.
So, far from 'our church' (hah!) whithering it is the denial ship that is sinking faster as more holes appear in the fabric one such being Edelman ends work with coal producers and climate change deniers. It seems there is a list developing, and it is nothing like that of another arch' denier Peter Lilley who should be reminded of that 'Little List' he had a few decades ago when he stood up at a Tory party conference and uttered: "I am closing down the something for nothing society. This summer I announce tougher rules respecting so called New Age travellers. Most people were as sickened as I was
by the sight of these spongers descending like locusts... etc. etc.."
Well I know what sickens me, those with conflicts of interest who try to fly under the radar of oversight and if caught out trying to get away with it, and often succeeding, with only a slap on the wrist. And they address each other as 'honourable'. Orwell speak is alive and well.
Exxon *were* pushing global warming baloney, though.
"It's not happening!" was baloney.
As is his wont, Stu2's quibble is simply an attempt at misdirection from the main point.
Prior to the establishment of the Murray Darling Basin Authority, water allocations were managed by the states, but their allocations were ultimately controlled by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission's Ministerial Council, controlled by Warren Truss from 1999 in his capacity as Minister for Agriculture, and now the very man who "pursuaded" Turnbull into handing the the Authority over to the Department of Agriculture. Perhaps Stu2 thinks that neo-con David Kemp or the risible Ian Campbell who, as Minsters of the Environment, sat with Truss on the Council would have been anything other than Truss' lapdogs on questions of water management...
The overallocations permitted by the Minister of Agriculture via the MDBC meant the health of the river continued to degrade through the 2000's. With the establishment of the MDBA, reporting to the Minister of the Environment, the health of the river has been given a greater priority than before (although they are only about 40% of where they need to finish up). Now that the MDBA will report to Agriculture, I'm sure we won't see a return to the bad old days, dear me no, not at all...
Stu2's "correction" is, as ever, a difference which makes no difference.
Frank D.
Minco was not controlled by Warren Truss nor the MDBC.
Minco was made up of the STATE ministers in the MDB.
Until the Water Act 2007 the feds had no say in allocations.
It also looks like you don't understand that there is a difference between allocation and entitlement.
The Water Sharing Plans determine how much of entitlement is allocated, not the department of agriculture or any other department.
Which are the 'bad old days' that you are referring to?
As Stu 2 is still around I would like to know his, and other deniers that linger here, reaction to the nail bomb (knowing how they just love to use the last nail in the coffin meme) that has just gone off in Exxon's closet which threatens to spill over to the rest of the fossil fuel body-incorporate and their aiders and abettors in the media and governments,
and then explain how the funding of climate change denial can be argued away as a figment of our imagination.
As I have mentioned before citing books by Professor Callum Roberts and others we are heading for an ecological and sociological cliff:
See the Living Planet Report 2015 for the remainder.
Lionel.
Where have you proved that Stu 2 is an 'other denier'?
What are you claiming is being denied?
There is much funding associated with climate: I would not attempt to deny that at all.
Humans impact environment, including the ocean environment: I would not attempt to deny that either.
I chose to comment this time because Frank D's assertion about who or what allocates Water Entitlement in the Murray Darling Basin in Australia was incorrect.
The Federal Agriculture minister has never had control of Water Entitlement or Water Allocations in the MDB.
Until the Water Act 2007, the Federal Government had little say in water management in the MDB and other than now owning a big parcel of Water Entitlement it still does not have any power to ALLOCATE water entitlement.
The State bodies do that via State legislation and such things as the Water Sharing Plans.
I should have expected you to play the stupid card.
What has been denied by you and your ilk here, the AGW effect for starters and the fact that deniers have been funded by fossil fuel interests and their cheerleaders in media and governments across the world.
This is obvious to anybody with a scintilla intelligence, a smidgen of comprehension ability and honest intent to follow links and read the contents at the source.
I had no intention to get into arguing the toss about any Murray Darling Basin.
Interesting chart which shows the worst of the worst up like lights on a Christmas tree.
"I should have expected you to play the stupid card."
He's not playing with a full deck, so a limited selection of one card is not unexpected.
Lionel.
AGW effect?
What does that even mean? (As opposed to anthropogenic global warming).
Where has anyone denied that funding influences all sorts of things : including media and politics?
I care deeply about the MDB environment.
I live and work in that environment.
Frank D 's assertions about water management were incorrect.
"AGW effect?
What does that even mean?"
It means the effect we call AGW.
You know.
Global Warming from anthropogenic factors.
Duh-mass.
And where is the answer to BBD's question?
"Working in the MDB"? What the hell is that?
"Care deeply about the MDB environment"? What the hell does that mean, other than "the environment"?
"I live and work in that environment."? What on earth does that mean other than "I live and work"?
"Frank D ‘s assertions about water management were incorrect."? What does that mean other than "I haven't a frigging clue, but I don't want to admit to Frank being right"?
"Where has anyone denied"? What does that mean other than "I don't want to answer the question, so I'll make a new one up"?
"AGW effect?
What does that even mean?"
Stop being so asinine 2Stupid. Your responses are not looking to improve your reputation.
The China Cap & Trade plan proves that global warming is a communist plot.
/stupidest_possible_denier_talking_point
And that Obama is a radical muslim atheist commie.
/nobottomtotheirstupidity
Could it be that the lack of Death spiral in the Arctic explains the Death spiral of Deltoid?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php
P.S. Tim, can't you hire someone to keep poor Wow company? D.S.
Come on OP. You can do better than that. Or perhaps you didn't notice there was a clickable link at the bottom of that graphic. The newer version with _all_ the necessary information.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Fetch, Lappers! Fetch boy!
Whose a good doggie, then!
Olaus the poor fool and village idiot, the slow down in posts here is because of a lack of cogent arguments from such as you, this as the evidence which supports our understanding that climate change is real, is being caused by human activity and is dangerous mounts up.
This has been explained to you before. Now go away with that message and tell your village - which misses you.
The scientific community has moved on. Olaus and his acolytes are becoming increasingly desperate for support. The Arctic has reached its 4th lowest ice extent this year - http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ -
so the death spiral continues. 2015 is set to be (by far) the warmest year in recorded history. Its well on its way now to the 2 C critical point as stipulated by the IPCC. The cries of hiatus are now history - there never was one. Its just another example of the rank dishonesty of this vile bunch of people who are distorting science in support of a political agenda.
Still watch them shift the goalposts again. Or else, given that temperatures may level off again for a few years until the next Godzilla El Nino, they will start going on about hiatuses again in 2018 or 19. But they are history. Their ranks are shrinking and soon they will all be laughingstocks. The sooner the better.
Maybe Olaus lives in Greenland or Pakistan.
https://www.rt.com/news/310411-climate-change-temperature-record/
#58, nah. Lives in the Greenland melt water pool.
Interesting that average June month in Pakistan. The month did feature a murderous heat wave there, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Pakistani_heat_wave .
O'louse, you dimwitted trolling idiot, is the concept of a trend so difficult to understand?
A while back, Tamino wrote a post addressed to you and the other denier dumbfucks titled "It's the trend, stupid" _
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/01/20/its-the-trend-stupid-3/
You should read it. The post is about global temperatures but the same argument applies to Arctic ice. Even if you struggle to understand what he's written (which I'm sure you will), look at the red line on the graph _ it's the trend line. Is it going up?
The black dots represent the noise; a bit like you walking home pissed after visiting GSW for an evening of debauchery.
You'll be staggering left an right, sometimes a bit more left and sometimes a bit more right, but you're heading in the direction of home and eventually you'll make it there. Well, for the purpose of the analogy I'm assuming that you'll make it home.
I'm surprised O'louse didn't mention Jeff in his latest post as he seems to be obsessed with him.
If I'm not mistaken, a couple of months ago he was even telling him how he was having an orgasm. Yuk!!
Advice to Jeff: if you see an inbred looking denier type idiot with an erection walking towards you....RUN!!!
hahahaha
Jp, given your stalkish kind of knowledge about me I’m the one who should be prepared. Please keep your distance and get a life, you tragic little voyeur.
And why is it so unpleasant when I point out that the Arctic ice is still there? I know it should be gone, but it isn’t. Deal with it and be happy. And Jeff too. :-)
"Jp, given your stalkish kind of knowledge about me "
If people aren't supposed to be reading what you write, why are you writing it? If people ARE supposed to be reading it, how the hell does that constitute a "stalker"?
Truly, lappers, you're a yipping little porkpie of a dog.
"And why is it so unpleasant when I point out that the Arctic ice is still there? "
It's not unpleasant, you yippy little fwit, it's irrelevant.
Lappers: "Oh, look, the Arctic ice is still there!"
EVERYONE ELSE: "Yeah, so?"
Jp, Olaus isn't the only one who has exhibited - let me say - unhealthy tendences on Deltoid. Jonas N, his hero and mentor, is even worse. Go into his insanity thread and all he writes about is me. He clearly cannot stand the fact that I am a bonafide scientist and he isn't.
In the case of Olaus, he's merely a copycat. Somebody makes a smear, and he copies it. He cannot invent his own smears, so here merely copy/pastes those of others.
Now about that Arctic ice. Of course the death spiral continues. Its just reached its 4th lowest extent on record, barely behind 2011 and 2007, and outside of the 95% confidence interval. Olaus, like other simpletons who don't know basic science, appears to think that by saying that there has been a linear decrease in ice extent then every year must show less ice cover than the previous one. Yes folks, he's that stupid. That ignorant. He clearly has no clue as to the concept of scale and is unable to disentangle a stochastic process from a deterministic one. In other words, we must extrapolate trends working on such large temporal and spatial scales, and the trends in the Arctic are patently obvious, just like they are for glaciers and global temperatures. Over the past 30 years the Arctic has been losing ice steadily and alarmingly. This will be the warmest year on record by far, following on from the warmest year. All of the 17 warmest years have occurred since 1998. And glaciers are retreating faster than even the models predict. AGW is a fact, and the prognosis is indeed not good at all.
The scientific community knows all of this. There's not a scientist working in the Arctic who will downplay what is happening there. Only third rate Swedish idiots. Like - Olaus.
Jp, Olaus isn’t the only one who has exhibited – let me say – unhealthy tendences on Deltoid. Jonas N, his hero and mentor, is even worse. Go into his insanity thread and all he writes about is me. He clearly cannot stand the fact that I am a bonafide scientist and he isn’t.
In the case of Olaus, he’s merely a copycat. Somebody makes a smear, and he copies it. He cannot invent his own smears, so here merely copy/pastes those of others.
Now about that Arctic ice. Of course the death spiral continues. Its just reached its 4th lowest extent on record, barely behind 2011 and 2007, and outside of the 95% confidence interval. Olaus, like other simpletons who don’t know basic science, appears to think that by saying that there has been a linear decrease in ice extent then every year must show less ice cover than the previous one. Yes folks, he’s that stupid. That ignorant. He clearly has no clue as to the concept of scale and is unable to disentangle a stochastic process from a deterministic one. In other words, we must extrapolate trends working on such large temporal and spatial scales, and the trends in the Arctic are patently obvious, just like they are for glaciers and global temperatures. Over the past 30 years the Arctic has been losing ice steadily and alarmingly. This will be the warmest year on record by far, following on from the warmest year. All of the 17 warmest years have occurred since 1998. And glaciers are retreating faster than even the models predict. AGW is a fact, and the prognosis is indeed not good at all.
The scientific community knows all of this. There’s not a scientist working in the Arctic who will downplay what is happening there. Only third rate Swedish idiots. Like – Olaus.
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/if-every-nation-upholds-their-promise-…
As I have said, humanity is headed for the abyss....
The big problem with all those studies projecting 3C _ 4.5C of temperature rise under BAU and doom and gloom is that they didn't consult with Stu2. Had they submitted their papers to Stu2 for review he would have made them realize that the planet actually undergoes much greater variation in temperatures between day/night, summer/winter, not to mention having a hot shower or going for a sauna (ask O'louse and GSW how hot and steamy it gets when they share a sauna, hahahaha. And they're alive and thriving...sigh).
In short, there's nothing to worry about. Hotter temperature = more people going to the beach = more happy people.
Ok, there might some minor negatives such as ocean acidification resulting in loss of shellfish and corals, more droughts in parts of the world where most poor people live, no water for those who rely on glacial melt for their water supply, a billion people having to move from low-lying coastal cities. Oh, and apparently the difference between now, a generally liveable climate and the last ice age was only about 5C. But these are only minor points. If it gets too uncomfortable in the tropics they always move to the poles and we can give them air-conditioners too.
When it's a choice between believing science and reality on one side and WTFUWT and Stu2 on the other you'd be silly not to go for the latter. Going by Stu2's logic, we could have a mean global temperature increase of 20C or more and still be OK. Most people experience that sort of change everyday, even without going for a sauna.
O'louse, if you see a car with dark-tinted windows following you, don't fret, it's only me. hahaha
HAPPY DAYS!!, let's burn all the coal, get rich and enjoy the warmth.
Correction: "If it gets too uncomfortable in the tropics they CAN always move..."
It has been a while since my last visit.
Sadly there is still no discussion of science. It much easier to insult people than answer questions such as why the accelerating increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has not caused global temperatures to rise:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/12/16/countering-consensus-…
Galloping camel:
One question: what planet are you on? 2015 is set to be the warmest year on record by a mile; following on from the warmest year on record (2014). At present the planet is 0.10 C warmer than any previous year, a stunning level for such a deterministic system, and 6 months this year have already broken all-time records. So your comment (and link) are pointless.
An alternate explanation is that you have been hibernating for the past 20 years. Wakey, wakey...
I see GC still likes to spread his nasty smelling camel turds all over the place. Isn't it ironic that he complains about "lack of discussion of science" then sends us to a link full of the most anti-science nonsense around.
Gallop off into the distance, you dishonest troll.
Of course, you have to remember to look at this from an idiot denier POV. The science of AGW is wrong, therefore the ONLY valid discussion is HOW it is wrong.
Of course, if they move into THEIR country, in THEIR street, then these are scummy immigrant grifters here to suck at the taxpayer teat.
Galloping camel clearly has been hibernating for the past 2 years. 2015 is by far the warmest on record - 6 of the first 9 months broke all time records. 2015 is a whopping 0.10C warmer than any other year in recorded history, which is stunning given we are talking about a largely deterministic system.
I checked GCs link and it is hilarious. Talk about non-science. Its comic book stuff.
It has been a while since my last visit.
Sadly there is still no discussion of science.
Since you surely have read every comment since your last visit, you're blatantly lying ... but that's what deniers do; it's fundamental to their personality.
It much easier to insult people
Well yes, of course, it's trivial. But with dishonest scum like you, it's also morally justified.
than answer questions such as why the accelerating increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has not caused global temperatures to rise
The burden on you is to show that this is true, but all you have shown instead is that you're a moronic, incompetent ideologue.
Er, "surely have not read every comment".
Note how whiner there appears, insults EVERYONE here, then complains about how easy it is for EVERYONE ELSE to just criticise rather than do something useful.
Deniers are rather unaware, aren't they.
"the accelerating increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has not caused global temperatures to rise"
They have risen.
And the rise is log(CO2), therefore can be accelerating yet still seeing a less than accelerating rise.
But I guess what deniers need to do, rather than whine about how nobody has proved their wild claims correct (which is due to them being bollocks, not being uncorrected), is show that there has been a statistically different temperature rise than predicted.
This remains 100% neglected by even those whining shitholes complaining about the lack of science.
Oh, reading Gormless Camel I see where he is coming from. Like Roy Spencer, he dismisses surface temperatures for satellite based atmospheric temperatures. But there's a problem there - its warming in the place that counts - the biosphere. The 12 km thin surface is warming and warming rapidly. Last time I looked, this is where the planetary life support systems are located. Atmospheric temperatures are irrelevant except insofar as they may or may not be correlated with surface temperatures. But it is across the planet's biomes where warming is occurring.
GC is stuck in his own myopic universe. He takes a swipe at McElroy and others for arguing that CFCs destroyed the ozone layer, and when the ozone hole decreases in size and extent after the Montreal Protocol is passed claims that it might be due to 'dumb luck'. I don't know how GC, who is not a scientist, can call any qualified expert 'dumb', but then deniers of every persuasion are seriously afflicted with Dunning-Lruger syndrome, as has been well documented. These armchair self-taught "experts" don't actually do science or publish it in recognized journals; they don't attend scientific conferences where these issues are discussed and debated. Instead, they read a few denier screeds, sift through the denial-os-phere blogs, and sit away at their keyboards proclaiming they are the 'real' experts; education and relevant degrees are irrelevant. Note how GC puts the IPCC in quotations when describing in his view the science; again, I am sure he would not do that for WUWT, Climate Depot or any of the shills he supports. This is what deniers do and why, if truth be told, they are an army of laughingstocks.
McElroy.
He was a speaker, a passionate speaker at the Nijmegen 1988 Ozone Symposium.
There, I met the revisionist coorporate thugs for the first time. At some dinner they positively flocked onto me to press the message that McElroy was like a nutter and and radical. They'd infiltrated even the RIVM and worked from there to try destroy the world.
They probably thought I looked like a pushover. Well, I remained inert (I've the mass of neutron star anyway). Too bad. Today I'd have slugged them. Verbally, of course.
"he dismisses surface temperatures for satellite based atmospheric temperatures. But there’s a problem there"
the problem is that the satellite requires a model to get temperatures from. Worse, models that depend on the output of the same climate models to determine what the radiance levels MEAN at the surface or volumes of the atmosphere.
If the climate models can't be used for interpreting and prediction, then the satellite data is unusable.
Jeff Harvey, October 2, 2015:
" I don’t know how GC, who is not a scientist, can call any qualified expert ‘dumb’, but then deniers of every persuasion are seriously afflicted with Dunning-Lruger syndrome, as has been well documented. These armchair self-taught “experts” don’t actually do science or publish it in recognized journals; they don’t attend scientific conferences where these issues are discussed and debated. Instead, they read a few denier screeds."
You got that wrong. I spent twelve years helping to build the worlds' brightest gamma ray source using "Inverse Compton Scattering". This is the process that powers the "Gamma Ray Bursters" that are the most luminous events in the universe. Enjoy the video:
http://www.tunl.duke.edu/web.tunl.2011a.howhigsworks.php
Since retiring in 2002 I have confirmed Ashwin Vasavada's analysis of the Moon's surface temperature:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/a-new-lunar-thermal-model-ba…
The electrons I was working with at Duke moved at a velocity only 60 mph short of light speed. At such extreme velocities time becomes a variable:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/bussard-revisited/
You may make fun of my PAR (Proton Annihilation Rocket) but mankind will need something like that to travel to Kepler 62.
"You got that wrong."
What wrong? Your Walter Mitty. Definitely an incompetent on the subject.
"Since retiring in 2002 "
Ah, right, an old codger dodging the blame of being part of the problem, and relying on a robust market to pay your pension.
"tallbloke.wordpress"
Tallbloke is a denier moron.
"I have confirmed Ashwin Vasavada’s analysis of the Moon’s surface temperature:"
Yet despite this proof of the GHE, you refuse to accept the evidence. You're a denier.
'strewth GC, that splurge at diggingintodirt is industrial grade BS, to quote another, 'are you f****** serious..",
You just gotta be a poe.
Large parts of the cryosphere are in meltown - now how much accumulation of energy does that take?
SLR is a reality, part because of the above but also from thermal expansion.
Why is the stratosphere cooling? Why are nights getting warmer on average at a faster rate than days? Why are the seasons shifting with spring-like events happening earlier and autumn gold later? This coupled with milder winters in many areas are threatening the link between the crops and pollinators and the setting of buds for normal fruit development. Research penology, this isn't all about physics you know.
Now I don't know where you are getting your info from, other than crank tallbloke but the organisations which matter tell a very different story, one that is consistent with what we see going on around us in the wider, more varied world. A world where the biosphere is already responding to the changes that we have triggered, and where extreme weather events are becoming more violent and frequent.
As for such as:
That is a long time to hold a spanner, didn't your arm get tired?
Seriously, it matters little what you tell us you have done if your own words and links betray you as one lost in the world of information. Clearly your ability to sort out the truth from fiction is severely limited.
BTW I spent twenty years helping to prevent WW3 so there!
Aargh! Link salad.
'strewth GC, that splurge at diggingintodirt is industrial grade BS, to quote another, 'are you f****** serious..",
You just gotta be a poe.
Large parts of the cryosphere are in meltown - now how much accumulation of energy does that take?
SLR is a reality, part because of the above but also from thermal expansion.
Why is the stratosphere cooling? Why are nights getting warmer on average at a faster rate than days? Why are the seasons shifting with spring-like events happening earlier and autumn gold later? This coupled with milder winters in many areas are threatening the link between the crops and pollinators and the setting of buds for normal fruit development. Research penology, this isn't all about physics you know.
Now I don't know where you are getting your info from, other than crank tallbloke but the organisations which matter tell a very different story, one that is consistent with what we see going on around us in the wider, more varied world. A world where the biosphere is already responding to the changes that we have triggered, and where extreme weather events are becoming more violent and frequent.
As for such as:
That is a long time to hold a spanner, didn't your arm get tired?
Seriously, it matters little what you tell us you have done if your own words and links betray you as one lost in the world of information. Clearly your ability to sort out the truth from fiction is severely limited.
BTW I spent twenty years helping to prevent WW3 so there!
Global warming denial never dies.
Wow got it right. Another old codger...
GC: what has your background got remotely to do with climate science? That one should be easy to answer. But I will save you the effort.
Nothing.
Like the other deniers who write in here and essentially most across the internet, your views on CC are driven by your own inherent political/economic/scientific bias. Your ineffective swipe at McElroy told me that.
But I digress. You claimed that increased atmospheric C02 concentrations are not driving increases in global temperatures, and had to parrot a deniers site fyi. We are talking about the planet's living surface, the biosphere, where temperatures very certainly have increased. Your argument therefore is invalid.
Until you can come up with anything better, do us all a favor and go away.
Oops my bad, at #83 should be 'Research phenology,...'
But then GC could do with some penology too, how to write stuff that is accurate and makes sense.
As expected none of you can explain why the monotonic rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration has failed to produce the predicted "Catastrophic Global Warming".
So you act like a bunch of juveniles who call people names to cover their own shortcomings.
Jeff Harvey was not big enough to apologize for stating that I am not a scientist. He doubled down by claimed that my knowledge has nothing to do with climate science. Wrong again.
Robinson and Catling published a convective radiative atmospheric model in NatGeo:
http://faculty.washington.edu/dcatling/Robinson2014_0.1bar_Tropopause.p…
This model calculates temperature from a body's surface through the troposphere, through the tropopause and through the stratosphere. The model performed well when tested against observations on all seven bodies in the solar system.
On the face of it an amazing piece of work but is it just "curve fitting"?
You can read my opinion here:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-…
Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree can you cite a better model than Robinson & Catling's?
Those of you who take the trouble to read that lengthy letter in NatGeo will notice that the R&C model does not include clouds. Currently I am working to add clouds to the R&C model.
Lionel A,
About 20,000 years ago the Earth started to recover from a glaciation. Since then continental ice has been melting causing sea level to rise:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
Notice that the rate of sea level rise is much lower than it was, mainly because there is very little continental ice left. The total ice inventory is ~30,000,000 Giga-tonnes and the rate of melting is ~300 Giga-tonnes/year.
So you are right to claim that Greenland is melting along with other continental ice but it will take roughly 10,000 years at the present rate to finish the job.
The present inter-glacial is not as warm as some of the previous ones. Today we have 3,200 meters of ice at the GISP site yet the oldest ice there dates from only 70,000 years ago. This would imply that it was much warmer back then.
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/12/28/dorothy-behind-the-cu…
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/dorothy-behind-the-cu…
GC.
You claim to be a scientist, but you employ logical fallacy in your spurious questions about CO2 and warming.
Rebuttal of your fallacious thinking is well dispersed across the internet, but if you are sincere in wanting an expert answer to your question I suggest that you ask Tamino. This is his Thing, and he publishes in the peer-reviewed scientific literature on this subject, so if you are genuine you will put it to him at the earliest opportunity.
Of course, if you are just spreading emeritus emeritus crap you'll just bluster here and avoid Open Mind like the plague.
Bloody 'smart' phone...
GC, may I ask you a question?
Given the known science of CO2 forcing, is the currently observed increase in mean global temperature inconsistent with the physics? If you claim that it is, what is your mathematical proof?
GC, OK I apologize. You are a crappy scientist. Is that better? I'd like to see your bonafides. How many of your papers are on the Web of Science? How often were they cited? And why write your Earth-shattering opinions on denier blogs? Why aren't they being published in the peer-reviewed journals?
My guess is that you hardly published anything, and certainly nothing that us well cited. The fact that you deny the link between atmospheric C02 concentrations and surface warming is instructive. Of course there is a strong connection and that is why >95% of the scientific community, including leaders in the field of climate science, agree.
I am a well published scientist GC, so I know very well how the system works. I also know that there is a parallel universe on the internet that lives in its own myopic world and which tends to avoid mainstream venues, publications and debates. You are part of it. Deniers for the most part do not do their own primary research but either put their garbage up on blogs where it is not scrutinized by experts, or else they cherry pick studies they like and distort the meaning of what the authors were actually saying. You are doing both.
... and your blog Digging in the Clay DOES NOT count as a serious scientific site. Heck, your blog roll is a potpourri of anti-science sites. I want to see your peer-reviewed publications that are in reputable journals.
We all know here what your reply will be. You don't have any. End of story, GC. As I said, go away.
Because nobody predicts catastrophic global warming yet.
Only morons think it even exists.
Disagree.
"Of course, if you are just spreading emeritus emeritus crap"
He's not emeritus, he plays one on the internet.
Nope, bullshit.
The graph has nowhere near the resolution and by denier canard, IS FLAT. No rise at all.
the peak of the interglacial warm period is very short and then begins to decline. This is what it was doing for the last 8000 years until the recent century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
Notice that sea levels aren't temperature measures.
And this won't be the case: it will increase markedly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltwater_pulse_1A
Nope, its warmer.
That Vostok temperature is based on the 1950's thirty year average, and we've gone up by over 1C since then, and polar amplification means for the same location, we're something around 4-6C warmer than the endpoint location.
Well past any previous value in the last million years.
No it doesn't.
You know NOTHING about the climate, nor sea levels, nor anything relevant to what you pontificate on, all you have are denier BS repeated again and again as some sort of charm against being wrong.
Repetition in the face of contrary facts doesn't mean it's right.
You're an ignorant old fart pretending to know shit when you know nothing at all.
Hell, you don't even know how ice melts.
GC splurges:
We bloody well know that and why - different boundary conditions. Here this will help you:
Thomas M Cronin
1 Paleoclimates: Understanding Climate Change Past and Present
Hunt Janin, Scott A. Mandia
1 Rising Sea Levels: An Introduction to Cause and Impact
David Archer
1 Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast
see also: http://forecast.uchicago.edu/lectures.html
David Archer & Ray Pierrehumbert
1 The Warming Papers - a collection of papers from two centuries of atmospheric science see:
https://books.google.com.au/books/about/The_Warming_Papers.html?id=lhzK…
2 The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth's Climate
William F Ruddiman
1 Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate
2 Earth's Climate, Past and Future
3 Earth Transformed
see also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TOTsmqgmL8
and you have the nerve to offer diggingintodirst as a source - not even fit for blog paper.
OK brains, if true, tell us what is very different about today's world and why the differences matter.
Oh and GC here is another valuable resource that you should study.
Bonus points if you can re-iterate what Lonnie Thompson reported on from South America that surprised him!
Is Galloping Camel so stupid as to not see these statements are contradictory? Or is he just stupid enough to think that we wouldn't notice?
Each is logically fallacious of and by itself as well, but I'm more impressed that one mind can hold both despite their mutual exclusivity. If Galloping Camel has anything better than a sack of hammers for a brain, he must have an alar like a blade of Ramston steel...(Patrick Rothfuss fans will get it; others may need a well-known search engine).
It was fun while it lasted.
Tomorrow I will be back to work teaching quantum electro-optics. I hope some of the students will be as feisty as y'all but less inclined to name calling.
And so the camel gallops away as soon as he is caught out, suddenly remembering important teaching work to prevent him posting again. Somehow, I manage to post between my important UN addresses, running a small African country and curing cancer, but I guess a camel doesn't have my mad time-management skillz...
Just to be explicit on my last:
1. GC concedes that current temperatures are more than sufficient to melt all of Greenlands ice.
2. GC remarks on the absence of ice older than 70,000 years ago and concludes that this "implies" temperatures were much higher.
Therefore current temperatures are both sufficient (1) and insufficient (2) to melt the GIC. Marvellous!
In fact, given that there is a lag between temperatures and melt rates (due to the time taken for heat to penetrate deeper into the icecap) the opposite of GC's claim is all we can infer: clearly current temperatures are sufficient to prevent overall accumulation. Temperatures from 70,000 years ago permitted overall accumulation. Therefore temperatures from 70,000 years ago must have been much cooler than today. QED.
I hope quantum electro-optics doesn't require a minimal grasp of syllogistic logic, because if it does, the camel's students are in for a world of hurt...
Time for some other denier to dish up the faux-bonhomie...the camels left, y'all (rolls eyes).
"It was fun while it lasted"
if you consider self-humiliation fun, then by all means it was.
"It was fun while it lasted. "
what? Your trolling?
It's damn certain your inadequacies on the subject won't stop you proclaiming denier BS as fact, so I'm wondering what else it could be.
"Tomorrow I will be back to work teaching quantum electro-optics"
Yeah, right. After you visit the Queen of Sheba for your weekly backrub.
You forget you already said you have retired.
Wow,
I un-retired back in 2006:
http://www.bdidatalynk.com/PeterMorcombe.html
Wow,
You should be happy to hear that I will retire again in 2017.
That will enable me to spend more time helping you folks understand that "Global Warming" is a blessing rather than a problem.
May you all achieve enlightenment.
Tim Lambert,
While I seldom agree with you or your followers I am impressed by the fact that you do not censor comments.
This raises you in my esteem compared to your rivals "Down Under" such as John Kook's "Skeptical Science" and Barry Brook's "Brave New Climate".
"That will enable me to spend more time helping you folks understand that “Global Warming” is a blessing rather than a problem"
This comment from GC alone disqualifies him from being taken seriously. It reflects a profound ignorance of the relationship between biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and human well-being, and ignores the fact that warming will (already is) unraveling species interactions, food webs and communities in ways that makes them much more prone to collapse. This was made clear in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2006 and is clearly illustrated in thousands of studies in the empirical literature which GC has neither read nor understands. Its this well of ignorance that me and my fellow ecologists are up against. All of this is over GCs head, as he has never studied complex adaptive systems. So he parades his ignorance here and on his appalling blog for all to see.
By the way, GC, I looked you up on the ISI Web of Science. As expected, there was not much there to impress me.
... as addendum, I'd like to know how someone who studies fiber optics thinks they are experts in environmental and climate science. The mind boggles...
"someone who studies fiber optics"
Apparently thinking they're fibres you can see.
"“Global Warming” is a blessing rather than a problem"
Yeah, right. Just like the murder of children in the bible is an example of god's mercy, since they're now sinless (uh, what happened to original sin,guys) and are going to heaven, whereas before they would grow up believing in the "wrong" god, and go to hell.
"You should be happy to hear that I will retire again in 2017. "
Why? I couldn't give a rats ass about your work status. All that happened is you claimed to be a retired eminent engineer/physicist and then claimed to be a not-yet-retired teacher.
Obviously your earlier retirement must have been because you were crap at your job and it was leave or get pushed out at altitude.
I think GC missed his calling, he would make a useful brain surgeon but would need to practice on his first - if he could find it. The D-K is strong in this one.
Isn't it curious how his type always flounce off only to mince back within a day or so.
for stating that I am not a scientist
Regardless of whether you were once a scientist, you are an ignorant and intellectually dishonest imbecile and an ideological hack.
Tim Lambert,
While I seldom agree with you or your followers I am impressed by the fact that you do not censor comments.
You're so fucking stupid. You might as well thank a piece of paper for letting you write on it. Tim is not active here.
ianam,
If Tim Lambert is not active who deserves the credit for the moderation policy here?
gc:
Global warming is still occurring at the rate of around 1.8 degrees C/century. Most months in the past year have been warmer than this long term trend. This rate of global warming will produce catastrophes sooner or later.
Why do you only care about the warming that has happened so far? Are you too old to care about the future such as the next century?
@Chris O'Neill,
Gistemp is funded by the US federal government. The UAH satellite record is also federally funded.
UAH shows no temperature rise in the last 18 years while Gistemp soars. They can't both be right so please tell me why you choose to believe NOAA GISS given their shameless data tampering.
I went to NOAA in Asheville in 2010 to meet with Tom Peterson who gave me access to the v3 dataset (I already had the v2 version);
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/12/28/dorothy-behind-the-cu…
The question you need to ask NOAA/GHCN and NASA/GISS is "Were you lying then or are you lying now?" You can't get away with this kind of fraud when so many people have stored the earlier versions on their hard drives.
So are current temperatures warm enough to melt the GIC, or not? Camel, the question you need to answer is “Were you lying then or are you lying now?”
How easy is that game?
"Gistemp is funded by the US federal government. The UAH satellite record is also federally funded."
And GisTEMP uses thermometers, whilst UAH needs an atmospheric model and observation of humidity,pressure, etc to arrive at some guess as to the temperature.
GISTEMP figures and corrections are publicly available, UAH code isn't.
"UAH shows no temperature rise in the last 18 years"
Nope, it doesn't.
Also, RSS. USED to be the deniers' favourite until they FINALLY fixed a bug in the processing.
"while Gistemp soars. They can’t both be right so please tell me why you choose to believe NOAA GISS"
Because GISS is far more reliable. And, unlike satellites, read surface temps, where we live, rather than the atmosphere, where even birds only temporarily reside.
" given their shameless data tampering."
Given they haven't been shamelessly tampering, your lies are shameless.
Is fraud why you left your job?
gc:
You are simply wrong. UAH does not show no temperature rise in the last 18 years. It simply fails to show whether there is or isn't a temperature rise because it is so noisy and inaccurate. UAH has a 95% confidence interval of 0.079± 0.179 ℃/decade while GIStemp's is the statistically significant 0.118± 0.105 ℃/decade. Thus GIStemp's warming estimate falls entirely within UAH's confidence interval.
UAH does not disagree with the warming estimate of GIStemp. It's just not as accurate as GIStemp. There is nothing wrong with UAH being so noisy. It's simply a fact of the thing that it measures (the whole bottom 8,000 metres or so of the atmosphere).
They can actually. But one is not as accurate as the other.
So global warming has not stopped. Sooner or later the catastrophes will mount up, even if you ignore the "relatively" small catastrophes that are already happening: 150,000 deaths annually.
Re: #16 and #18 - my bad, I was thinking of TMT, which has its peak response at around 8,000 metres.
The UAH TLT band includes some input from up to 13,000 metres, but over 90% of the weighting is 8,000 metres and below.
Note that UAH version 6 was released earlier this year, which reduced the contribution of surface temperatures by 1/3rd, raised the peak response altitude by 2 kilometres and (amazingly, not) reduced the warming trend (but didn't eliminate it.
GC doubles down on his dishonesty. Anytime a denier chooses a time period (in his case 18 years) so that the data starts at the largest El Nino in modern times it just shows how dishonest they are. For GC's information, cherry picking is one of the most dishonest things AGW deniers do. He is no scientist since true scientists abhor dishonesty and lies.
@Ian Forrester,
"True scientists abhor dishonesty and lies"
Finally something I can agree with. Unfortunately it is the climate alarmists and governments around the world that are lying. You are one of the "Useful Idiots" who give this gigantic scam legs.
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/12/16/countering-consensus-…
Here is a little light relief from your morbid fascination with climate catastrophe. If you really don't like it here on Earth, why not seek pastures new such as Kepler 62:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/bussard-revisited/
What a nasty person you are. Hundreds of thousands of people are dying and all you care about is a little light relief.
gc:
Who was it who lied that UAH shows no temperature rise in the last 18 years and that UAH and GIStemp cannot both be right?
Finally GC admits he is not a true scientist since he lies all the time. Thank you for admitting your dishonesty.
"What a nasty person you are. Hundreds of thousands of people are dying and all you care about is a little light relief."
Remember, it's not happening to him, and the cost *may* come out of his pocket (though the increased spending on new technology would increase the market and economic uplift therefrom would more likely lead to him being BETTER OFF), so it doesn't matter of some impoverished wogs die.
Following 4 centuries of the coldest period in the Holocene we have enjoyed 0.76c of warming for the last 165 years since the end of that little ice age.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1850/trend
Have the Doltoids worked out how much of that warming might be due to ACO2 yet?
Considering average natural climate variability is around 1c per century?
And that warming is about half Nat Var?
Will they be able to face the facts or will they just pause for a while until they can lock up the sceptics:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11924776/Judges-plan-to-outlaw-clima…
Quelle science! What does it remind of?
http://galileo.rice.edu/bio/narrative_7.html
sd:
1.0 ℃ in the last century.
Why do you think we would do climate scientists' job for them? Oh, that's right, just another silly question from a drongo.
Well, at least you're good at writing fiction.
It's amazing how little reality is in a denier post, isn't it?
Weird. It's like they don't CARE that it's empty BS, they just want to say it, as if saying it three times makes it appear.
And Wow makes my point beautifully.
Go on, have a go, Wowie, see if you can deal with the real issue and not this crap you are really pushing:
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-AXhzg12yOI8/VIP_CPD2B9I/AAAAAAAAgac/…
Still got bugger all?
You've made no claim as to what you intend by your first link. No claim at all.
The second link has a claim that is a false dichotomy or vacillation error associated with it. YOU claim the alternatives, but have no evidence those ARE the alternatives.
And nothing about your third link is claimed.
So what are we meant to do with this empty post, spanky? What "point" can I "prove" when there was nothing said in the post I replied to?
And a googleuser content link???? What claim are you supposing to make from that?
Again, a complete lack of any content AT ALL from a denier. Yet an attitude that implies that there is something there, other than the vaguest of hints impossible to assess as to their validity or error.
Oh, by the way, we outlaw lies all the time.
ESPECIALLY in court.
Good grief, what a joke this scrambled donkey is. The link he gives does not even spell the person's name correctly. It should be "Ottmar Edenhofer". If you google the incorrect spelling you find that a large number of denier sites used the wrong spelling, the same as the scrambled donkey. If deniers cannot even get someone's name right what are the chances that anything else in a link using the incorrect spelling is also correct? My guess is zero.
No claim, Wow? Can't you read?
And I asked a question which as usual you can't answer.
Did you mean to say you TELL lies all the time?
No, IFFY, it's just your comprehension that's zero.
When you have a name, a photo and a statement and you are still in denial, that sums up your honesty pretty well.
"No claim, Wow?"
Yes, no claim. Which is why you didn't make one this time either.
" Can’t you read?"
Yes. I can. Can you?
You better read it again and try harder this time, Wowsie.
My claim is quite easy to understand even for you: total [measured, not reconstructed] warming since the LIA [arguably the longest cold period of the Holocene] is 0.76c which is less than the average natural variability per century during the Holocene.
Goddit now???
Following that, my question was: how much of that less-than-average warming then must be due to ACO2?
That simple enough for you?
BTW, the Doltoids may recall that when we were last discussing SLR and I mentioned that one of the most reliable tide gauges on the east coast was Fort Denison and it had only showed an average SLR of 0.65mm/y for the last century with no acceleration and that Bob Carter had mentioned that the site was sinking by at least a similar amount, you all howled your ridicule and proceeded to butcher the messenger as you so love to do.
Maybe Bob was aware of this:
http://www.sonel.org/spip.php?page=gps&idStation=2405
Actually sinking at 0.89mm/y.
So no SLR on the east coast, as I have been trying to tell you for years, as per my own benchmarks.
Oh Dear!!!
Chris O'Neill, October 11, 2015,
" Hundreds of thousands of people are dying and all you care about is a little light relief."
Many thanks for introducing the moral argument against Climate Alarmism, an evil that wastes untold billions on a non-problem while real problems are ignored.
I met Alex Epstein while he was a undergraduate at Duke university. He impressed me then and even more now he is pointing out the immorality of robbing the poor to feed the rich:
http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com/
sd:
1.0 ℃ in the last century.
Why do you think we would do climate scientists' job for them? Oh, that's right, just another silly question from a drongo.
At least you're good at writing fiction.
I note that gc has given up defending his lies about UAH showing no temperature rise in the last 18 years and that UAH and GIStemp cannot both be right.
These denialists are so shameless.
gc:
So stupid too.
Chris, I credited you with enough intelligence to understand "reconstructed data", that's why I gave you the unadjusted stuff.
Surely even a dyed-in-the-wool alarmist like you is aware of what NASA gets up to which is only being accelerated with the big Paris junket coming up.
Orders is orders, after all.
And it's not just restricted to temperatures. SLs come in for plenty of attention, too:
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ScreenHunter_1…
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ScreenHunter_1…
So, let's just stick with the real warming.
From his photo, you'd think GC was an elder with some wisdom. Not so. His views are straight out of the sandbox:
"Many thanks for introducing the moral argument against Climate Alarmism, an evil that wastes untold billions on a non-problem while real problems are ignored"
Here we go with the triage argument again. Where to begin deconstructing this nonsense? First of all, GC doesn't mention the trillions of dollars the US alone spends killing people in its foreign wars and its military-industrial complex; he doesn't mention the fact that since the 1980s wealth has been concentrated more and more and that US foreign policy in the developing world has been singularly based on looting resources and capital repatriation. That human rights, freedom and democracy are empty slogans used as propaganda for public consumption. These facts alone scupper his vacuous argument. But there's more, of course.
Climate change is already altering communities and ecosystems across the biosphere. Food webs are unraveling trophic chains are being disrupted, and ultimately ecological systems and the services they freely supply to mankind that permits us to exist and to persist are being seriously degraded. Of course this is all over GCs head, like most other related topics. I have read some of his commentaries and they are nauseatingly puerile. Again, he thinks he's some hot shot scientist when the evidence says something quite different. In other words, with respect to climate and environmental science, he does not have a clue what he is talking about.
SD is again relying on denier blogs for his worldview and data. What else is new. These kindergarten-level sites are where all of the deniers glean their information. Since none of them have any relevant expertise, this is their 'world'.
Note SDs latest comic book contribution. His graph. Where in the empirical literature was this copy-pasted from? It wasn't. It comes from some shill blog he inhabits.
That is why among the actual experts people like SD and others on blogs are laughingstocks at best and ignored completely at worst. They claim to want 'debate' but since they are an army of lunatics, with virtually no scientists of note among them, one has to wonder what it is they want to debate. The truth is that they don't want to debate the science that they hate. Science is a smokescreen that camouflages their far right deregulatory agendas. In other words, its all about politics and economics.
Jeffy, right on cue, goes on his usual, evidence-free rant.
Got any facts to submit for a change, jeffy?
What's your evidence-based, unadjusted figure for global warming since the LIA?
Oh, that's right, I forgot, you only lap up Gavin-crap. You don't do data.
Just what I was saying. You have pretty much the entire scientific community on one side, complete with page after page of empirical evidence in the scientific journals saying one thing, and then you have a few shills and their acolytes like SD on the other claiming it ain't so. SD comically claims that I don't 'do data' when I work in a different field. But the data are there, collated by the latest IPCC report and agreed upon by >95% of the scientific community. SD is such a dork that he thinks the data is only discussed on blogs. Last time I looked, there were a large number of international conferences where these issues came up or were the central theme. Problem is, SD isn't even on the academic fringe. He's well outside of it and of course neither attends these conferences nor publishes in the scientific literature.
Makes you wonder why every National Academy of Science in every country on Earth, along with every major scientific body agree that AGW is very real and poses a profound threat. I tend to go along with them, and not simpleton silly-billy's like SD.
If truth be told, I am amused by the sheer audacity of people like SD, GC, GSW, Jonas N, Sunspot et al. who have no expertise whatsoever in any field within a light year of environmental or Earth science yet who parade on here as if they know what trained experts in the field don't. The only one who has given me an indication that they know anything relevant is GC, and his field is light years away. The rest are self-professed armchair experts - 'Dunning-Kruger' sufferers who contaminate the blogosphere with their profound ignorance. But again, they are such a funny lot in that they think they know a lot. That is is what amuses me so.
jiffy prefers a discussion in the third person because he can't bear to look anyone in the eye when he spews his garbage.
But at least this shows he feels guilty that his argument is crap.
"page after page of empirical evidence in the scientific journals"
Woo Hoo !!!
But he should try getting it right for a change, he doesn't discuss data on or off blogs. It's completely foreign to him.
He foolishly thinks because the 97% claim has been spruiked over and over by his fraudulent mates it must be right.
His thoughts on the subject are so evidence-free and light weight that he isn't capable of considering something as fundamental, basic and simple as the total unadjusted global warming that has occurred since the LIA and comparing it with what has happened on average over the last few thousand years when human numbers were much less.
And then considering if the ECS is still of concern.
There are other factors that also need to be applied to that modest warming but jiffy couldn't cope with too much at once so I will leave them aside until his brain and/or his courage warms up a bit.
Go on jiff, give it a go. You might learn something.
Chris comments #38:
"average natural climate variability is around 1c per century
At least you’re good at writing fiction."
Well, well, there I go crediting you with too much intelligence again:
http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417
"You better read it again and try harder this time, Wowsie."
I did. STILL nothing.
"My claim is quite easy to understand even for you: total warming since the LIA is 0.76c which is less than the average natural variability per century during the Holocene."
Except it isn't.
Either true OR the claim you made.
"Goddit now???"
Yes, I get that you had to MAKE A CLAIM in this post to actually make a claim. Your original post had NO CLAIM in it.
This claim is wrong, however.
But even if it were true, SO WHAT? It still doesn't mean anything. What are you claiming here now?
Chris, seeing your cred is in such doubt, you'd better take a look at this:
https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2015/09/11/pause-update-september-201…
"Chris, I credited you with enough intelligence to understand “reconstructed data”, that’s why I gave you the unadjusted stuff."
So, GIGO. No quality control on the data. And quality control isn't reconstruction. It's quality control.
"And it’s not just restricted to temperatures. SLs come in for plenty of attention, too: "
What claim are you pretending to make NOW???
"Chris, seeing your cred is in such doubt, you’d better take a look at this:"
Why should he? What are you claiming it will prove?
"Well, well, there I go crediting you with too much intelligence again:"
All you've done is claim you think he's dumb.
Where is your evidence?
Wowsie wisdom:
"I did. STILL nothing."
That's OK wowse, just go back to bed and I promise I won't disturb that tiny mind again.
If average climate natural variability as per that paper is 0.98c per century and total global warming since the LIA is ~ 0.8c [about half average NV] then it is quite reasonable to claim that the GHG effect of ACO2 is non-existent. Simply conjecture. It can't be measured.
When these warming temperatures measurements have all occurred since the industrial revolution and most of the long-term thermometers are in UHI areas which are getting hotter all the time and not being taken into consideration by the gate keepers, ECS could well be a negative quantity.
http://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/12/summary-urbanization-bias-papers…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rm4zUJ48rE
"“I did. STILL nothing.”
That’s OK wowse,"
Yup, nothing again.
Pity deniers don't know (or care) that they aren't actually capable of making a claim.
"If average climate natural variability as per that paper is 0.98c per century and total global warming since the LIA is ~ 0.8c [about half average NV] then it is quite reasonable to claim that the GHG effect of ACO2 is non-existent."
No it isn't.
Because it doesn't make any sense to ignore the GHG effects.
"and most of the long-term thermometers are in UHI areas which are getting hotter all the time and not being taken into consideration by the gate keepers"
Not when you go ahead and remove their adjustments in the crusade against "reconstructed data". You see, in the "RECONSTRUCTED" data, the UHI effect is taken care of. Indeed it likely is overadjusted.
So next time, if you want to account for the UHI effect, don't use raw data, use the corrected dataset from, for example, GISSTemp.
Strange why SD doesn't try and explain why every major scientific organization on the planet verifies both the reality of AGW and the serious consequences of not dealing with it.
Well, its not so strange really. SD believes that these organizations do not exist. Nor does the IPCC, or the opinions of the vast majority of scientists. He seems to think the debate is confined to a few idiots like him.
Spangles conveniently links to a copy behind a paywall, hoping we will take the conclusion on faith. But facta non verba and all that, so I found a copy that was not paywalled, read it, and let me just say, "Hahahahahahahahaha! What an idiot."
If Drongo is plugging this paper having actually read it (which I doubt), let me just say, "Hahahahahahahahaha! What an idiot."
And if he is plugging it without having read it, let me just say, "Hahahahahahahahaha! What an idiot."
For those with nothing better to do with a few minutes, and get a laugh at stupid-old-Dunning-Kruger-petro-engineers-who-think-they-are-scientists, here you go (place hot beverages in a safe place now): http://www.researchgate.net/publication/276276180_An_Estimate_of_The_Ce…
The paper contains several fatal problems, but the best is a statistical boner so epic that it just made me laugh (see above). This error is so obvious I won't insult the collective intelligence by labouring the point. But if Drongo doesn't get it, I will happily do so (both labour the point, and insult his intelligence). Is that what you want, Drongo?
But I'll say this much: Having read Drongo's rubbish for years, I had thought his claims couldn't get any stupider. But this latest is definitely a candidate.
sd, you won't be getting any credit for understanding the difference between the whole world and a cherry-picked part of it. BTW, your beloved HADCRUT3 cherry-pick show more than 0.8 ℃ in a century.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we know all about the conspiracy.
Since when is global temperature the same thing as sea level?
sd:
Gee you're a dumb clown. Of course you're going to get much greater variation in temperature from effectively just two localities in the world compared with the entire world average.
sd:
It's a pity you weren't paying attention (at best) when I pointed out above:
"UAH does not show no temperature rise in the last 18 years. It simply fails to show whether there is or isn’t a temperature rise because it is so noisy and inaccurate. UAH has a 95% confidence interval of 0.079± 0.179 ℃/decade while GIStemp’s is the statistically significant 0.118± 0.105 ℃/decade. Thus GIStemp’s warming estimate falls entirely within UAH’s confidence interval.
UAH does not disagree with the warming estimate of GIStemp. It’s just not as accurate as GIStemp. There is nothing wrong with UAH being so noisy. It’s simply a fact of the thing that it measures (the whole bottom 8,000 metres or so of the atmosphere).
GIStemp and UAH are both right. UAH is just not as accurate as the GIStemp.
So global warming has not stopped. People who pretend it has are just dumb clowns.
@Jeff Harvey,
"First of all, GC doesn’t mention the trillions of dollars the US alone spends killing people in its foreign wars and its military-industrial complex;."
I guess you could not defend the alleged death toll that Chris imagines to be caused by a non-existent Climate Catastrophe, so you switched the subject yet again.
As it happens I don't like the military industrial complex any better than you Marxists do. Take a look at this discussion about the funding of research in American universities:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/08/01/the-business-of-american-uni…
For 12 years I danced to the tune of the federal officials but I did not have to like it. The trouble with "Climate Scientists" is that they feed from the same trough and they love it.
"I guess you could not defend the alleged death toll that Chris imagines to be caused by a non-existent Climate Catastrophe"
I guess you only listen to the voices in your head.
Try visiting the real world and read what Chris and Jeff are saying.
"UAH is just not as accurate as the GIStemp"
So you think providing warm reconstruction under orders and inclination is more accurate science, eh?
"Gee you’re a dumb clown. Of course you’re going to get much greater variation in temperature from effectively just two localities in the world compared with the entire world average."
Can't quite see the logic in that.
But silly me. I should have remembered you can only use these proxies to show the CAGW argument.
The hubris of the Doltoid argument from authority continues. They just don't do data.
When they refuse to consider that below average warming since coming out of the coldest period in the history of civilisation totally fails to support their case for catastrophic greenhouse but instead supports the logical natural variability of climate to only a mild extent...
When they refuse to consider that satellite recordings of temperature which agree with millions of radiosonde balloons and likewise avoid the UHIE show no warming for the last 18+ years in spite of record greenhouse emissions...
But instead embrace data reconstruction produced by gatekeepers who have continually demonstrated their similar alarmist inclinations and are now being pressured to make the best warmist case for Paris...
A normal, sceptical person has to ask themselves why they would do this.
And of course the answer is they are either after an ever increasing slice of the huge taxpayer funds being wasted here, they are believers in the Edenhofer philosophy as linked above or they simply embrace it as the new religion.
@spangled drongo,
"They just don’t do data."
I think you nailed it right there. All they have is juvenile insults. No wonder they hide in this little echo chamber.
@Wow,
Where is your evidence for a huge death toll? Where are the bodies?
Don't you love it when veritable Dunning-Krugerites GC and SD try and take the scientific high ground with nonsensical quips like, 'they don't do data'?
I have 159 papers on the Web of Science with 4639 citations and an h-factor of 40. I most certainly do analyze data guys. A helluva lot more than you both do. I would like to see where you both do your 'data' in relevant fields other than on blogs. Where are the peer-reviewed papers? The fact is that the pages of these journals are filled with papers full of data proving that AGW s very real and is having effects on complex adaptive systems. Since neither of you has ever published a paper in a peer-reviewed journal on a relevant topic, methinks you ought to put up or shut up. The scientific community by and large has moved on to talk about the effects of AGW and solutions. That it is down to us is well beyond doubt. And with this year being by miles the warmest in recorded history, bolstered by a huge El Nino, deniers like you two are melting away.
The way SD writes, one would think that the debate on GW began yesterday and that this is the starting point. Of course I argue by authority. Every major scientific body on Earth verifies the reality of AGW and its seriousness. Every major conference that discusses it takes it as a 'given'. This means that the scientific community including all of the data crunchers are in broad agreement. Its clots like SD who try desperately to give the impression that our understanding of GW is still in its infancy.
If SD and GC were top scientists I'd be inclined to at least give them some attention. But they aren't. Both are on the fringe at the very best, but pound their chests trying to give the impression that they are experts. If they want to do data, then why not go to a major scientific conference where these issues are the main theme? Why venture onto blogs? The answer is obvious - they'd be laughed out of any scientific venue - so they end up as flotsam here where they vainly try and take the high ground.
The this from our emeritus moron:
"As it happens I don’t like the military industrial complex any better than you Marxists do."
Not even worthy of a polite response. Its sandbox level stuff coming from a bitter old man.
Get a life.
"I have 159 papers on the Web of Science with 4639 citations and an h-factor of 40."
So you keep telling us, Jeffy luv.
Yet when it comes to your religious rapture in CAGW you always fail to produce evidence.
How scientific is that?
A much smarter scientist than you always said that "science is the belief in the ignorance of experts" and you personify that remark perfectly.
"Yet when it comes to your religious rapture in CAGW you always fail to produce evidence"
Wake up SD! Its not my job to provide you with evidence for AGW (no need to add the C - yet) on a blog! What are you - some kind of nut? Its all there in the IPCC reports, and in page after page after page in scientific journals. Its also discussed and debated and argued over at reputable international conferences. There is so much data that every major scientific body in every nation on the planet acknowledges it. You appear to think that evidence for AGW hinges on what we say here at Deltoid. How dumb is that?
I have my own science to do and I defer to the experts who are in the relevant fields. YOU ARE NOT AN EXPERT AND DO NOT DO RESEARCH ON GW. Neither do I but I accept what they agree upon. The evidence is in and its over. Now we need to find ways to deal with GW before it so simplifies natural systems that they are unable to function effectively. There is evidence already pointing in that direction.
Repeat that until it sinks into your head. When every huge scientfic organization draws consensus then that means something. Do you think that climate scientists listen to an anonymous entity like you? Seriously? That they want to lower themselves into the benthos to debate a layman with an axe to grind? I am only pointing out the obvious. I do research on plant-insect communities and soil ecology. I do know that warming is having very real effects on a range of ecosystems and their biota. I leave it up to the climate science community to look for causation. I believe them over a few laymen with delusions of grandeur like you and GC. Sorry.
“They just don’t do data.”
No, GC, they are like the religious in the days of Galileo.
Much rather contemplate angels on the heads of pins.
Just look at jeffy go!
How fast can you travel without the weight of evidence In your saddle bags?
"YOU ARE NOT AN EXPERT AND DO NOT DO RESEARCH ON GW."
Jeff, when we are all aware of the small amount of warming and SLR that has taken place after centuries of the coldest period in civilisation you don't have to be a climate scientist to suspect that little bit of warming could be due to many other things besides ACO2/GHGE generated warming.
None of your "experts" can quantify this warming except to get their ever more incorrect GCMs to make ever wilder projections that are diverging further from reality by the day.
When scientists can't properly assess the chaos of weather and climate forcings and feedbacks how can they ever get their GCMs right?
To be anything other than sceptical of climate science is feeble-minded cult worship.
Your consensual science - that no true scientist should ever remain unsuspicious of - eventually becomes a hugely unaffordable joke.
What does it take for you to face reality and be scientifically sceptical about this crazy charade?
Climate changes. Always has, always will, but there is nothing happening with climate now that hasn't happened before.
"Don’t you love it when veritable Dunning-Krugerites GC and SD try and take the scientific high ground with nonsensical quips like, ‘they don’t do data’? "
Especially after they try to show data to make a point and it fails.
Unfortunately it looks like galloping dysentry is our latest hanger-on. And worse, he's as dumb a fuck as any of the other deniers.
Pity.
"Of course I argue by authority."
And deniers argue by it all the time.
See, for example, Dyson. Or by argumentum ad populum: how many people "know" it's a scam is PROOF it's a scam!
Only when the argument is proof against them is it a fallacy.
Because they have no shame. Or intelligence.
"Where is your evidence for a huge death toll? Where are the bodies?"
We bury our dead.
Sorry. No chow time for you, dearie.
And talk about nonsqeuitur! It's as if the only proof of AGW is a death toll!!!
No.
However, GISSTemp is not providing a warming reconstruction under orders and inclination.
it's an accurate record of the warming anomalies around the world, taking into account the reduction needed for some stations that are showing a trend increased by the UHI effect.
You think that a model that uses other models to guess at the surface (ish) temperature that shows less of a trend by virtue of its methodology, whose code and methods are hidden and still not revealed is more accurate MERELY BECAUSE IT SHOwS LESS OF A TREND?
Because it is devastating to your case.
And just too smart for you. It's not taught until 10th grade maths.
More reason for scepticism. Here's a previously unknown cooling feedback that the climate scientists didn't include in the models:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/30/massive_global_cooling_factor_d…
That should read: didn't "correctly" include in the models
Spangled Dumbo,
So if you are such a genuius why is your brilliant analysis confined to blogs? Why do i not see your stunning results in scientific journals? I want to see them go through vigorous peer-review. Put up or shut up.
Right now this is where the scientific community is at:
1. Its warming well beyond rates that could be caused by natural forcings.
2. Based on a huge data set and on models, it has been concluded well beyond a reasonable doubt that the human burning of fossil fuels is the primary driver behind this warming.
3. If nothing is done, and we continue to burn fossil fuels at the rate that we are, then this will drive the climate system to produce surface temperatures well above what natural and managed ecosystems are adapted to. Normally such changes would take many thousands of years. They are occurring in a century or less.
4. The consequences for ecosystems across the biosphere are dire. Food webs will (already are) unravel, systems will break down, extinctions will spike and ecological services that sustain us will be reduced or eliminated.
5. Urgent measures are required to mitigate these effects. If the temeprature is allowed to exceed 2-3 C in the time span predicted, then humanity is in deep trouble. We simply do not have the technology to counter the destruction to our ecological life support systems.
This is where the debate is currently situated amongst the vast majority of scientists. You aren't even remotely qualified to comment on it because if you were, we'd see your papers in the rigid journals. You would not be an anonymous nobody on blogs. Science has moved on from the 'íts natural' perspective. Well on. Its known who the major culrpit is in various aspects of global change including climate. We are.
Chris @60 raises an interesting question. Wolfgang Pauli is reputed to have commented on some sub-standard work: "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!". I thought this was the worst criticism that could be made, but I'm revising that opinion.
Chris correctly identifies where the paper is "not even wrong". But that is only the second worst error in the paper, IMO. The worst is simply wrong, but so fundamentally wrong that it is even worse than the normally-ultimate "nicht einmal falsch". An error that the neophyte stats student, say Year 8 or 9, is cautioned against.
Drongo's statistical chops are such that he can only wave away Chris's devastating comment with "Can’t quite see the logic in that." No, I imagine he can't - but this argument from ignorance is as flatulent as anything Drongo has ever said here. And I imagine he'll have even less of a clue about the following, but I'll cut to the chase.
You can't determine the global variation at intervals by calculating the station variation and then averaging those, as the author does. This is the stats equivalent of breaking BODMAS rules (the acronym varies, but should be familiar). I'm honestly gobsmacked anyone would put their name to such idiocy.
Variation then average, as per this paper? No! Average then variation! That is, after all, what the author, and Drongo, are comparing it to - the variation in the averaged data from thousands of stations. The author should have averaged the points from the multiple (well, four, pathetically enough) stations and then calculated the variation. The author has failed the most basic understanding of what he is supposedly trying to do.
To add to my last comment, like other brainless deniers who write in here from time to time, SD has not got a clue about the importance of scale. Of the scale required to turn a stochastic process into a deterministic one, and how much forcing is required to shift a deterministic process out of equilibrium in a short time. Not a friggin' clue. I see it all the time with these simpletons who are seriously afflicted with D-K syndrome. They aren't trained in any relevant fields but think they know more than those with pedigree. They don't. Not even close. SD cannot debate his way out of a soaking wet paper bag. He avoids the reality - that AGW is taken as given by the scientific community, and focuses on pedantics. And if Galileo were alive today, he would not in a million years associate with this bunch of thugs. Its actually a smear of a great scientist like him to even suggest that he would.
As for authority, the Faily Express yesterday ran a hilarious story about a 'top geologist' who dimisses AGW. This 'top geologist' is an old guy with 2 papers in his scientific career with 2 citations. It shows how utterly desperate the denial community is to be scraping up detritus from the anoxic layer and parading them as 'top experts'. As Wow said, they try and argue from authority, but there are so few qualified scientists in their ranks that any Tom, Dick, Harry, or drunk who says what they want to believe is called a 'top scientist'.
Jeff, can I just point out that referencing your citations, patents and so on is genuinely impressive to the non-idiots here, but counterproductive with reference to the morons you are addressing these to.
The don't understand, they will never understand, however many times you tell them. They wouldn't know the significance of an h-factor if it bit them on the arse, but they know its important to you so they will simply use it to troll you.
And they do. Every time.
Just sayin'.
Lastly, the appalling article SD lined to is published in Energy and Environment. Home journal for contrarians. Impact factor 0.15. Virtually invisible. A comic book IMHO.
'Nuff said.
I understand Frank. Why else would SD make a big issue out of a paper in E & E?
Following on my 85, if anyone doesn't quite get this - Drongo, pay attention - below is a worked example. Lets take an analogy from the relatively uncontroversial area of track and field athletics.
At the last world championships, the men's triple jump saw the medallists post the following results in the six rounds of competition:
Rd 1 | Rd 2 | Rd 3 | Rd 4 | Rd 5 | Rd 6 |
16.85|17.49|17.60|17.68|17.22|18.21|
17.52|17.44|17.60|17.33|17.52|17.73|
17.28|17.08|17.29|17.14|17.37|17.52|
The average and standard deviation between rounds for each competitor were 17.51 (0.34), 17.52 (0.10), 17.28 (0.11).
Suppose I want to know the round-to-round variation in the competition (analagous to the global average temperature variation between centuries). This idiot would have us believe that the way to do this is to average the variations of the individual jumper's (0.34, 0.10, 0.11) giving a result of 0.19. The other result is the derision of peers, because that is completely wrong.
If I want to know the global inter-round variation, I must first average the results and then calculate the variation:
Rd 1 | Rd 2 | Rd 3 | Rd 4 | Rd 5 | Rd 6 |
17.22|17.34|17.50|17.38|17.37|17.82|
Average 17.44, Standard Deviation 0.10.
So not only is this result little more than have the nonsensical average of the individual variations, it is actually smaller (at the third decimal place) than the smallest individual variation!
I would bet a shiny penny that if one performed the process correctly on the data used that one would find a similar result - a much, much, smaller global centennial variation than claimed based on his bullshit mathturbation.
tl;dr probably. But elementary mistakes imply total ignorance, so you really have to go from first principles.
for "have" in the third-last para of my last, read "half".
"Here’s a previously unknown cooling feedback that the climate scientists didn’t include in the models:"
Which is far less than the warming ones.
Which you've completely forgotten about.
Quelle suprise.
gc:
I'm not imagining anything. Simply quoting the World Health Organization. Obviously you're too dumb to notice the difference.
sd:
Of course you don't see it. you are far too dumb and ignorant to see it.
sd:
Too dumb to understand the point and too dumb to say anything more than a conspiracy theory.
sd:
Just pathologically dumb. I already explained that UAH does not show no warming which is patently obvious from the confidence interval of its trend: 0.079± 0.179 ℃/decade. To show no warming, the confidence interval would have to be entirely non-positive. Instead, the confidence interval spans from -0.1 to +0.258 ℃/decade. So UAH can't tell us that it's not warming or that it's not cooling with just 18 years of data. UAH can only tell us that it could be either. There is just too much noise in UAH to tell from it what sign the underlying trend is.
I go and get the data about the confidence intervals of UAH etc. and this clown says "They just don’t do data"? What an incredibly stupid claim.
Poor foolish Chris thinks that data from less than 1% of the globe is going to contain more data than 100% of the globe.
That's right, Chris dear, those scientists would have CHERRYPICKED that data.
And the only data you DO is when you DO it over with false reconstruction and throw away the original.
Just look Gavin in the eye and ask him how confident he is his reconstructions.
If you're too stupid to recognise this scam you're not fit to offer your "authoritative" opinion on climate.
OK FrankD, tell us in your own words what YOU think is a reasonable natural variability temperature per century for the last 80 centuries.
And if you think: "UAH does not disagree with the warming estimate of GIStemp."
You better look again:
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/07-comparison-1998-start…
Has it ever crossed your mind, Chris, why Gavin's reconstructions are diverging from the satellite records at such an accelerating rate?
When not so long back they used to agree?
Could it be that the cooling just completely undermines the whole religion of climate science?
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/figure-intro-5.png
And you have the stupidity to question why so many people are a just little sceptical.
"Poor foolish Chris thinks that data from less than 1% of the globe is going to contain more data than 100% of the globe."
The globe is 100% of the globe, spanky. And that's where Chris gets his data from. Where do YOU think he gets it from???
"That’s right, Chris dear, those scientists would have CHERRYPICKED that data."
What data? Data from every observing station in the world that has thermometers and a record of its history so that it could be assessed for changes in siting, such as UHI?
"And the only data you DO is when you DO it over with false reconstruction and throw away the original."
And by "false reconstruction" you mean "not what I want to use", right?
Problems: it still shows much warming.
It isn't false reconstruction. The only reconstruction is the satellite data, which reconstructs a temperature profile from a computer model of radiance intensities.
"OK FrankD, tell us in your own words what YOU think is a reasonable natural variability temperature per century for the last 80 centuries."
Since this isn't natural variability, why does that matter?
"And if you think: “UAH does not disagree with the warming estimate of GIStemp.”
You better look again:"
And if you think that is disagreement over whether there's a warming trend, you better look again. But why do you continue to preach use of a reconstructed data set here?
"Has it ever crossed your mind, Chris, why Gavin’s reconstructions are diverging from the satellite records at such an accelerating rate? "
It isn't diverging at an accelerating rate.
"Could it be that the cooling just completely undermines the whole religion of climate science?"
No, because it doesn't show it is cooling. Duh.
"And you have the stupidity to question why so many people are a just little sceptical."
Just because Chris isn't as gullible as you doesn't mean you can label that stupidity, retard.
This is how warmists "do" data:
"And a method used.
The primary mechanism they use for this data tampering, is to simply fabricate data. Fake data is marked with an ‘E’ like this data for Baudette, MN. It means they have no underlying data for that station during that month."
https://i1.wp.com/realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Scr…
"This is how warmists “do” data:"
How would we know? We're realists. Not warmists.
"The primary mechanism they use for this data tampering, is to simply fabricate data."
Really? That's what you do AND YOU OPENLY ADMIT IT???
Or is this some blogroll idiot drooling on the internet?
Funny how with all this "apparent" faking of data, nothing, not one shred of evidence, has ever been found.
"nothing, not one shred of evidence, has ever been found."
Is that a fact, Wowie luv?
Ya mean, you can't see it if you keep your eyes SHUT !!!
ROOLY, ROOLY TIGHT !!!
And completely ignore what's going on right under your nose:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/figure-intro-5.png
I think you would find that a piece of cake for Doltoids who have been practising most of their lives.
Here's some more evidence that has never been found:
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=ipcc+climate+change+models+fail&biw=…
You folks need to admit that there is no "Climate Catastrophe". NASA/GISS, NCAR and NOAA/GHCN makes a fuss over a few tenths of a degree which they created by tampering with the ground station data. Fortunately they have not managed to get control of RSS and UAH satellite data yet. HADCRUT4 and balloon data agrees closely with the satellite data.
Fifty million years ago the polar oceans were 20 K warmer than today and that was when mammals became dominant.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/65_Myr_Climat…
As with Climategate in 2009, with a bit of luck this might wake the world up to the coming crapscam in PARIS:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/frances-top-tv-meteorologist-writes-sk…
Here we go. Our laser expert culling his 'evidence' from one shill site after another. Par for the course. GC, like his acolytes, is an embarrassment.
" tampering with the ground station data"
A pretty serous accusation with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Made up on the spot.
"Fifty million years ago the polar oceans were 20 K warmer than today and that was when mammals became dominant"
Now this comment is a REAL no brainer. It could only be made by a complete simpleton with no understanding of basic evolutionary biology. GC shows his stuff. Actually its so utterly stupid that I do not know where to begin deconstructing it. First, of course we know it was warmer in past epochs. But it took a long time to get there and biota at the time had time to evolve and adaptively radiate in response to ambient conditions. When abiotic conditions change, organisms respond within their genetic boundaries. However, until recently, the planet had higher biodiversity - genetic and species richness - than at any time in the planet's history. Forget the warmer epochs - diversity was higher in the recent Holocene. Thus high temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are not a pre-requsite to high diversity. Stability is a major driver. The problem at present is that temperatures and CO2 concentrations are rising faster than at any time in hundreds of thousands if not millions of years, radically changing conditions to which current biota is adapted. This is occurring against a tapestry of many other anthropogenic stresses, exacerbating the effects of warming. We already know that the current warming is stressing many natural ecosystems and the species in them, and rapid further warming will push many over the brink.
GCs comment is so utterly simple that it makes me shake my head. I have to deal with this kind of insidious stupidity all the time, but its the reason i write in here.
OH, and the Joanne NOva comment is aimed at SD. He's a simpleton too, of course.
"The primary mechanism they use for this data tampering, is to simply fabricate data."
Pretty serious claims.
There's a word which to deniers is like garlic to a vampire; the word is "substantiate". Any fool can make accusations, as our Spotty Idiot is doing here, but the real test is wheter they can substantiate their claims. Can you do that, Spotty luv? We don't even require hard proof at this stage; just some form of evidence.
Even before proving or demonstrating the "tampering" and "fabrication", can you even show that the data is wrong. That would require actually doing real work; like data collection, calculations etc. as opposed to spouting drivel on a blog.
And then the laser expert links us to WTFUWT and MicroNova. So, smart enough to work with lasers but too dumb distinguish real science from shit.
It's a sad story which we see again and again: supposedly smart, scientifically competent people whose powers of reasoning are neutralized by ideology. It would be interesting to know what the psychological processes are behing this phenomenon. Does integrity play a part in it? Do these people have a relativistic notion of the truth, of facts; do they believe that something is only true if it conforms with their
deological worldview?
Spotted Idiot goes into delusional mode _ "Here’s some more evidence that has never been found". Couldn't be bothered looking at what he's talking about, but just the statement itself says all I need to know. Denier finds evidence that world's scientific community missed. Holly shit! Time to rethink everything. Sure, there's always more to learn and its highly likely that new understandings about climate science will be acquired but the likelyhood of that happening through some idiot posting crap on blogs is very, very remote. In my opinion anyway.
"As with Climategate in 2009,"
Ah yes, that great conspiracy where they colluded to conceal the data etc.etc. Hey Drongo, I haven't followed the whole story very closely. Have you guys managed to get hold of that data, code, or whatever it is, which would expose the whole global warming thing as a sham, a hoax? I'm waiting with bated breath.
But seriously, as soon as a denier mentions "climategate" you know that he's a dribbling idiot without anything to contribute to the discussion.
And so, the denier puppet show goes on and on. Sigh.
...with their ideological worldview.
There, there, baby Jp, mummy's still here.
Just shut your eyes tighter.
BTW, I wonder what the "E" stands for in that "data"?
"“nothing, not one shred of evidence, has ever been found.”
Is that a fact, Wowie luv?
Ya mean, you can’t see it if you keep your eyes SHUT !!!"
Well,yes, if you keep your eyes shut, they don't work too well. However, no, that is not what I meant.
Sorry, try again.
"As with Climategate in 2009"
What about "climategate 2009"? Bugger all was found then, just as before.
"You folks need to admit that there is no “Climate Catastrophe”."
There's no prediction that catastrophe has happened, moron.
"Fifty million years ago the polar oceans were 20 K warmer than today"
How do you know?
Models, inference,and the same set of scientists that you insist are lying.
Not really evidence you can use, moron.
"There, there, baby Jp, mummy’s still here."
Sorry,you're not a mother.
Just a bitch.
Do you know what so utterly embarrassing about Spangled's posts? That virtually all of his links are to sites run by shills or hacks. WUWT, Nova, et al ad nauseum. Sies that don't do data or publish in journals for the most part.
One of the few papers he does site is in a bottom feeding contrarian journal (E & E) with an Impact Factor of 0.15 by an author - PJ Lloyd - who has hardly published anything in 20 years and whose pedigree is therefore highly suspect. If he wants the world to take notice, why submit it there? The answer is obvious. Because it would be bounced just about everywhere else.
Folks: this is the best that deniers can do. They are not mainstream, but are fringers. They desperately want to be heard, but nobody is listening because they are a veritable bunch of nobodies. The very fact that SD comes on here parading links to sites that we don't give a rat's ass about is telling. I have seen the 'quality' of these sites before and tehy are to be avoided. They make my stomach roll they are so utterly bad. That SD etc. rely on them is all that I need to know.
sd:
And this clown thinks that data from just two localities, Greenland and Antarctica, is going to be just as good for estimating global temperature variance as data from many stations spread around the world.
You just can't make up hypocritical stupidity like that.
Oh so I do do SOME data and NOW you tell us that wasn't actually the problem. Good to know you can change your version of the facts when it suits you.
BTW, you don't seem to have found out yet that UAH is not the only data set that agrees with Gavin's (aside from UAH including more noise). Even HADCRUT4, the successor to your beloved HADCRUT3, only differs by an insignificant 0.4 standard deviations over 18 years. Not to mention Berkeley, NOAA, Karl(2015), and the global versions HADCRUT4 krig v2 and Karl (2015) global are all insignificantly different from GISTemp with 18 years of data.
But of course, we all know the biggest conspiracy of all time is making them all insignificantly different from each other, don't we now?
sd:
I don't think, I know that UAH has no statistically significant difference from GISTemp you dumb, ignorant clown.
Where are Tisdale's confidence intervals? Hint: he doesn't have any. Only arrogant ignoramuses like yourself and Tisdale think that confidence intervals or error bounds don't matter.
sd:
There is no statistically significant divergence between UAH and GISTemp, or any other global temperature record for that matter. Only ignorant clowns, like sd who wouldn't know what a confidence interval was if one bit him on the bum, think there is any significant difference, statistical or otherwise, between any of them.
sd: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/figure-intro-5.png
Can you just tell us what point there is in averaging two data sets, UAH and RSS, that differ in their trend means by more than 0.1℃/decade over 18 years? By your logic, doesn't that mean that at least one of them is WRONG?
gc:
There is around ten tenths of a degree of warming over the last century.
A few means a small number but never more than four. Ten is substantially more than four.
Claiming ten is a few is not telling the truth.
If you can't tell the truth about this simple fact then we can't believe anything you say.
gc:
Which satellite data do they agree with, UAH or RSS? UAH and RSS mean trends disagree with each other by over 0.1℃/decade over 18 years.
gc:
Stupid clown can't even read his own citation which says 12 K warmer than the Holocene.
Jeffy, if you were half as smart as you think you are you would discus climate science with David Evans at Jo's blog and point out his shortcomings.
Isn't this is what genuine scientists do?
Check it out, he's way ahead of anything here and he's much more polite. You would learn a lot:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-11-an-alternative-modeling…
But judging by your self-confessed, I-haven't-got-a-clue, evidence-free rants, you are absolutely incapable of anything so constructive so your only resort is to take the meat cleaver to any messenger you disagree with.
Very sad, really.
"There is no statistically significant divergence between UAH and GISTemp, or any other global temperature record for that matter."
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/plot/gistemp/from:…
Oh dear !!
"Jeffy, if you were half as smart as you think you are you would discus climate science with David Evans at Jo’s blog and point out his shortcomings."
Why on earth would THAT prove Jeff is smart? Or did you mean that literally, that if Jeff were half as smart (i.e. dumber) then he'd be going where deniers can go to make any old shit up and hang out with mates who also know how to make shit up?
"Check it out, he’s way ahead of anything here and he’s much more polite."
No, he's a moron.
I take it this is ANOTHER case of you not saying anything because what you can only mean is "Oh dear, looks like there ISN'T any statistically significant divergence!".
Double Oh dear !!
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/07-comparison-1998-start…
Jeff Harvey, October 15, 2015
” tampering with the ground station data”
QUOTE
A pretty serous accusation with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Made up on the spot.
UNQUOTE
Wrong as usual! A while back I told you that I got my data from Tom Peterson at NOAA in Asheville (v3 version):
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/12/28/dorothy-behind-the-cu…
Anyone who compares NOAA v2 data with later versions can see the tampering (unexplained "Adjustments"). Tony Heller has animated the fraud. For example the GISS data:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/progression-of-data-tamp…
I visit sites like this from time to time in the hope of finding some common ground. For example it is clear that the "Catastrophic Warming" predicted by Al Gore and others a dozen years ago has not happened.
Clearly there is something wrong with the models given that they are at odds with reality.
https://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/cmip5-90-models-global-…
Poor silly jeffy thinks that less than 0.8c of warming over 165 years following the coldest 4 centuries of civilisation [during which the average nat var is 0.98c per century] is:
"warming well beyond rates that could be caused by natural forcings"
Quelle science, jeffy !!
And that a "huge data set of models" [which, btw, are wrong and getting wronger by the day] are telling us that this below normal natural variability is all due to the sins of the fathers for smoking too much or something [blither, blither, blither].
And he calls himself a scientist?
I rest my case.
Well, SD, you illiterate dope, then you are pretty well impugning the entire scientific community if you say that the current warming that has occurred since 1980 - which is highly significant ~No- is natural. Aside from the shills and hacks whose information you believe, every scientific organization on Earth agrees with my assessment. Every one. Read that again. Every one. Every one. I repeat it because its your Achilles heel, or one of many. You cannot explain why pretty much the entire scientific community is in agreement, and your views and those of the clowns you cite are even well outside the fringe.
I rest my case. In a court of law, its obvious who'd win. You;d be laughed into oblivion.
...and then we have another clot, GC, going on about Al Gore. As if he alone came up with the idea of AGW.
The effects of GW are clearly being manifested on natural systems. GC, given he's not been near an environmental lecture class in his entire life, expects deleterious effects to be virtually instantaneous in space and time. He has not got a clue how natural ecosystems work, of the the huge array of interactions across various scales that enable them to function. He thinks it warms in 10 years and then in one or two years everything is supposed to collapse. Again folks, this is the sandbox level of debate I am forced into with AGW deniers. They are vacuous and do not understand basic relevant environmental science. SD is the same. He's a nothing. He does not do scientific research but spends his days sifting through denial blogs where he finds solace. He tries - unsuccessfully - to give the impression that the GW debate is in its infancy and that the scientific community is more-or-less evenly split on the issue. He tries to paint me, a scientist with about a million times more pedigree than him as an outsider. He does this by refusing the acknowledge that I am merely echoing the views of >95% of the scientific community including, most importantly, climate scientists. He tries to suggest that shills like Watts and Nova and Morano are more qualified than James Hansen, Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann or Gavin Schmidt.
This is the basal intellectual level we are dealing with here.
Here's a bit of information on Tony Heller, GCs source:
https://tonyhellerakastevengoddardisnotasociopath.wordpress.com/who-is-…
And these guys expect us to take them seriously.
Still more:
http://www.desmogblog.com/steven-goddard
Isn't it fun debunking the simple crap that deniers put up here?
Jeff, here is the warming since 1980. About the same warming that happened early in the century when ACO2 was not part of the equation:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980
And that total warming is considerably less than average natural climate variability.
Why don't you just stop riding on the coat-tails of your warmist heroes and try rubbing your own ideas together for a change?
Stop worshipping people you think are your ideological superiors.
They aren't.
And they prove it by the way they butcher the messenger when they can't handle the message.
That's not fun, that's puerile.
Do you really think that's how a scientific debate should be conducted?
"Double Oh dear !!"
Sorry, you're STILL saying nothing.
What on earth are you so distraught about?
"Poor silly jeffy thinks that less than 0.8c of warming over 165 years following the coldest 4 centuries of civilisation [during which the average nat var is 0.98c per century] is:"
Well, it is actually completely false.
And NOTHING disproves AGW there. Not one thing. Nothing shows how CO2 doesn't effect the global temperature. Nothing shows how the change in temperature happens at all.
It's all just a mystery to idiots like you.
Tide goes in, tide goes out, you can't explain it.
And think you don't have to.
Whereas the people who actually think with their brains rather than their paycheck go and work out WHY the tide goes in and the tide goes out.
They're called scientists.
"Anyone who compares NOAA v2 data with later versions can see the tampering (unexplained “Adjustments”). "
Anyone would also be looking for the explanation for the adjustments, rather than just looking for something to convince themselves of their conspiracy theory.
Funnily enough, if you look at the unadjusted data, you see that the unadjusted data shows a higher warming trend than either of the adjusted figures (which we in the engineering and science world call "quality control of data", knowing that if you don't have quality data, you have garbage data, and GIGO then follows).
But you don't know anything about quality. Or engineering, do you, you senile old prune.
"And that total warming is considerably less than average natural climate variability."
Even if you were right, this doesn't prove AGW is false, or that the current warming is natural variability.
Forest fires happen naturally. Therefore there are no forest fires started by humans.
Death happens to humans naturally. Therefore there is no murder.
People lose things all the time. Therefore there is no theft.
SD thinks that climate science should only be studied by people who have never been to university or else who have no relevant degrees. If he was correct, he wouldn't be effectively banished to a tiny little innocuous corner of the blogosphere. He's instead be putting his brilliant (guffaw, guffaw) ideas out in the mainstream via academic journals and in conferences where they would be open to scrutiny. That he doesn't says it all.
The scientific community agrees that it is warming well outside of natural forcings, and that humans are culpable. We also broadly agree that if left unchecked, warming is likely to serious consequences for natural and managed ecosystems. There is nothing remotely controversial about this.
There's where we stand right now. SD is left with his own army of D-K acolytes to mutter and complain.
The current rate of warming is most certainly NOT within natural variability. Again, this is a fact and not at all controversial. All indicators point towards the human combustion of fossil fuels as the primary driver. Every major scientific organization on Earth agrees about it. We are now discussing ways to mitigate AGW so that critical thresholds or tipping points are not exceeded. This is where the scientific community is at the moment. SD and people like him on blogs are outliers. Fringers.
Jeffy just doesn't get that all that is needed to critique his "experts" [ that science is the belief in the ignorance of] is simply a rational awareness of what's going on around you.
The crazy consensual science that jiffy genuflects to is based on IPCC GCMs which are diverging from observed reality by the day.
But he doesn't have the scepticism to check it out for himself.
He's simply a mindless believer.
Witness his complete inability to discuss my proposition that the mild warming that has occurred since the end of the LIA is below average.
Instead he does two things: 1] he has to claim authority without evidence and 2] shoot the messenger.
Jeffy, if you had any idea what was really happening in the real world you could explain it convincingly to your local garbo but in your present state of [un]knowledge you are a liability even to yourself.
Sadly, most, if not all, of your fellow Doltoids are in a similar leaky boat and the funny thing about this is you have the hide to call we sceptics, deniers.
But don't think it hasn't been fun.
I'll drop by again at the next king tide to remind you all once again just how deluded you are in that aspect of climate change, too.
Meanwhile, keep the sheets dry.
"Jeffy just doesn’t get that all that is needed to critique his “experts” is simply a rational awareness of what’s going on around you."
Yes he does.
It's always projection with you morons, though, isn't it.
" IPCC GCMs which are diverging from observed reality by the day."
No they aren't.
"I’ll drop by again at the next king tide "
And demonstrate you don't know what a king tide is again?
sd:
And where, pray tell, are the confidence intervals showing statistically significant difference between those mean trends?
What? There aren't any? Dumb clown.
BTW, have you tried this one: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/plot/uah/from:1998…
By your logic at least one of those is wrong. Which one is it? Enquiring minds want to know.
sd:
Stupid claims repeated are still stupid claims.
Isn't it amazing how utterly arrogant SD is? He thinks he and few other libertarians on the far right have 'seen the light' and somehow that the vast majority of scientists and scientific bodies are 'mindless believers'.
The evidence for AGW is incontrovertible. There's a huge amount of biological evidence as well, but forget all of that, the only apparently intelligent people are those driven by political agendas who want us to put those aside and believe in some vast scientific conspiracy. Because that is what SD is implying, after all. Let's cut to the chase. He thinks that the scientific community is engaged in a vast conspiracy. Why? He hasn't said, but its obvious, or should be. Because we are apparently all Marxists (GCs words) and want a global government to control the people and to suppress liberty. That is almost certainly what SD believes. I am sure he also believes in the tooth fairy, but I digress. There is no other way he can explain it.
Its this kind of insanity that drives this bunch of people. They need the Tea Party and Donald Trump and Rush Limbaugh. They have little scientific acumen, but that does not get in the way of their hilarious musings.
Its strange that Keeling, Revelle and others predicted warming back in the 1950s if humans continued to burn fossil fuels at increasing rates. The US government in the 1960s was aware of it, then Hansen formally raises the issue in 1988. Here we are in 2015, with the 10 warmest years all occurring since 1998, and we still have those like SD saying its natural (even contrarians like Pat Michaels don't say that any more). We are seeing Arctic ice decline at incredible rates, large scale biotic shifts, an epidemic of coral reef bleaching, and every scientific organization on the planet saying that we are the culprit. Against this we have many comical non-peer reviewed blogs run primarily by disaffected people on the far end of the political right denying, denying and denying. 2015 will be by far the warmest year on record, and they still deny.
Bernard J was right. These people are gambling with our future and when the shit really hits the fan they should be held accountable.
sd and gc are making it clear that they don't want to answer the following question.
Are both of these: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/plot/uah/from:1998…
right?
gc:
That's funny, I thought you visited sites like this from time to time to let everyone know that you're too stupid to check whether your citations agree with your claims.
Wow
October 16, 2015
“Anyone who compares NOAA v2 data with later versions can see the tampering (unexplained “Adjustments”). ”
Anyone would also be looking for the explanation for the adjustments, rather than just looking for something to convince themselves of their conspiracy theory.
YOU HAVE TO BE AWARE THAT NO EXPLANATION OF THE ADJUSTMENTS HAS BEEN GIVEN DESPITE MANY REQUESTS.
PEOPLE LIKE MICHAEL MANN,THOMAS STOCKER AND JAY SEVERINGHAUS "LAWYER UP" WHEN ASKED SIMPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT THEIR WORK (FUNDED BY TAXPAYERS).
Funnily enough, if you look at the unadjusted data, you see that the unadjusted data shows a higher warming trend than either of the adjusted figures (which we in the engineering and science world call “quality control of data”, knowing that if you don’t have quality data, you have garbage data, and GIGO then follows).
UNTRUE. YOU MADE THAT UP.
IF THE FOLKS HERE BELIEVE YOU IT MEANS THAT THEY ARE TOO LAZY TO LOOK AT THE RAW DATA FOR THEMSELVES.
Chris O'Neill
October 16, 2015
sd and gc are making it clear that they don’t want to answer the following question.
Are both of these: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/plot/uah/from:1998…"
It does you credit that you use "woodfortrees".
As you are aware the choice of starting point is critical. Thus it is no accident that the IPCC chose 1850 as its base year.
Thus I am a little surprised that you chose 1998 as your start year given that it was a strong "El Nino" year as 2016 is likely to be. Here in Florida we can expect cooler than normal weather while California gets mud slides.
If I was trying to show that there has been no significant warming for 18 years all I would have to do is pick 1998 as my start year.
Those trend lines you show are a little strange given that the detail data for RSS and UAH (and HADCRUT4) are very similar. I guess the problem stems from having a scale in hundredths of a degree Centigrade while error bars are more like +/- 0.5 degrees.
Jeff Harvey said:
"Its strange that Keeling, Revelle and others predicted warming back in the 1950s if humans continued to burn fossil fuels at increasing rates. The US government in the 1960s was aware of it, then Hansen formally raises the issue in 1988. Here we are in 2015, with the 10 warmest years all occurring since 1998, and we still have those like SD saying its natural (even contrarians like Pat Michaels don’t say that any more). We are seeing Arctic ice decline at incredible rates, large scale biotic shifts, an epidemic of coral reef bleaching, and every scientific organization on the planet saying that we are the culprit. Against this we have many comical non-peer reviewed blogs run primarily by disaffected people on the far end of the political right denying, denying and denying. 2015 will be by far the warmest year on record, and they still deny."
While it is true that the Keeling curve is rising at an accelerating rate, temperature has not risen significantly in 18 years. Thus the predicted "Catastrophic Warming" did not happen.
Six years ago Kevin Trenberth said ""I said it was a travesty that we couldn't account for, essentially, the global warming in some sense".
The "Pause" has continued and is likely to keep going unless El Nino does something remarkable in 2016. The "Travesty" endures.
That "Hottest Year on Record" is a joke showing that it is time to defund the EPA, NASA/GISS, NOAA/GHCN and NCAR. Even though that charlatan Hansen has retired Gavin Schmidt is doing a great job maintaining the illusion that CO2 drives climate. The temperature increases claimed are tiny and would be less than zero without shameless data tampering.
Your government is lying to you. The Affordable Care Act is not affordable.
Catastrophic Global Warming is a not happening. The "War on Coal" is a war on the states of Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky, yet it will have absolutely no measurable effect on climate. Real people are losing their jobs. They are being sacrificed on the altars of the false gods of "Catastrophic Global Warming".
The oceans have been rising for 15,000 years and recently the rate of rise has slowed as the continental ice inventory is only 30 million Giga-tonnes.
We have only been able to measure Arctic ice accurately for 38 years and even NSIDC admits coverage is increasing since the lows in 2007 and 2012:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Humanity creates huge problems for other species but the production of CO2 is doing more good than harm.
http://www.co2science.org/education/book/2011/55BenefitsofCO2Pamphlet.p…
I have devoted many years to correcting real problems that humans have caused. For example I worked to reduce pollution to the river Thames so that I could rear rainbow trout using Thames water. Today there are salmon in the Thames.
Meant to give jeffy the benefit of this item to improve his "science":
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/15/greenpeace-founder-delivers-power…
Jeffie, I give you a first warning concerning your untolerable arrogance as well as your weakness in your argumentation. It is absolutely meaningless to say that Hansen is right because his penis is longer.
Kim, or whichever cock puppet you are, bugger off. I have more important things to do than to respond to vacuous idiots. But I will say this: the fact that every major scientific organization on Earth verifies the reality of AGW, and that we have irrefutable proof of biotic responses is more than enough evidence for me. Every link SD puts up here is to a shill site run buy amateurs with no expertise. All of them have an axe to grind. None of us here read these sites or shouldn't because they are NOT scientific at all but are distorting science in pursuit of political (deregulatory) agendas. Heaven knows why SD puts WUWT ad Nova links here because nobody reads them except himself and his similar intellectually challenged sidekick GC. I'll stick with the major journals and scientific bodies where the views are pretty well unanimous.
Then we have a laser guy (GC) who has never been near an environmental science lecture theater in is life talking about conditions 50 mya as if that is relevant today and then about a hiatus that does not exist. The first point is kindergarten level science that I easily dispensed with. The second is completely wrong. 2015 is 0.10 C warmer than any year in recorded history so far. At the global level that is a staggering amount. The warming continues.
Deniers are continually shifting the goalposts. Its what they do. In 1990 global warming wasn't happening. It was a doomsday myth. Then it was happening but is natural. Then there was a hiatus. And then there is an imminent ice age, predicted back in 2008. Then its the sun again.
I am fed up with dealing with this dishonest bunch of right wing thugs. Because that is what many deniers are. They aren't interested in science because very few of them are scientists. They are driven by their political ideologies.
As for you, once again, get lost.
And as an addendum, I meant sock puppet but given your comment about Hansen, it fits.
And don't you warn me about anything.
"YOU HAVE TO BE AWARE THAT NO EXPLANATION OF THE ADJUSTMENTS HAS BEEN GIVEN DESPITE MANY REQUESTS."
You have to be aware you made that shit up. Shouting it didn't make it any less a fiction.
Sorry you're a moronic old fart without a clue.
"As you are aware the choice of starting point is critical."
Proof plz, alzheimer gramps.
"Thus it is no accident that the IPCC chose 1850 as its base year."
Yes, they chose it.What of it?
"If I was trying to show that there has been no significant warming for 18 years all I would have to do is pick 1998 as my start year."
Even then it shows significant warming. You are about 7 years out of date, dribbling moron.
"Those trend lines you show are a little strange given that the detail data for RSS and UAH (and HADCRUT4) are very similar"
Given those trend lines are FROM the data for RSS, UAH and HADCRUT4, your claim here is from obvious ignorance.
"I guess the problem stems from having a scale in hundredths of a degree Centigrade while error bars are more like +/- 0.5 degrees."
As is that one.
!temperature has not risen significantly in 18 years."
Yes it has.
"Thus the predicted “Catastrophic Warming” did not happen."
What predicted catastrophic warming?
"Six years ago Kevin Trenberth said “”I said it was a travesty that we couldn’t account for, essentially, the global warming in some sense”."
You've shown absolutely no sense of reality yet, so why would anyone accept your pretend quote as real?
""The “Pause” has continued"
It never was.
" and is likely to keep going unless El Nino does something remarkable in 2016."
Wrong again.
" The “Travesty” endures."
Yes, every time you open your web browser and type crap in.
"Meant to give jeffy the benefit of this item to improve his “science”"
Yet more nothing said from spanking donkey.
gc:
It is totally irrelevant to trend, which is what my question is about.
Is there any point to this non-sequitur?
It is completely irrelevant to whether both UAH and RSS are right.
Obviously strange to someone like you whose brain is in neutral.
So does that mean that both UAH and RSS are right? And don't the same scale and error bars apply when comparing with GISTemp?
or more clearly, comparing trends.
gc:
in data subject to lots of noise. Only fools consider nothing but the noisiest data. Such data sources that fools consider to the exclusion of all else have NEVER achieved statistical significance in 18 years because they are simply TOO NOISY.
“Catastrophic Warming” is formally expected at 2 degrees C of warming above pre-industrial. That is not predicted to happen until around 2050. gc may have a different view of time from the rest of us, but to most people 2050 hasn't happened yet.
According to the only data sets your ideological blinkers allow you to use, IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A PAUSE.
What point is there in saying a "pause" if that's how it has always been?
We all know who is lying to us and his words are not very far away at all.
At what rate?
It's wider (but thinner) than the smallest of the small. Whoopee doo.
kim:
or else you'll do what?
To make it clear, I still haven't received an answer to the following question from gc or sd.
Are both of these: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/plot/uah/from:1998…
right?
I study climate change effects in insects and have a new paper coming out on the subject in Current Opinions in Insect Science (in press). But there's lots of studies out there. Note that some of the studies I have linked are published in journals with very high Impact Factors - not the drivel from blogs that Sd and Gc link to. And this is just a tiny example of studies with insects - there are many more across the plant and animal kingdoms. But AGW is taken as give among biologists - just as it is among climate scientists. I could link to hundreds of studies given the time, but here is a snippet:
http://www.royensoc.co.uk/sig/climate_change_and_insects.htm
https://peerj.com/articles/11/
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/6135/20140221/climate-change-af…
http://news.nd.edu/news/57176-climate-change-is-affecting-disease-carry…
http://www.livescience.com/7783-bugs-forgotten-victims-climate-change.h…
And one last response to the thing known as 'Kim' and I will leave it there...
Considering some of the smears aimed at esteemed scientists like Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, Kevin Trenberth, Ben Santer, Michael Mann, Paul Ehrlich, Ed Wilson and many others by AGW deniers/anti-environmentalists, as well as me over the years by the attack hounds on Deltoid, it takes remarkable hubris to accuse me or anyone of being arrogant in the face of this behavior. Gc accused defenders of AGW of being Marxists recently. So don't come on here with this contrarIans are holier-than-thou crap. I've been around long enough to know exactly how vile your lot can be.
Oh, and just read this comedy statement from Gc based on gsrbage from the Western Fuels Auth... er C02 Science (the Idso clan's attempt at a humorous blog).
"Humanity creates huge problems for other species but the production of CO2 is doing more good than harm"
I and others have repeatedly demolished this statement dozens of times on Deltoid alone. Do I have to educate Mr. laser beam on this as well?
Gc: ever hear of a term called 'stoichiometry'? Ever read about secondary plant metabolites and whether they are C or N-based? Ever read about C3 and C4 pathways in plants? Do you understand what the term non-linear means? How up are you on trophic interaction networks, the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning and complex adaptive systems?
Here's a simple analogy. Some - but not all - plants accumulate more biomass as C02 concentrations increase. So, the 64,000$ question: does increased foliar C translate into increased fitness? For that matter, is a man who weighs 160 kg healthier than a man who weighs 80kg? In other words how do you tease apart quantitative for qualitative measures of plant vitality? This brings us back to that pesky little (or not so little) word again: stoichiometry.
I'll let Gc work it out from there. But here's clue. Nature DOES NOT thrive under high ambient C02 regimes. Read that and repeat it. The planet accrued higher species and genetic richness in the late Holocene (recently that is) under relatively low atmospheric C. The reason is: stability. Change can drive diversity within certain boundaries, but relatively stable conditions are the main driver. The current rise in atmospheric C02 are - and I think even the dumbed down denier brigade cannot dispute this - down to Homo sapiens. This rate of change is by any measure incredibly fast. Plants and animals that evolved under regimes between 200-250 ppm C02 are now having to rapidly respond not only to AGW but its cause - increasing concentrations of C02. They are having to do so against a tapestry of human-induced assaults across the biosphere.
Concluding remark: the Idso's don't know what they are talking about.
@Spangled Drongo,
As an aging teacher I have developed patience which allows me to help slow students such as the faithful here at Deltoid.
However my efforts have been rewarded amply by that link you posted from a recent Patrick Moore presentation. Somehow I had missed it, so thank you.
I admire your energy and honesty.
Jeff Harvey,
"I’ll let Gc work it out from there. But here’s clue. Nature DOES NOT thrive under high ambient C02 regimes. Read that and repeat it. The planet accrued higher species and genetic richness in the late Holocene (recently that is) under relatively low atmospheric C. The reason is: stability. Change can drive diversity within certain boundaries, but relatively stable conditions are the main driver. The current rise in atmospheric C02 are – and I think even the dumbed down denier brigade cannot dispute this – down to Homo sapiens. This rate of change is by any measure incredibly fast. Plants and animals that evolved under regimes between 200-250 ppm C02 are now having to rapidly respond not only to AGW but its cause – increasing concentrations of C02. They are having to do so against a tapestry of human-induced assaults across the biosphere. "
What bewildering hodge-podge of nonsense!
High levels of [CO2] are lethal to most animals, including humans. That is why submarines must maintain [CO2} at less than 8,000 parts per million or 20 times the 400 ppm found in our atmosphere.
At the other extreme plants die when [CO2] falls below 150 ppm, Thus it would be reasonable to suggest that the safe range for [CO2] that allows animals and plants to survive is 250 to 8,000 ppm.
Patrick Moore (hat tip to Spangled Drongo) explains this pretty well here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/15/greenpeace-founder-delivers-power…
According to Scotese [CO2] has remained in this range for over 600 million years. Otherwise we would not be here having this fascinating exchange of views:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
Jeff Harvey, October 17, 2015,
I read all those abstracts about insects. While they are way above my pay grade I did notice a similarity to grant applications from my colleagues at the Nicholas School of the Environment.
If you want your grant proposal to be funded it is a smart move to mention "Global Warming" even though it is a fantasy. This is just Lysenkoism brought up to date as I already explained here:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/12/16/countering-consensus-…
GC, you are full of it - and you know what 'it' is. You are out of your depth on every issue you discuss here. Every one. Why you attempt to challenge to debate me in my own field is amusing, given again that you posses no basic knowledge of plant or animal ecophysiology. You don't cite the primary literature at all, but instead rely on shills like the Idso's and Moore, who have been on the corporate payroll and don't publish their findings in the relevant journals. I'd love to debate you face to face - a piece of cake. You are a clot.
Plant quality is based on much, much more than atmospheric C. N and P are often limiting nutrients - and especially for consumers up the food chain, but also in terms of plant fitness. There are many studies showing that insect herbivores damage plants in high C02 regimes more in order to obtain sufficient C02 for their development. Plants with N-based defenses become less well defended as they shunt N out of their tissues to accommodate more C, whereas plants that have C-based defenses - such as eucalyptus - become more toxic. C3 and C4 plants exhibit different ecophysiological responses to increased atmospheric C - and this generates competitive asymmetries amongst them. This is just for starters. But the bottom line is that there are virtually no statured experts in the field - including myself - who argue that increasing atmospheric C02 is good for nature. Get that through your head. We know that complex adaptive systems function in decidedly non-linear ways, and that tinkering with various properties of the system leads to disproportionate and often unpredictable and nasty results. You appear to think that cause-and-effect relationships in complex adaptive systems are linear. They are not. This "C02 is plant food" meme of the denial community is pure and utter garbage. Nothing less.
As for 'global warming is pure fantasy' , that's your layman's Dunning-Kruger-infested position. It is not the position of the rank-and-file of the scientific community. The very fact that you lace your posts here with utter bilge from the likes of Moore, the Idso's, Goddard, etc., with nary the primary literature in sight, is telling. You call yourself an aging teacher. Don't flatter yourself.
You endlessly cite known shills like Patrick Moore up here; the same Patrick Moore who claims 'clear cuts are temporary meadows' and who has been associated with the logging industry for years. The same Patrick Moore who was recently humiliated in an interview when he said that Roundup Ready, the herbicide, is safe to drink. When challenged to drink it he stormed out of the interview with his tail firmly between his legs. He's long been discredited by the scientific community - as if he ever had any to begin with.
Its so refreshing getting up in the morning and demolishing your wafer-thin arguments GC. Give it up; you've lost and that is that. Stick with the shills is what i have to say.
Ooops - I mean sufficient N for their [insect] development. But GC won't probably even notice the gaffe.
Thanks, GC. I only hope the Doltoids do themselves a favour and read it.
They won't read the message, of course, just shoot the messenger.
And did you notice that every one of jeffy's links [messages] above on the effects of climate change on insects all ASSUME that the slight, below average warming that has occurred since the LIA is the result human emissions yet this has never been quantified.
Also, where are the equivalent studies that compare that to previous, similar, known to be natural, warming events?
Naturally there are none and consequently these papers are dubious science. Simply based on ignorant assumption.
I hope your papers are a little more sceptical and balanced than that light weight foolishness, jeffy.
Here's a tip:
Saul Perlmutter, an astrophysicist at the University of California, Berkeley, says: “Science is an ongoing race between our inventing ways to fool ourselves, and our inventing ways to avoid fooling ourselves.” So researchers are trying a variety of creative ways to debias data analysis — strategies that involve collaborating with academic rivals, getting papers accepted before the study has even been started and working with strategically faked data.
So now, mend your ways and start by reading and absorbing Patrick Moore.
A sampler of studies on C02 effects on plants and insects for 'the teacher'. And these actually are published in leading journals - not on sites run by shills. Hopefully 'the teacher' will learn something from them as well as by the labs working on the topic. Bottom line: enhanced C02 is NOT GOOD for nature, given the time scales involved. This is FACT. The results will be non-linar - with winners and losers in terms of plant responses and primarily losers in terms of consumers. However, some insects feed on phloem (e.g. aphids, thrips) and others are chewers (e.g. larvae of Lepidoptera, Coleoptera etc.). These different feeding guilds differentially activate the SA (salicytic acid) and JA (jasmonic acid) pathways, sometimes leading to 'cross talk' and/or facilitation. Chewing insects will certainly suffer under increased atmospheric C02 unless plant defenses are N-based; this may lead to trade-offs. But the main point is that we will see and are seeing already complex non-linear responses. Moreover, given that plant quality and fitness is also based on innumerable processes in the soil involving mutualists and antagonists, then the effects are even more difficult to predict except that food webs will unravel and become less resilient to further stressors. And this is just under increased C02; factor temperature in and the concerns grow. Humanity is conducting a single non-repeatable experiment with outcomes that will simplify nature. Of this the scientific community agrees - well, except for a few 'teachers' like GC.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016953479390161H
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00378962
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3546961?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/243/4895/1198.short
http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/160/4/1677.full
http://faculty.ucr.edu/~john/1999/CoviellaTrumble1999.pdf
http://www.serc.si.edu/labs/co2/florida_insects.aspx
Lookit jiffy going to town on the messenger already with the meat cleaver, gun, knife or whatever he can lay his hands on.
Not one word about the message.
If he keeps up like this we might just begin to suspect that he has a stake in the outcome ☺.
Oh, treble dear !!!
Say it isn't so, jiffy.
This is the same Patrick Moore who has bumbled and humilated hilself on numerous occasions. Most recently:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMnYIYHSiQ8
http://www.desmogblog.com/patrick-moore
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Patrick_Moore
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2007/03/5833/moore-spin-or-how-reporters-le…
This is the BEST deniers can come up with.
Enough about Moore. He's a wonderful comedian. Now to finish off the teacher:
A sampler of studies on C02 effects on plants and insects for ‘the teacher’. And these actually are published in leading journals – not on sites run by shills. Hopefully ‘the teacher’ will learn something from them as well as by the labs working on the topic. Bottom line: enhanced C02 is NOT GOOD for nature, given the time scales involved. This is FACT. The results will be non-linar – with winners and losers in terms of plant responses and primarily losers in terms of consumers. However, some insects feed on phloem (e.g. aphids, thrips) and others are chewers (e.g. larvae of Lepidoptera, Coleoptera etc.). These different feeding guilds differentially activate the SA (salicytic acid) and JA (jasmonic acid) pathways, sometimes leading to ‘cross talk’ and/or facilitation. Chewing insects will certainly suffer under increased atmospheric C02 unless plant defenses are N-based; this may lead to trade-offs. But the main point is that we will see and are seeing already complex non-linear responses. Moreover, given that plant quality and fitness is also based on innumerable processes in the soil involving mutualists and antagonists, then the effects are even more difficult to predict except that food webs will unravel and become less resilient to further stressors. And this is just under increased C02; factor temperature in and the concerns grow. Humanity is conducting a single non-repeatable experiment with outcomes that will simplify nature. Of this the scientific community agrees – well, except for a few ‘teachers’ like GC.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016953479390161H
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00378962
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3546961?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/243/4895/1198.short
http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/160/4/1677.full
http://faculty.ucr.edu/~john/1999/CoviellaTrumble1999.pdf
http://www.serc.si.edu/labs/co2/florida_insects.aspx
More on Moore: It gets funnier all the time.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/07/climate-denial-goes-vegas/199974
Still more on Moore: its gets funnie":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh69JKQXugM
Jiffy's very impressed with Greenpeace's hatchet job on Dr Moore and thinks that settles the debate.
Name calling and insults are what really count, hey jiff?
Just train more guns on those messengers.
That wins the science debate every time, hey?
BTW, when you make those evidence-free assumptions of AGW in your papers does anyone in peer review ever tap you on the shoulder and ask for an explanation of your opinion on this or do they just allow it to pass?
That's the way it's supposed to work, jiff.
It's called Evidence.
Much more durable than the gun and the knife.
And better than telling lies.
Jeffy, what I don't like with guys like you is your shouting self-complacency and constant appeal to authority. YOU never question anything from your authority which is the dictate of climate consensualism, a new pseudoscience discipline. And as critical thinking is so strange to you, you are not a true scientist, but only somebody with strong beliefs and prejudices. Your exclamation "AGW is true" is no scientific argument, also "every scientific body on earth bla bla ..." is no scientific argument. If you want to argue scientifically avoid political or, even worse, ideological slogans, but cite clearly demonstrated scientific results without credulity but sincere reasoning and argueing (abstaining from offensive wording which has no place in true scientific exchanges among true scientists). Your self-description of "I am somebody bla bla with reputation" is not representative for a true class scientist, but rather an ill-mannered pubertarian brat.
You said that you study insects. Fine. You said that you see signs of global warming in your insects, that they are some kind of stressed. Have you done experiments exposing 1000 insects each during various defined lengths of periods to air with 0ppm CO2, 100ppm CO2, 200ppm CO2, 300ppm CO2, 400ppm CO2, 500ppm CO2, 600ppm CO2, 700ppm CO2, 800ppm CO2, and investigated with all series the predefined parameters? If so, what were the results between different C02 concentrations?
"As an aging teacher "
Earlier you claimed to be a retired lab scientist. Now a teacher. PLEASE keep your fictitious identity straight.
It also has no bearing on your inaccuracies or your being absolutely wrong.
"I did notice a similarity to grant applications from my colleagues at the Nicholas School of the Environment."
Goodness. Another fiction of your life. How Walter Mitty of you!
And moreover, grant applications look like grant applications to you. Who would have thought THAT possible!?!?
Of course, it's all more "proof" of a worldwide conspiracy that has somehow managed to remain secret despite being known by any old moron on the internet....
Of course, you're all over the houses every other topic you talk on in those other posts, so who knows where you will go next in your insanity.
Spanky's very impressed with Moore’s hatchet job on Greenpeace and thinks that settles the debate.
"Name calling and insults are what really count, hey jiff?"
IRONY ALERT! WE HAVE A CODE-RED IRONY ALERT!
"BTW, when you make those evidence-free assumptions of AGW in your papers"
Apart from the evidence in them, you mean?
Jeff, Galloping Diarrhea here isn't even bothering to engage their forebrain here. Go reread his post you replied to and he just plain makes up what you talk about and then "refutes" that.
Jeff Harvey,
Thanks for sharing your expertise on matters biologic. As noted earlier that stuff is way above my pay grade.
However your expertise has no relevance to the main issue. Why is the predicted catastrophic global warming not happening?
As SD points out you can't explain the pause so you resort to attacking the messenger (argumentum ad hominem) and citing authority (argumentum ex cathedra).
Plant ecology is not my subject so I would welcome your input on a couple of issues:
1. The Duke university FACE experiment seems to indicate that enhanced levels of CO2 are beneficial to trees.
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F3-540-31237-4_11
2. Commercial greenhouses often use CO2 to enhance plant growth.
http://www.naturalnews.com/040890_greenhouses_carbon_dioxide_generators…
"As noted earlier that stuff is way above my pay grade."
Yet still you claim to know better...
"However your expertise has no relevance to the main issue."
So the issue YOU BROUGHT UP about how CO2 was good for plants and animals, now you lose, is irrelevant???
The problem, Gc, with your superficial analysis, is that you correlate biomass with fitness. Bigger is better in your book, whereas quality does not enter into it. And you also assume that consumers up the food chain do not exist. Thus one can only assume that in your world trophic webs stop at the first - plants - and exclude herbivores and their natural enemies. I can see from your posts on the subject that your understanding is pretty basic. I am not about to lecture you on lasers; don't try to get one past me on plant-consumer interactions. Nature is not some simple system whereby bigger more carbon-enriched plants create a better world. Carbon is not a limiting nutrient for most animals and many plants. N and P are. Are certainly N will be shunted out of plant tissues as they accumulate more C. Moreover, evolutionary history plays a profoundly important role in determining the adaptive (or now) nature of plant and animal responses, and the changing rate of atmospheric C02 is well beyond anything the planet has experienced in millions of years.
As for your 'why is catastrophic global warming not happening?' you are creating a strawman. I am not fooled by it. We do know that warming is negatively affecting many ecosystems and the species in them. However, complex adaptive systems do not suddenly collapse due to the application of some forcing. there are time lags involved between cause-and-effect relationships. Tilman and May wrote a seminal paper in Nature in 1994 in which they described what is known as an 'ecological debt'. In the paper they said that changes inflicted by mankind on natural ecosystems often are only manifested many decades or even centuries later. Thus, the widespread extirpation of top-level predators can ripple downwards through the food chain and affect plant communities many, many years after they disappeared. Warming is happening and we are the cause. Period. The potential effects and consequences are less clear, but certainly the emerging patterns are of great concern. We are seeing widespread changes in the biology and ecology of species and communities in response to it. Species are migrating polewards or to higher elevations, altering their season life cycles and phenologies and tracking warming in other ways. Last week a pandemic of global coral reef bleaching was reported. Eight of 19 polar bear populations are declining and populations are being skewed towards older animals with lower recruitment and juvenile survival. Such patterns are being repeated across the animal kingdom. Page after page of scientific journals are filled with articles detailing biotic effects.
Your problem, or one of your problems, is that you are not trained in ecology or environmental science and are clearly unaware of differences between stochastic events and deterministic events. To you, 50 or 60 years is a long time, but its the blink of an evolutionary eye. If anyone here is the teacher, its me teaching people like you basic principles in my fields of research. We are approaching tipping points. And if we reach and pass them, then even humans will not be able to fail to notice. Our species has not evolved to perceive what we think are gradual threats which are, in the context of natural systems, very rapid. That's something that may be our ultimate undoing.
If you were to present a lecture on this based on your summary you'd be torn apart. Metaphorically of course. You can get away with writing simplistic drivel because its a blog. That's why Moore, the Idso's etc. are pretty much confined there. Its deregulated by design and that has both benefits and costs. One of the latter is that people can write almost anything on here and get away with it, like they are sages of wisdom. I've published enough papers in top journals to know the perils and pitfalls of the internet.
SD, in that glyphosate interview Moore did a pretty good job of humiliating himself. He ought to retire; clearly he doesn't seem to be thinking very logically these days.
Kim or whatever sock puppet you are:
The empirical literature is full of studies detailing effects of enhanced C02 concentrations on insects and other consumers. Its not my job to tell you what the general patterns show. But as I said earlier, those using the 'C02 is plant food meme' are for the most part shills. Its not true, and it certainly simplified a suite of profoundly complex chemical and ecophysiological processes to the simplest common denominator.
Moreover, you and people like you seem to believe that its up to scientists to prove that some anthropogenic process is not harmful. This is distorted thinking. The onus should be the other way around. Using your logic, a pesticide manufacturer should be allowed to patent and see their product with no internal checks, no regulations until the government or scientists can prove its harmful. Humans are effectively experimenting on immensely complex systems that sustain us and permit us to exist and persist and you are telling me that we should be allowed to continue with a slash-and-burn approach the the biosphere until scientists can prove beyond any doubt that its harmful. By the time that evidence is in it will be well too late. As the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2005 showed, human activities are seriously degrading more than 60% of critical ecosystem services. These services, as I said, underpin our material economies.
I've been dealing with contrarians of one form or another for the past 15-20 years and you are all so predictable. You try and take the scientific high ground with little in the way of acumen. There are so few real experts that you are left with the likes of Watts, Moore and McIntyre. This fact alone should say something.
"Using your logic, a pesticide manufacturer should be allowed to patent and see their product with no internal checks, no regulations until the government or scientists can prove its harmful"
And that's what retards like kim think should be the case.
Because making money is the only thing you should EVER do, and getting in the way of doing so is WHY they are poor and struggling and not a powerful multibillionaire. YOU'RE KILLING THEIR FAMiLY!!!!!
It's the fault of government. Goodness knows that it's not THEIR fault!
Jeffy, you evade my question "have you investigated ..." completely and refer scornfully to the "literature". You should have said honestly "no, I have not". Instead you again express youself in offending speech. I explicitly asked you whether you have done certain experiments, and you evaded my question. Why did you evade my question? I did not ask you on your judgement of available literature, but on your personal study subject. Understood now?
And then your "Moreover, you and people like you seem to believe that its up to scientists to prove that some anthropogenic process is not harmful. This is distorted thinking" reveals your total misunderstanding of what science is about: science is about posing questions and answering them objectively and not by partisanism in the direction of what you like. "People like you" is also no scientific argument but again your way to talk to enemies you don't like.
Still no answer to these questions:
Are both of these: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/plot/uah/from:1998…
right?
What point is there in saying "the pause” if it has always been a "pause"? (UAH and RSS have NEVER shown statistically significant warming in any 18 year period. They're just too noisy.)
Looks like gc and sd have failed these intelligence tests.
Jeffy, this article from your publication list HAS NOTHING to do with global warming:
Can you comment on your own what the cited study has to say about anthropogenic global warming? In my eyes nothing at all.
Um, Kim you silly twerp, that is one of my 159 papers on the web of Science. Why cite one of my papers to make a point? Are you out of your mind? Seriously?
What you have shown with this little stupid stunt is to essentially humiliate yourself - by suggesting that every one of my papers must be about GW. I am sure that many climate scientists are not 'only' publishing papers on climate change. And some leading authorities on C02 effects - such as Richard Lindroth - also publish studies in other areas.
I have said that many scientists are studying C02 effects on plant-insect interactions and that I have read them; one of my colleagues did his PhD on C02 effects on plant-aphid interactions and I personally know many scientists who work in the field. I recently also published a book chapter on herbivores, their parasitoids, and climate change, and I have a paper in press now on the same subject. But its clear that you have not got a clue about how science works and that I might as well be writing to an ameoba.
Again, how utterly dumb can one be? Your last post was so funny but alarmingly naive at the same time. Thanks for reinforcing my views on how utterly simple many AGW deniers are. Kim, you are seriously bidding for a gold medal in this on Deltoid, and, given some of the clowns I have encountered on here over the past 10 years, that is saying a lot.
One last point: no, I do not study effects of C02 enrichment on plant-insect interactions. I do not need to!!!!!! The data are there in the peer-reviewed literature!!!!!!!!!!!! I have met many peers working in the field and have attended many lectures at conferences where these areas are discussed. I have PhD students who do study AGW and its ecological and physiological effects in this area. But Kim's point is straight out of the sandbox. He/she writes like a little child. I am a scientist and this is the inane level i am responding to folks. Its utterly puerile.
One thing is for certain: Kimmy ain't no scientiist.
Still being a tiresome little twat, eh, kim?
Sorry, you're not precious. You're just a sad fucker on the internet.
Jeffy, your recent posts (Oct. 18, #97 and #98) were rather stupid, full of ignorance and foul language. I present you now a list of your papers from your own selection and there is NOT A SINGLE ONE which deals with the effects of global warming or elevated CO2 concentrations on your study subjects (insects, plants):
In addition I don't like to hear from you that "you had listened to peers and lectures where effects of CO2 have convinced you about AGW bla bla". Listen, it's not important what you heard, what you want or don't want and which peer had told you what: THE ONLY THING THAT COUNTS IS THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE as documented in original scientific articles reporting undisputed scientifically valid facts from the real world.
My overall judgement of your scientific work:
1) Many me-toos without much added value to already existing knowledge
2) Not a single study that deserves special designation as specifically innovative or creative, therefore scarcely inspiring to read everything
3) No breakthroughs to exciting new grounds of knowledge could be detected
4) No relationship to global warming and rising CO2 levels
5) A great many papers in lower impact journals
In summary, you should not blather too much of an illusionist role you don't have or deserve in the climate debate. You are way too far away from the research topics there. So better shut up, twerp.
Jeff Harvey,
You come across as a pompous ass of the arrogant kind..,..quite common in academia. It turns out that your boasted expertise is both trivial and irrelevant. My training in physics and mathematics is more appropriate.
OK, I got that off my chest and won't make any more remarks aimed at you personally. However I doubt if you will reciprocate. You seem to delight in name calling. What is it about web sites like this that encourages people to behave more offensively they would in a face to face discussions?
According to respectable climate scientists like Gavin Schmidt the GHE (Greenhouse Effect) is 33 K. His proof rests on the assertion that Earth's average temperature is 288 K whereas it would be 255 K if there was no atmosphere. While I agree with the 288 K figure, the 255 K figure is wildly wrong.
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/challenging-arrhenius…
Thus a more realistic value for the GHE is 288 - 197 = 91 K.
However, Earth rotates 29.5 times faster than the Moon. Does the rotation rate of airless bodies affect the average temperature? If so by how much? I developed a physical model to compare with the Diviner observations with the idea of exploring the effect of rotation rate and different surfaces rocks (ice, regolith etc).
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/a-new-lunar-thermal-model-ba…
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/extending-a-new-lunar-therma…
Thus I contend that average temperature increases as the rotation rate increases. An airless Earth would have an average temperature of 209 K if the surface was similar to lunar regolith and 234 K if it was made of ice/snow.
You have failed to show that Catastrophic Global Warming is happening. Yet you attribute all kinds of ill effects to something that does not exist.
Poor Chris does not understand that he has shown there has been no significant warming since 1998. The natural variations which he thinks of as "Noise" are swamping the effect of CO2 induced warming.
Just checking with the internet calculator, RSS needs 17 years MINIMUM (the cherry-picked 1985 to 2002) to achieve statistical significance. Sorry, my data search wasn't quite extensive enough.
gc:
Dumb clown, of course I know that RSS and UAH are too noisy to show statistically significant global warming since 1998. They are both also too noisy to show global warming for the TWENTY-TWO YEARS from 1979 to 2001. By your logic this means RSS and UAH have always been in a global warming "pause", i.e. there is no global warming and there never has been. What is the point of calling it a "pause" if that's all there ever is? A "pause" after what?
Again gc fails to answer the question:
Are both of these: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/plot/uah/from:1998…
right?
Another fail by you gc.
Try this one gc. If the green line here is right, how can the closer (in trend) blue line be "wrong" while the further away red line is "right"? What were you saying about error bounds gc?
Looking forward to your next fail gc.
GC, you come across as an old far contrarian emeritus type in academia who thinks they are experts in fields outside of their own training - quite common in contrarian circles these days. Your training in physics and mathematics is totally inappropriate for understanding the dynamics of non-linear systems. I looked you up on the Web of Science and I was not impressed. I will leave it at that.
OK, I got that off my chest. And don't you, of all people, call me arrogant - I saw how you smeared McElroy with your 'dumb luck' comment and how you labeled me and others who disagree with your nonsense as 'Marxists'. What you don't like is having your arguments - as weak as they are - demolished. As far as your CGW is concerned, again, its a strawman, and you know it. Such a remark reveals a complete inability to understand scale and the dynamics of natural systems and of tipping points. Qualified scientists know full well that natural systems function in non-linear ways and that alteration of important properties pushes these systems towards critical thresholds beyond which they enter into alternative and potentially must less stable states. You have not responded to a single argument I have made and there are many, so you have switched again.
I suggest you run back to your blog and to the appalling blogs where you source much of your information. You are a typical AGW denier in my experience. Your acolytes call me arrogant and there you are claiming to be a 'teacher'. If you taught my students some of the nonsense you have put up here in recent weeks I would have to make many correctives.
Kim, may ask you what you do for a day job? I ask because you clearly have never been near a university lecture theater in your life. You have now increased my publication list up to about 30 - 130 to go still - and you have gotten nowhere. Your posts are making me cringe and laugh at the same time. Please tell me from under which rock you have crawled so i can put you back.
FYI, I have been trained in many different aspects of plant-insect and community ecology. One of my closest colleagues and collaborators did their PhD on C02 effects on trophic interactions. My colleagues in microbial ecology study the below ground effects increased C02 on soil biota. I have been trained in relevant fields. What makes your simple little mind think that I have to personally conduct experiments to know about the field?
There are a number of my peers who do meta-analyses in areas dealing with relevant topics. None of them do experiments, but they collate the conclusions of various studies and publish these analyses as an indicator of patterns in the field. Using your ridiculous logic, since none of them do actual experiments, then they have no right to write about these fields.
And, having said this, what do you have to say to a guy who studied lasers (GC) or, like most contrarians like you, nothing at all in relevant fields? They come on here parading views that are at odds with the vast majority of scientists. You seem to like what they say - and ignore the fact that their 'expertise' is far, far more removed from C02-plant interactions than mine is. This proves that your views are driven not by science but by your own political bias. Well done
I will stop here because as I said yesterday I might as well be writing to a n amoeba, or, even more relevantly, to a wall...
Kim breaks me up... literally. He has the audacity to write this about my research:
2) Not a single study that deserves special designation as specifically innovative or creative, therefore scarcely inspiring to read everything
Really? Have you read two of my Nature articles? Or my reviews that are heavily cited? Since when are you the arbiter of my, or for that matter, anyone else's research? My standing in science is miles ahead of yours (well, you are'n't a scientist, that is clear) and in my field I am well respected. I used to be an Associate editor at Nature as well, but why do I need to defend my credentials to an absolute NOTHING like you?
3) No breakthroughs to exciting new grounds of knowledge could be detected
See my last comment. Having pasted a small snippet of my papers, Kim, or whoever this sock puppet is, think that they can judge me as a scientist. Really! I am not joking people! And they clearly have not read a single paper of mine (they linked one of my Nature papers) and then claim that I don't deserve to be in a 'climate change debate'. If that's the case, then Kim ought to write to GC and SD and chastise them. But he won't! Because he likes what they say.
Some advice Kim of whoever you are: you are way, way out of your depth. I told you to go to the Web of Science and to put relevant words into the search engine and to then read the primary literature, some of which I have already cited. You do not read scientific articles, that is for sure. You claim to say that the only thing that counts is scientific evidence and the pages of scientific journals are FILLED WITH IT.
So its you who ought to shut up... and get a life while you are at it.
Kim, SD, GC et al. au contrarians:
Read this. And then re-read it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
I am too busy to engage in pedantic debates with you any more. I am fed up with your willful ignorance and blind political and ideological bias. Science has spoken - and these major bodies recognize it.
"GC, you come across as an old far contrarian emeritus type in academia "
We don't know that this person is who they claim at all. We only have their word for it.
And we've seen how little that is worth.
"However, Earth rotates 29.5 times faster than the Moon. Does the rotation rate of airless bodies affect the average temperature?"
No.
"Thus I contend that average temperature increases as the rotation rate increases."
So our planet was turning how many times a year during the MWP? How many times during the LIA? We have chronometers for those periods, so we can check.
And what has caused the recent "pause" you claim to see for the last 18 years in the accelerating spin of the planet? Is it reflected in the GPS chronometry?
Jeffy: "... Having pasted a small snippet of my papers, Kim ...". You want more? You can have it: also in the following list of further publications there is NOT A SINGLE ONE dealing with global warming or increasing CO2 levels and corresponding effects on your study topics.
Conclusion: YOU did NOT investigate the effects of rising CO2 levels or air temperature increases on insects or plants.
We can abbreviate this going through your publication list if you name me the few papers you think have to do with global warming.
Again you tell me, that you have colleagues who have investigated the effects of rising air temperatures and elevated atmospheric C02 levels on insects and plants. Can you - as an example - cite a few of those original studies (please no reviews or IPCC reports, also not Wikipedia or other Internet pages)?
I will not read the Wikipedia article you cited as I read only scientific articles in scientific journals.
Fuck of you moron.
Nobody is listening, nobody cares.
Wow, I second that. Can you seriously believe what a wack-job this 'Kim' is? He/she is so utterly stupid and naive that they think by pasting my entire publication list up here that they are making a point. As I said I DON'T HAVE TO STUDY CO2-PLANT-INSECT INTERACTIONS TO KNOW WHAT THE PRIMARY LITERATURE SAYS. I highlight this because 'Kim' is such a dolt that he/she thinks that this is the way that science works. I did my PhD, as it turns out, on the biology of host-parasitoid interactions, and since then I ahve branched out into plant-insect and community ecology. I study plant secondary metabolites (many which are C or N based) and I regularly attend conferences where the relevant issues are discussed. I also have access to the Web of Science, where a huge number of papers on climate change effects on trophic interactions are covered.
'Kim', this utter imbicile, claims only to read scientific articles but 'he/she clearly doesn't read any because he/she (or it) doesn't cite any here to discuss. He/she (or it) defends Gc and Sd who also do not cite the primary literature but instead link to blogs.
Has 'Kim. read any scientific articles by Julie Koricheva? Camille Parmesan? Brad Hawkins? of course not! But these are scientists whose primary focus is meta-analysis; they collate papers by other scientists in order to elucidate trends from them. For that matter has 'Kim' read papers by Lindroth, Bazzaz or others who study C02 effects on trophic interactions? No, of course not! Could 'Kim', even if they read them, understand the science? Of course not! I am sure 'Kim' could not understand any of my research.
What does Kim know about primary and secondary metabolism in plants? Plant stoichiometry? The jasmonic acid and salicytic acid pathways in plants? The breakdown products of plant herbivore damage and how this affects insect development and fitness? Top-down versus bottom up regulation in ecological communities? The effects of changes in plant chemistry and how this affects primary and secondary metabolism?
For that matter how many papers has 'Kim' published in the peer-reviewed literature? I have 160. What is your tally? Let me guess. Zero, zilch, nada, nil.
So take Wow's advice. Bugger off.
Kim also claims to read the primary ltierature, so I paste up these links and he/she/it ignores them. Seems Kim cannot read very well.
I study climate change effects in insects and have a new paper coming out on the subject in Current Opinions in Insect Science (in press). But there’s lots of studies out there. Note that some of the studies I have linked are published in journals with very high Impact Factors – not the drivel from blogs that Sd and Gc link to. And this is just a tiny example of studies with insects – there are many more across the plant and animal kingdoms. But AGW is taken as give among biologists – just as it is among climate scientists. I could link to hundreds of studies given the time, but here is a snippet:
http://www.royensoc.co.uk/sig/climate_change_and_insects.htm
https://peerj.com/articles/11/
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/6135/20140221/climate-change-af…
http://news.nd.edu/news/57176-climate-change-is-affecting-disease-carry…
http://www.livescience.com/7783-bugs-forgotten-victims-climate-change.h…
All of these links (except the top one, a conference) are published in leading journals like GCB, PNAS etc.
Go to the Web of Science and type in keywords:
C02 and plant-insect = 685 hits
Climate change and plant-insect = 1110 hits
Climate change and insect = 3153 hits
Climate change and extinction = 5209 hits
Climate change biodiversity = 11205 hits
C02 and biodiversity = 1097 hits
C02 and plant metabolism = 5739 hits
CO2 and extinction = 1251 hits
Global warming and extinction = 980 hits
Carbon dioxide and plant and herbivore and insect
Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
This is IT from me. I am fed up with Kim. I am too busy to put up with this childish nonsense.
Jeffie, my friend, I see that Kim too, like anyone not compelled by your grandiose and high pitched self idolatry, identified you for what you truly are: an ordinary climate scare geezer always inventing reality while streetwalking the shaking tents of fellow portentologist.
It's always projection with you yapping little dogs, isn't it.
OP, my non-friend, you'd support a pekinese pissing against a lamp post if it shared your views on climate.
As it turns out, Kim makes big noises about the primary literature which, like you, he hasn't read. And what's more ironic is for him, you or anyone to be lecturing me about 'scientific evidence' when you all rely on third rate blogs run by non-scientists for your worldviews. I have yet to see Kim actually cite any of these vaunted studies he talks about. For that matter, neither have Gc or Sd, who always copy-past links to blogs like WUWT, C02 Science, Nova etc.
Truth is, you bunch are really very easy to demolish. And for the umpteenth time Olaus, please try and write your English more fluently. You use singular when you mean plural and you don't understand the basic meaning of words like 'instinct' and 'extinct'. You also don't have a lot to brag about - no relevant expertise in anything remotely scientific, so you are left to make vacuous smears that mask your deep, deep envy.
Jeffie dear, keep on inveting your own reality but the lack of accelrating global warming, lack of more intense hurricanes, the abundance of the thing of the past, etc, still exists.
It's still projection from the Koch-sucker moron.
op:
You mean the lack of any global warming. There was no statistically significant warming from 1979 to 2001 in UAH or RSS and there was no statistically significant warming in UAH or RSS since 1994.
By global warming denialist logic, that means there has never been any global warming.
If Tim Lambert is not active who deserves the credit for the moderation policy here?
What moderation policy, you fucking cretin?
You said that you study insects. Fine. You said that you see signs of global warming in your insects, that they are some kind of stressed. Have you done experiments exposing 1000 insects each during various defined lengths of periods to air with 0ppm CO2, 100ppm CO2, 200ppm CO2, 300ppm CO2, 400ppm CO2, 500ppm CO2, 600ppm CO2, 700ppm CO2, 800ppm CO2, and investigated with all series the predefined parameters? If so, what were the results between different C02 concentrations?
Fuck but you deniers are ignorant and stupid. Local concentrations of CO2 have fuckall to do with the ecological stress resulting from global warming resulting from atmospheric GHGs.
Thus I contend that average temperature increases as the rotation rate increases.
BWAHAHAH! Oh my fucking god!
Crackpots R funny.
@ianam, October 20, 2015
"Thus I contend that average temperature increases as the rotation rate increases."
BWAHAHAH! Oh my fucking god!
Crackpots R funny.
If you disagree with my conclusion why don't you offer your calculations? If you are not familiar with Finite Element Analysis I would be happy to send you my code and data files so you can point out my errors.
My analysis of the temperature of airless bodies is in close agreement with that of Scott Denning, Is he a crackpot too?
http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/faculty/denning.php
It was an interesting exercise to correct the obviously false 255 K estimate for the temperature of an airless Earth, yet It was just a training run on the way to calculating the GHE (Greenhouse Effect) from first principles.
An impressive GHE calculation was done by Carl Sagan in 1967 when he derived an accurate estimate of the temperature of the planet Venus even though he did not know the composition of the Venusian atmosphere. Here is the correction he made in 1968:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?db_key=AS…
To make predictions of temperature for planets with significant atmospheres you need a radiative-convective model. Ramanathan, Caballero, Pierrehumbert and others have offered theirs but I find Robinson & Catling's model particularly impressive given that it accurately predicts the temperatures from the surface to the top of the stratosphere for all seven bodies in our solar system with significant atmospheres:
http://faculty.washington.edu/dcatling/Robinson2014_0.1bar_Tropopause.p…
Here is my review of Robinson & Catling's analysis of Titan:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-…
Robinson & Catling's work is impressive but their willingness to interact with the general public is a refreshing change from charlatans who "Lawyer Up" rather than admit their theories are at odds with observations.
The R&C model lacks cloud layers so I am working on that in my free time. Progress is slow as my classes have become absurdly popular. My schedule has already filled into November 2016!
http://www.bdidatalynk.com/PeterMorcombe.html
Although I am working for the next three weeks I will try to find some time to help you Deltoids. While I doubt if any of you will be persuaded by calculations and data you need to understand that the facts are not on your side. All you have is name calling, appeal to authority and untold billions of government money to support a political agenda.
Jeff Harvey, October 19, 2015
"GC, you come across as an old far contrarian emeritus type in academia who thinks they are experts in fields outside of their own training – quite common in contrarian circles these days. Your training in physics and mathematics is totally inappropriate for understanding the dynamics of non-linear systems. I looked you up on the Web of Science and I was not impressed. I will leave it at that. "
Congratulations Jeff, you finally landed a blow that stung a little. My publications in academia have been as second or third fiddle. However, it was an enjoyable experience to be a small cog in a machine with an amazing "Brains to Weight" ratio.
While the Duke university physics department is tiny, we did manage to produce the world's brightest gamma ray source back in 1997:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/237043799_Gamma-Ray_Production_…
I "Retired" in 2002 but Duke university still has the world's brightest gamma ray source in the 10 to 100 MeV spectrum. The Duke High Intensity Gamma Source (HIGS) uses Inverse Compton Scattering which is the process that directs the energy from GRBs (Gamma Ray Bursters), the brightest events in the universe:
http://www.tunl.duke.edu/web.tunl.2011a.howhigsworks.php
If you disagree with my conclusion why don’t you offer your calculations?
Because it's not worth the effort, you stupid shithole.
untold billions of government money to support a political agenda
Oh yeah, I'm a billionaire.
Scott Denning, Is he a crackpot too?
Well, you seem to think so:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Denning
He is known for his research into atmosphere-biosphere interactions and atmospheric carbon dioxide.[3] He firmly supports action to avoid dangerous climate change and has said that the science behind it is "settled".[4][5] He has also argued that, if no action is taken on the matter, global warming could cause the climate of Colorado to resemble the current climate of its neighbors to the south, such as southern New Mexico, Texas and Mexico.[6]
Jeffy, I am getting increasingly angry with you, because you did not give me original article references but internet links or query statements, for which I did NOT ask you. I took my time, with anger, to browse through your cited pages and refer here now to your second link "https://peerj.com/articles/11/" which presents the following review article (BTW, I wanted original articles from you):
"Assessing insect responses to climate change: What are we testing for? Where should we be heading?"
BiodiversityEcologyEntomologyZoology
Nigel R. Andrew1,2, Sarah J. Hill2, Matthew Binns1,2, Md Habibullah Bahar1,5, Emma V. Ridley3, Myung-Pyo Jung1,4, Chris Fyfe2, Michelle Yates1,2, Mohammad Khusro1
Published February 12, 2013PubMed 23638345
and quote one paragraph from it:
This is an honest assessment of the weakness of knowledge and data with insects and warming climates. YOU should be decent enough to accept the lack of data and ABSTAIN from idiotic slogans like: "bla bla ... the community has consensus that .... is true ... bla bla".
"Jeffy, I am getting increasingly angry with you"
We are dealing with a fruitcake here, folks. Kim is getting angry with me! Oh dear! I cringe! I cower!
Kim, or whoever this weirdo is, claims to only want to read published articles, but leaves it up to me to provide them for him/her/it/whatever. Note how Kim has not made similar demands to galloping camel or spangled drongo, who only link to blogs and not to the primary literature.
Kim, take some advice. I wil try and be polite here, but with you this takes amazing patience on my part. LOOK UP SOME OF THE THOUSANDS OF STUDIES I SHOWED EXIST ON THE WEB OF SCIENCE YOURSELF. I am not your sole provider of published studies. But if you persist in your childish ways, I will get you booted off of this site. And I can do it. I do not have the time to deal with this kind of kindergarten level behavior, or of your stupid threats.
.... and to continue: "I took my time, with anger, to browse through your cited pages"... etc.
Tim, can you ban this person? ASAP?
Jeffy, calm down, you are too emotional. I quoted a scientific article in #33 and you evaded my point 100%. WHY? Get back soon to decent reasoning, otherwise I will stop argueing with you, as I have much better use of my time.
Kim, you have been warned. Any more indirect threats etc and you are out of here. In the meantime, since you are incapable of finding papers for yourself, start with these. AND DO NOT BOTHER ME AGAIN.
http://www.uvm.edu/~bbeckage/Teaching/HCOL_185_2014/AssignedPapers/Walt…
http://www.planta.cn/forum/files_planta/ecological_and_evolutionary_res…
Tim, by no means did I intend to threaten Jeff Harvey. He overreacts, as always, and HAS no reason to feel endangered. I just reacted to a lot of foul, overly arrogant speech from him.
Jeffy, again you presented me two review articles. Don't you know what ORIGINAL journal articles are?
Why not giving me the refrerences from your fundus of two ORIGINAL arrticles, instead of reviews? What is so difficult with it? I can't understand this.
PS: don't threaten me with banning, that's NOT your blog but just again very selfish and arrogant.
Jeffy, no substance from you on #33: scarcity of data?
KIm, and you don't think I don't have better use of my time?!?!? I have 4 PhD students now, 2 are writing up and I am working on 10 manuscripts. I just wonder why AGW deniers never seem able to look for the primary literature themselves. It seems that I have to provide it on a plate for you. Journals like Ecology Letters, Nature Climate Change, Nature, Science, PNAS, PLoS Biology, PLos One, Ecology, Global Change Biology, Oikos, Oecologia, Ecosystems, Journal of Ecology, Functional Ecology, Biological Invasions, and many others are FILLED with articles detailing effects of warming on terrestrial and marine ecosystems. I am working at present on a multitrophic system involving two parasitoid wasps that are from more southern parts of Europe that have recently expanded their range into Holland. Both are thermophilic - one is essentially Mediterranean - and they are competing now with native parasitoids of the same host. Their host is a pest moth that originally came from Africa and the Mediterranean but which now is found over much of the world. Thanks partially at least to warmer winters, it now overwinters in southern UK and Holland and thus emerges earlier in the spring where it is a serious pest of cabbages and related crops. Another major pest, the Oak processionary caterpillar, spread from the south into Holland in 1991 and now thrives here. It likes warm conditions and has recently arrived in the UK where it is also spreading. The caterpillars produce toxic hairs that are a very serious health hazard. The related Pine processionary caterpillar is currently expanding its range north through France and into Belgium due to warming. We are experiencing warmer winters and especially warmer minimal night temperatures. These are just a few examples from my own research. The scientific journals are filled with similar articles covering a range of biota. We also know from work here that winter moth caterpillars, important food for breeding songbirds, are becoming desynchronized with the optimal stage of their food plants (young Oak buds) due to the earlier springs we are having. What I am saying is that trophic interactions underpin the health and vitality of ecosystems and food webs. Warming is unraveling these interactions. As I said, look up the articles for yourself. Just because I don't hand them to you on a plate does not mean that they are not there.
If you are also such a stickler for 'facts', why aren't you having a go at Gc, who has beein attacking scientists like McElroy and Santer elsewhere, or Sd who takes swipes at scientists like Schmidt. I have been battling anti-environmentalists for the past 15 years and to be honest I am sick of it and of them. I read some comments yesterday on another blog where Gc actually claimed that melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets as well as Siberia would have potential benefits in freeing up land for growiong crops or living. Where are his scientific studies to support this nonsense? This is below kindergarten level science and I am sick of having to stoop into the mud to debate it. Forget the 20 meter or more sea level rise that would accompany loss of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, such an event in the time scale envisaged would utterly annihilate most life on this planet. It would generate and extinction event that exceeded the Permian-Triassic event. Vertebrates and vascular plants would go, along with most invertebrates as well that depend on the plants either directly or indirectly. What would be left are bacteria, viruses and perhaps some fungi. The reason is because species and populations are not genetically predisposed to respond in such a short time frame to such an apocalyptic change. These kinds of changes normnally take hundreds of thousands or even million of years, and not a century or less. This is what deniers and contrarians just do not understand. They think that humans are exempt from the laws of nature. That no matter how much humans assault the natural world, that we will always persist.
You feel that you are clearly qualified to judge my research. So what is itn that you do for a day job? Are you a trained scientist with papers in the peer-reviewed literature? I would certainly admit that Gc knows much more than I do about his field of endeavor (lasers, physics) than me, but what I find is that all kinds of laymen do not hesitate to suggest that they are more qualified than me in a field in which I have a PhD and have been trained. Gc is not trained in ecology or environmental science, yet that doesn't stop him making outrageous assertions about the net costs and benefits of warming and of increasing atmospheric concentrations of C02 on plant-insect systems. I am certainly more trained in this area becaused I studied ecology as an undergraduate and currently study plants ion my research. This brings me into contact with many peers working in relevant fields as well as in the papers in the journals I mentioned. I amke no apologies about saying that I know more about plant-insect interactions, ecology, and ecophysiology than Gc. Its because its true.
Kim, Look up the bloody articles for yourself! They are in the references!!!!!
As for banning, I can and will do it if you persist. You write like a mediocre high school student. Perhaps that is what you are. One thing is fir sure: you aren't a trained scientist. The shallow level of your posts makes that abundantly clear to me. You demand that I provide articles for you when they are cited in the reviews I linked. You clearly are able to use a keyboard so look them up for yourself and tell me when you get back how many downplay AGW or C02 effects. Until then, I will continue to do my day job: as a scientist.
gc:
You forgot to mentions questions that you fail to answer such as are both of these: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/plot/uah/from:1998…
right?
Also If the green line here is right, how can the closer (in trend) blue line be “wrong” while the further away red line is “right”?
Don't forget to give us all our credit gc, otherwise you would make another fail.
"We are dealing with a fruitcake here, folks. Kim is getting angry with me! Oh dear! I cringe! I cower! "
Kim is obvipusly personally offended that anyone should investigate climate change and NOT find that it is false.
Or kim is an utter shithead.
Or both. Could be both.
Jeff, yes you have given me references of review articles. Yes, I can find of course original articles on my own as I am used to it. My idea was only to get references of specific original articles, which YOU personally find most or very convincing in presenting the study results. I accept, that you were not willing to do so for whatever reasons and therefore I dig out now myself original articles from the literature.
I am no science denier at all and of course no contrarian to any honest and decent scientist of any scientific discipline. I do not adhere to any political ideology. Now let's slow down our exchange as you have lots to do as well as myself. If I find something necessary to discuss with you from the literature I will do so.
PS: I did not know that you are either the blog owner here or somebody with administration rights.
Kim, OK, now we are gettign somewhere. Let us be polite to each other.
One thing I would like to stress. Read the posts of Gc and Sd and then tell me where they have argued using the primary scientific literature. Ds linked to a paper in the contrarian journal Energy and Environment - that has an impact factor of 0.15. Both of them rely on blogs, which don't do science at all but instead interpret the published studies selectively. Yesterday you said that my research was niether ground breaking nor original (if you don't work in my field or a related one, then you clearly do not know what is original or ground-breaking) and that I publish a lot in low impact journals. Certainly I do, although the lowest I regularly go to is about 1.5, which is still light years ahead of Sds E and E one. But you will notice I also have papers in higher journals. The mean impact factor of all my papers so far is about 4.5. That's pretty good and I am happy with it. My work is also well cited: 467 citations so far this year, and my career h-factor is 40. Only 5-10% scientists reach h-factors of 40 or more, so I am happy with this too. And I still have about 10 years to go before I retire, so I could arguably end up with an h-factor of 50-60.
I am willing to help you look for papers. However, there is a reason I am obstinate on this blog. A few years ago a denier wrote in here and when I countered his nonsense about GW effects on natural ecosystems, he demanded to know what expertise I had to disagree with him. I told him, and then suddenly I was 'waving my CV', 'self-valorizing' etc. Its a no win situation. If I respond I get 'you have no expertise in the field' and if then show my credentials I am being 'arrogant and showing off'. AGW deniers and anti-environmentalists hate scientists. Its as simple as that. This is because we are at the front lines doing the research that they hate as well. They are primarily driven by political agendas and wear their hearts on their sleeves. Heck, Gc implied that I was a Marxist last week. You should see some of the nasty things that Michael Mann, James Hansen, Paul Ehrlich, Ben Santer and others have been called. Many have received death threats. After I critically reviewed Bjorn Lomborg's book for Nature with Stuart Pimm I received nasty emails. This is not a debate about science; its more like a street fight.
Jeff, agreed. It was not my prime goal to offend you with my remarks on your impressive list of publications. The only thing which is really on my mind is getting as close to the 'truth' as possible and avoid falling into possible traps in perceiving and thinking. And if you support me on this journey I am just thankful.
Kim, its great to read this! Its amazing how far we can come in one day. One day I'll tell you some stories about some of the stuff I have been through. I am sure you will find it interesting.All the best.
Jeff, thank you, all the best to you as well.
@Jeff Harvey
"Forget the 20 meter or more sea level rise that would accompany loss of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, such an event in the time scale envisaged would utterly annihilate most life on this planet. It would generate and extinction event that exceeded the Permian-Triassic event."
What a load of hysterical nonsense. We are living in an Ice Age which is why the sea level is so low.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/65_Myr_Climate_Chan…
For 57 of the last 60 million years the sea level was at least 30 meters higher than it is today. Please rein in the political and emotional BS. Try to understand the hard scientific data.
http://www.carbonateresearch.com/sites/default/files/2008_Sluijsetal_Pa…
I am greatly encouraged to find that "kim" and "Jeff Harvey" have found common ground.
My intention is also to find common ground. Most of the material I cite is based on my personal calculations. Given that I am an amateur my papers are not peer reviewed but I am ready to share my calculations with anyone who doubts my conclusions.
Scott Denning critiqued my work and I tweaked it until we reached agreement. Likewise with David Catling and Tyler Robinson.
I have corresponded with Tom Peterson, Albert Klein-Tank, Richard Alley and several scientists at KNMI and DMI (Danish Meteorological Institute). We don't always agree but these folks are real scientists who are not afraid to interact with the ordinary people who pay their salaries via taxes.
There are many other prominent "Climate Scientists" who won't engage with the general public. These are the people who hide behind lawyers. How can you trust anyone who "Lawyers Up" rather than answer a simple question? Why would a scientist need to hide behind a lawyer if his work is "Robust"?
Gc, on Desmog Blog you claimed that there were potential benefits if the Antarctic and Arctic ice sheets melted, as well as warmer temperatures occurred in places like Siberia. I simply said that if this were to happen, sea levels would rise no less than 20 meters and most coastal citirs would be flooded around the world. But more improtantly, in the time scale you envisage for this change to occur, it would precipitate an ecological collpase so great that it would dwarf that at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary or Permina-Triassic boundary. What I tend to find among contrarians is that they lack the basic acumen to understand the realtionship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, of the link between functioning and abiotic factors, and of the importance of biodiversity in sustaining humanity. Some think that we can creat a concrete-covered planet and that the consequences would be minimal.
Natural systems respond to change within genetic and phenotypic limits. If we do not reign in the current warming episode, it is certainly highly possible that we will exceed the capacity of many systems to adapt in ways that enable them to continue functioning effectively in ways that generate conditions permitting humans to exist and persist. I think that humans are conducting a huge, non-repeatable experiment on systems of immense complexity that we depend upon in numerous ways through supporting, regulating and provisioning ecological services. An apt anology is that there is a patient in a hosptial connected to a very complex life support machine. Without it he would die. The machine has all kinds of parts and inbuilt redundancy as well, but we know that it does its job. A doctor comes in and says he needs a part from the machine for his practice. He is told that is OK and takes a comnponent out of it. The machine continues to function depsite the part being taken out. Seeing this, another doctor asks if she can take a part out for her practice. OK say those who oversee the machine. She takes out a component and it still works fine. Many doctors see this happen and ask if they can take parts out as well.
We then ask ourself: how many working parts can be removed from this machine before it breaks down, leading to the death of the patient hooked up to it? The analogy is apt for what Homo sapiens is doing to ecosystems across the biosphere. We are simplifying natural systems at an alarming rate - the Living Planet Index suggests that around 50% of genetic diversity has been lost since 1970. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment showed that humnans have seriously degraded 60% of critical ecosystem services. We are well into the planet's 6th great extinction, but the first to be caused by an evolved inahbitant - us. Individual organisms, species, and genetically distinct populations are the working parts of our ecological life support systems, and in my anology they are like the parts of the life-support machine in the hospital that the doctors are taking away. The seminal 1986 paper by Vitousek and colleagues estimates that humans co-opt at least 40% of net primary production; we also co-opt 50% of net freshwater flows. We are trying to take over all over all of nature, and the consequences will rebound on us.
Climate change is forcing natural systems to adaptively respond against a background of many other anthropogenic stresses. We are truly living now in the Anthropocene and yet our species insists on taking us further and further down the bottleneck that we have created in the vain hope that everything will be alright in the end and that technology and human ingenuity will save us. Given our total dependence on nature, its the sprint of folly to believe this. Most scientists and even economists are well aware that we are headed in the wrong direction. Yet our economic and political systems are driven primarily by short-term agendas, masking our ability to project the consequences further. As I explained to Kim yesterday, the empirical literature is full of studies showing how humans are reducing the resilience of natural systems at all levels of organization. It would be prudent to take a cautionary approach but we are not doing that. We are continuing to fiddle while Rome burns, and are being told as scientists that without 100% unequivocal proof of an impending disaster that nothing needs to change. That we must 'stay the course' even as the evidence piles up.
I am seriously not optimisitic for humanity. It appears that we will not respond to what we are doing across the biosphere until its too late - until the shit really hits the fan.
"What a load of hysterical nonsense. We are living in an Ice Age which is why the sea level is so low."
Well, more moronic from this idiot.
NO. The sea level is so low because a lot of ice is locking up the water on land.
Now, what happens when we "los[e] of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets" that hold some of that water...?
"For 57 of the last 60 million years the sea level was at least 30 meters higher than it is today."
So what? (and by the way, not true)
When it warms up as much as it was, then the sea levels would be 30 m higher.
Which, according to you, means you're talking a load of HYPER hysterical nonsense.
"There are many other prominent “Climate Scientists” who won’t engage with the general public."
There are idiots who want to take up all the time that these climate scientists are supposed to take working. And those idiots with their crackpot theories and curve fitting BS then whine that they're not being listened to.
And why no whining from you about Mad Lord Monckfish or "Bashed Bishop" Montford who lawyer-up at the drop of a hat, I ask?
"Scott Denning critiqued my work and I tweaked it until we reached agreement"
Really? Proof of this agreement, plz.
" Likewise with David Catling and Tyler Robinson."
Likewise.
"How can you trust anyone who “Lawyers Up” rather than answer a simple question?"
Like "How much money did you take for this AGW scam, you liar!!!!!" (followed by much spittle flying)?
Meanwhile we have several pending questions for you. You've not answered them at all. You can't afford a lawyer and have no case either, but this doesn't make your avoidance of these simple questions acceptable.
a) Which of the UAH and RSS are right in your opinion and why do they disagree?
b) How does the rotation of a planet make it warmer?
gc:
Indeed. How can you trust anyone who doesn't answer the simple question relating to their claims: If the green line here is right, how can the closer (in trend) blue line be “wrong” while the further away red line is “right”?
I certainly wouldn't trust anyone who doesn't.
gc:
They must think, "who's this clown?"
Note that the graph Gc linked to has a scale going back 60 million years. Gc seem to think that its OK for humans to tinker with natural systems, including the climate, and as a result for the planet to rapidly revert to conditions that took hundreds of thousands if not millions of years to reach but instead in a century or two. He apparently thinks that natural systems can easily adjust in this blink of an evolutionary eye, and that humans have the capacity to deal with fraying food webs and collapsing ecosystems anyway because the laws of nature don't really apply to us.
Simon Levin at Princeton said in his book "Fragile Dominion" that one of the most important parables for a watchmaker is 'not to tinker'. In other words, once the watch is made and is working, do not keep fiddling with it because that will probably lead to it being broken.
Humans are meddling, fiddling, tinkering, and altering natural systems just like the tinkering watchmaker in Levin's analogy. In doing so, we are certainly reducing the ability of ecosystems across the biosphere to function effectively. Altering climate and increasing atmospheric concentrations of C02 and methane are classic examples of human tinkering, as our the loss and destruction of habitats we inflict on natural systems, the biological reshuffling of communities we impose via invasive species, other forms of pollution and overharvesting.
The point I am making is that it does not matter what the biosphere was like 52 or 40 or 20 million years ago. Its how long to took the systems to get there and to attain some level of equilibrium. At large scales, processes are largely deterministic and take some major forcing to get them out of this. Humans are altering systems at rates that far exceed most natural changes and therein lies the rub. Natural systems cannot adaptively respond at the rate of change that humans are inflicting on them. This is not that complicated for me to understand as an ecologist. But its so hard gettign this through to people who think that it would be delightful if winters in Manitoba or Minnesota were suddenly - say within a human lifetime - as warm as those in Florida. Yes, many people sadly think this about warming. They think that rapid climate change at this magnitude would have net benefits. Its this veneer of ignorance that I and my colleagues are having to cut through. Gc does not make it any easier.
"Note that the graph Gc linked to has a scale going back 60 million years"
It also has a baseline of the temperatures in the 1950's. Since when it's warmed quite a bit.
And, since the temperature refers to Vostock, does Galloping Dysentery know whether it refers to temperature changes in the polar region, or globally? Because with polar amplification, we've warmed a lot more at the poles than 1-2C. If he doesn't know, then how can be making claims on it?
@Wow,
The graph I linked is based on sea sediments from high latitudes so it does show polar amplification of roughly 3:1.
I found a similar amplification in my analysis of Greenland relative to the IPCC's global average:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/dorothy-behind-the-cu…
@ Jeff Harvey'
"I am seriously not optimisitic for humanity. It appears that we will not respond to what we are doing across the biosphere until its too late – until the shit really hits the fan."
I must (reluctantly) agree with you. Over 99% of all species that have existed on Earth are now extinct. According to some, the human species came close to extinction during the last glaciation owing to the Toba catastrophe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck
I would be interested to get your take on this hypothesis.
Here is how I see it. The human race along with many other species was stressed during the last glaciation and then the Toba eruption made conditions much worse. The effects were so drastic that the human race came very close to extinction.
The planet will kill us if we don't manage to kill ourselves first. The only hope for the survival of humanity is to develop the ability to colonize new worlds. If we overcome that challenge we have a small chance of surviving for billions of years otherwise we will need luck to survive the next glaciation.
the ordinary people who pay their salaries via taxes
Dumbfuck crank.
"The graph I linked is based on sea sediments from high latitudes so it does show polar amplification of roughly 3:1."
So the zero is passed by up to about 6C.
Looks like we're a lot closer to those "Antartic melt" eras than your graph appears to show.
What was it you said? At least 30m higher sea levels?
And you thought Jeff was hysterical!
"The planet will kill us if we don’t manage to kill ourselves first. "
We won't get off the planet if we kill ourselves first, idiot.
Still no answer to the question: Are both of these trends: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/plot/uah/from:1998…
right?
gc:
Only a little strange to arrogant ignoramuses like gc.
Kim, you should be nice to Jeff, even thankful for him taking the time to respond to you and the occasional deniers showing up here. They are really getting all worked up because of the upcoming COP21 meeting in Paris.
Still no answer to the question: Are both of these trends: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/plot/uah/from:1998…
right?
gc:
Only a little strange to arrog@nt ignor@muses like gc.
I would like to make up a new word for the likes of galloping dystentry: Ignoranus.
Wood for trees uses out of date UAH 5.5:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/
Current UAH data is 6.0:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-…
And here comes one now...
Spanky, just like Stupid, you post and that post contains absolutely nothing. Not even claims, just insinuated claims so we have to both work out what it is you're "trying" to prove AND disprove it. Which is hella lazy.
So, yet more adjustment to get his cooler trend, I guess. Not very reliable, is it, if he's on version 6 and it has point releases too.
UAH: somewhere between 0.19℃ of cooling and 0.46℃ of warming since 1998.
Talk about accurate.
Doltoid comments are about as relevant as weather reports.
What is it with meteorology these days? Why do weather bureaus tell lies? Patricia was reported as THE WORST EVAH !!!
What does it remind you of?
Met reports were saying, when it was approaching that even though the highest rating was Cat 5 it should have been classified as a Cat 7 !!!
But surprisingly there were no casualties. Nobody died.
Highest wind speed recorded over land was 65 knots.
Yawn !
Hurricanes around the world in recent years have caused up to half a million deaths from one storm !
When are we going to mention this wildly exaggerated science and reporting?
Is this the state of weather and climate science today?
Just tell lies and hope everyone's weather and climate amnesia will let it pass?
When Doltoids et al can get away with this crap sci how easy is it then to fiddle the tiny amount of warming since the LIA to fool the public and keep the money rolling in?
Record SLR? Oooooooh!!!
Record coral bleaching? Oooooooh!!!
If you roolly want to know just how roolly bad it is, just keep paying us to live in paradise and we'll sure keep telling you.
A bit more UAH 6.0 for Chris.
But not statistically significant cooling for the last 37 years either ☺:
https://kenskingdom.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/s-pole-sep.jpg
The ACO2 and GHG effect was supposed to have the greatest warming at the poles. That's why we got all the Doltoid blurb when the North pole warmed.
Shame about the South pole though...
Just to keep Chris more informed on UAH:
https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2015/10/16/the-pause-september-update/
"Our children won't know what warming is".
So, yet more defence of unsupported adjustment of climate data from spanky, again.
And dismissal of recorded events that don't fit his desires.
Ever noticed, Wowsie, how those later versions of UAH consisting of necessary corrections for ongoing satellite problems only bring it closer to NASA RSS?
Yeah right, "necessary corrections" because you and christie want it to be cooling.
And, no, nobody notices that because it's not true.
Go look on the wikipedia site for the instruments for the corrections made.
However, you really don't care for the truth.
Or about secrecy of code, which there is no release of the code from UAH to verify what they are doing to it.
I guess it's only going to be a problem for you when it shows more warming than the actual thermometer readings, at which point, you'll scream "GARBAGE IN!!!!" ad whine about the conspiracy keeping the code from being audited.
As long as you prefer the results (which are STILL a warming trend, by the way), you'll not care WHY they say what they do.
Because you're a transparently ignorant blowhard on a crusade to lie about everything you don't want to believe.
Hey,spanky and pals, demand the UAH RAW data.
More non-peer reviewed garbage from a blog copy-pasted by Spungled Dumbo in this, the warmest year BY FAR across the biosphere. Scientists know it. September broke the record by a country mile in terms of comparison with the same month the previous year. Of course there is no hiatus. Never was. The temperature increase was linear but not seems to be starting on an exponential trajectory. Our children very well know what warming is. Certainly children across much of central Europe do. Vienna had 17 days this summer where temperatures exceeded 35 C; the previous summer record was 5, set only two years ago. Heat waves that once occurred every 50 years are now occurring every 5. The Arctic death spiral continues, glaciers are melting at rates exceeding model predictions and biotic indicators of warming are everywhere.
And from Dumbo we don't get citations from the scientific literature, but from third rate non-scientist hacks on blogs. No wonder SD is stuck on blogs. He and his heros won't go anywhere near a scientific arena with their garbage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/science/2015-likely-to-be-hottest-yea…
Look at the graph of warmest years. Its positively alarming.
Poor ol' jiffy works himself into a lather over NYT reports of Gavin's reconstructions.
Oh dear !
BTW, how's Patricia goin' for ya, jiff?
The more Spencer and Christie correct for all the satellite problems, the more they agree with NASA’s RSS.
But the more GISS correct, the more they diverge with the satellites when, before the last big el Nino, they used to agree:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/figure-intro-5.png
Strange, that.
RSS isn't "NASA's"
And it is hilarious that the more corrections Spencer & Christy do, the more it looks like RSS, considering Spencer has been saying for years that RSS wasn't properly correcting for one of the satellite's orbits. Funny, eh?
Yeah, right. With agreement like this, who needs disagreement?
UAH: useless.
Even the stupid agree with that.
"Poor ol’ jiffy works himself into a lather over NYT reports of Gavin’s reconstructions."
Pretty obvious that its you obsessing over it, spanky.
"The more Spencer and Christie correct for all the satellite problems,"
Yeah, right, you've heard about "corrections" before. How they're actually faking data, and you need the RAW data to prove what's REALLY going on.
Unless you *like* the reconstructions to the preconcieved notion. Then it's absolutely fine, they're corrections, not fraud.
But I guess you have the source code for the BETA version 6.0 of UAH, right?
Right?
Once again, SD is the only one aside from the shill blogs he reads who disputes the surface temperature record this year. This vile lot has been reduced to cries of, 'It's a conspiracy!!!' because its all they have left. Their scientific well has run dry. Once again as well, SD relies on a shill blog that nobody here but him reads. Why paste the link Dumbo? All of us here know that Watts is full of shit. WE DO NOT READ THAT CRAPPY BLOG. Geddit?
And Schmidt doesn't work for the NOAA. He works for NASA. And if you truly think that one scientist runs the entire global climate science network, then you are indeed more stupid than even I thought before. And trust me, that is saying a lot.
Note also how the media is finally coming around to what scientists already know: that AGW is real and that 2015 is going to smash all existing records. The reason SD writes in here because he is losing. Big time. The climate change denial blogs in general are falling apart. They don't do primary research; instead their mission is to distort existing scientific research, and they are doing this badly.
As for Patricia, if SD thinks 400 kph winds are trivial, then he is truly bonkers. They are the fastest straight line winds ever recorded in a hurricane. If this storm had made landfall on a relatively flat part of the US Gulf coastline, it would have been an utter calamity. That it made landfall in a less populated area with a rapid increase in elevation is a mercy.
SD: Turn out the lights: the party's over. You've lost. Time for you and the blogs you read to pack it in.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/22/weather/2015-record-summer-heat/
http://zeenews.india.com/news/eco-news/2015-on-track-to-become-the-hott…
http://theweek.com/speedreads/584631/2015-track-warmest-year-ever-recor…
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/10/21/el_nino_and_climate_…
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/10/21/2015-earths-warmest-ye…
http://www.weather.com/news/climate/news/record-warmest-january-septemb…
http://globalnews.ca/news/2292645/2015-on-tap-to-be-warmest-year-on-rec…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/10/21/…
... and so on and so on. Bye bye Watts, Morano, McIntyre, Peiser, Monckton, Milloy, Nova, Marohasy, and all of the other right wing shills.
Jiffy just can't handle the fact that evidence-free Doltoids like him are committed to the exaggeration of GCMs and surface temperature reconstructions to promote their religious belief awa healthy income.
No, that would take a bit of healthy scepticism.
Can't have that.
While surface reconstructions are only diverging from satellites and radiosondes at the rate of about 0.4c per century, they are doing their best with as much help from Barry and Gav as possible to catch up with the GCMs which are exaggerating any possible increases by up to 300%.
But let's just give them time.
When this "scientific" outcome ties in so well with their own desires I'm sure they will be able to eventually exaggerate a lot more without the need for any evidence.
They could even pass a few laws to assist.
Barry and Gav. That's the intellectual depth of Dumbo. If he was to meet them face to face he'd cower - but as an anonymous nobody on blogs he can be as colloquial as he wants. As the links I posted up here yesterday prove, even the supine corporate media accepts the NOAA data. I just put up here a small sample of what they are all saying. 2015 is a record warm year; miles ahead of 2014, in second place. Dumbo goes on about 'evidence-free' in a world where empirical journals are full of evidence that contradicts everything he says. His 'evidence' comes primarily from appalling blogs like WUWT run by laymen with guest posts by shills. Nobody here reads the rotten links he puts up, but like a spoiled brat he does not desist, pasting link after link to evidence-distorting blogs, with WUWT being his personal favorite. As I have said many times, SD stays well clear of academia, does not attend conferences and workshops and never publishes any of his musings in scientific journals. Instead, its blog link after blog link. He lost a long, long time ago, but again, persists in the deluded notion that he alone possesses wisdom that had eluded the scientific community (or else its all a big conspiracy, as I said yesterday). That is the latest desperate meme for the denial community: that surface temperature readings are being manipulated and exaggerated. Its so idiotic that it is hilarious, watching deniers move from one excuse to the next, as the data piles up. Biotic proxies along prove beyond any doubt that its warming and warming rapidly. I am sure that SD, who can't tell a mole cricket from a giraffe, will next come on with some crappy article from WUWT by old fart Willis Eschenbach arguing that range/altitude shifts, phenological changes and other biotic responses are all unclear or unimportant. SD will believe it of course because its on WUWT. He won't read a single primary paper (to be fair, he won't understand them because he has no relevant expertise) but instead if a clown like Eschenbach says its not important then SD will swallow it hook, line and sinker. BECAUSE ITS FITS IN WITH HIS CONFIRMATION BIAS.
By now most of us on Deltoid, know exactly how idea ideologically-driven SD is. His arguments have been demolished over and over again and yet he comes back with more links from WUWT as if they give him the upper hand. The views of 97% of the scientific community and every major scientific organization does not matter. Watts, Morano, they know the truth! This is the level of SDs science here folks. He's a natural comedian.
Jiffy is in denial that the leading CC authority's 102 GCMs are all exaggerating warming by about 300% even in comparison with Gavin's already exaggerated reconstructions.
What an evidence-free marvel you are.
Never mind your childish reflex action of quoting your "97%" that actually represents about 4% if you ever read the totally discredited paper.
Just try addressing those GCM exaggerations and convince me that you live in the real world.
"the exaggeration of GCMs and surface temperature reconstructions"
Reconstructions is what UAH and RSS do. They have to.
However, you're too much of a retard to care.
So you project YOUR obsession onto others so that you don't feel as though your insanity is unresonable.
"Jiffy is in denial that the leading CC authority’s 102 GCMs are all exaggerating warming by about 300%"
And that claim is moronic and unsupported.
"your “97%” that actually represents about 4% if you ever read the totally discredited paper."
Nope, it represents over 97%.
YOUR moronic horde proposes to accept the less than 1% that disagree.
Go on, spanky, tell us how many, as a percent, reject AGW in that paper you claim has 4% for.
0.04%?
Correction re the above "97%" endorsement of climate science consensus:
My bad. It should read 0.04%, not 4%.
Well, look at that. Wowsie finally got his sums right.
Pity they're the wrong way round.
"My bad. It should read 0.04%, not 4%."
So those who agree with you, then, Spanky, amount to 0.0004%...
If THAT is supposed to be worth considering, your claim of 0.04% are FAR more persuasive, so we should ACCEPT the reality of AGW, not reject it.
"Well, look at that. Wowsie finally got his sums right."
Well, look at that, Spanky only sees what it thinks it wants to see.
If you read the paper, you find that it's over 97%, spanky. Not 4.
With less than 1% saying that AGW is wrong.
I cannot wait for the next obscure pile of rubbish that SD will link up here as evidence of science. The French book was so bad it was hilarious. And the authors? Non-entities.
sd:
You forgot to mention that satellites are diverging from satellites at the rate of about 1.0c per century.
We all know what a stickler you are for data so I'd hate to see you miss that.
Jiffy once again gets into the messenger with a meat cleaver but doesn't discuss the message.
And he has the gall to criticise my science.
CoN is still playing with the out-dated UAH.
But then that's the kinda guy he is.
Meanwhile these are the thermometers Gav and the Doltoids adjust UPWARDS:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/139572/does-measuring-the-ai…
"Jiffy once again gets into the messenger"
IRONY ALERT! IRONY ALERT!
POSTER DOES NOT NOTICE WHAT IT IS SAYING.
STAND WELL BACK!
At least the stupid still agree that UAH is useless.
Imagine going from 0.78℃/century since 1998 to -0.14℃/century in one easy beta version! You just couldn't make that up. Oh wait...
"Imagine going from 0.78℃/century since 1998 to -0.14℃/century"
It's still only a third of the out-of-control rate of the IPCC GCMs.
CoN hasn't got the capacity to understand that satellite orbit isn't a constant.
Why don't you do some study on the subject and improve your conversational powers?
At least I have the capacity to understand that UAH isn't a constant - by a looooooooong, looooooooong way.
Why doesn't sd remind us that global warming ended in 1998?
There has been global cooling since 1998 by his belief system.
"And he has the gall to criticise my science"
Of course I do because your science stinks. You aren't a scientist but some nobody with delusions of grandeur. And once again here he is into conspiracy theories. As I said yesterday, its all he's got left. Its like debating a spoiled kindergarten child. This kind of argument would be laughed out of academia. That's why he's stuck on blogs.
"It’s still only a third of the out-of-control rate of the IPCC GCMs."
You mean more accurate IPCC GCMs, spanky.
Just because YOU are a moron doesn't mean everyone else is fooled by your stupidity.
Jiffy & CoN forgot to comment on the Sydney Observatory thermometer beside the 21 lane freeway.
I wonder why?
Just like you don't respond to Chris O'Neill. I wonder why.
What a sad man you are. All alone in your little tiny ivory tower. On the other side there is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Ouch! SD can't debate this. Kinda' hurts his entire claim that only those who argue that humans aare dangerously driving warming are on Deltoid. Turns out 97% of the scientific community and every major scientific organization on Earth is on board too. Where does that leave SD?
Way, way out to sea.
Dumb clown was never told that global long term temperature trend excludes long term trend from locations affected by UHI. That's what happens when your "information" only comes from global warming denialist blogs.
" the Sydney Observatory thermometer"
Which has more than the UHI's effect removed from it.This is why the data from your pal Watts surfacestations investigation "well sited" climateology stations show a greater warming trend than the IPCC shows.
But this moron doesn't know what's going on, only what it's been told to repeat.
"excludes long term trend from locations affected by UHI."
Oh, dear !!! Some people are easily CoNned.
When all it takes to affect rural temperatures by one or two degrees is a wind-proof fence, do you really believe that the world's official thermometers are free of UHIE?
And how about those asphalt runways and central heating in the tundra?
Why science has given up is because it is impossible to quantify but it takes a Denier Doltoid to believe that it doesn't exist.
But they are into blind denial so much that they can't see that the small amount of warming [less than 0.8c] since the coldest period of civilisation doesn't go any way near accounting for the UHIE and climate natural variability.
Religion trumps rationality every time.
Poor silly jiff links to our "unbiased" Wikipedia which sports a Gav GISS graph in all its splendour, reconstruction and exaggeration as though it is state of the art science on AGW but doesn't even get that while Gav is desperately trying to catch those wacky IPCC GCMs [that are at least 95% wrong but they still claim 95% certainty - can you bear it] he is still well within the bounds of Nat Var.
If he only checked the top graph of the ice cores on that biased site he would see that his religion is shot to hell with the data that the last interglacial was 2c warmer.
But then, the religion of ratbags trumps rationality every time.
Now the positions of every major scientific body on the planet with respect to AGW are do to Wikipedia 'bias'.
Can our resident fruitcake (SD) get any worse?
You see, SD cannot explain why he and few other shills, fringers and outright lunatics can see that AGW is not happening, whereas the rest of the scientific community, meaning those with the best credentials, do.. So he has to claim that Wikipedia has misread the positions of the National Academies and bodies like the American Geophysicists Union. Yet just go to their web pages and its there. He must also think that those who run the web cites are also into some vast conspiracy and have not told their members exactly what is up on their web links. At the bottom of all of this dishonestly he thinks is Gavin Schmidt. His posts make Mel Gibson's character in 'Conspiracy Theory' look positively normal.
Gavin Schmidt runs the UN! World governments! Every academic institution! He is in charge of the AGU! He runs NASA and NOAA! He's everywhere!
This is the extent of SDs ravings.
Poor simple jif obviously doesn't know much about the history of Wikipedia and one Wm Connolley, the Wiki warrior, death by stoat and all that.
But maybe he just doesn't want to know.
Poor little innocent.
And who made those other stupid claims you write about?
You're blithering again, jiffy.
Just try answering my question about the last interglacial [you linked to] being 2c warmer than today with lower CO2.
And CoN simply can't understand that when you can't say for sure that temperatures are not rising or that they are rising, a reasonable, rational person would surely conclude that it is a plateau in temperatures.
"“excludes long term trend from locations affected by UHI.”
Oh, dear !!! Some people are easily CoNned."
Yes, you are easily conned.
When you WANT to believe it, you'll believe any old shite.
When you DON'T want to believe it, you'll deny everything and anything.
Because you're an idiot.
Jeff, ignore the shithead and use him as stress relief only. He's not even making enough sense in his posts to make a fence-sitter (or even partisan) think he's legit.
"If he only checked the top graph of the ice cores on that biased site he would see that his religion is shot to hell with the data that the last interglacial was 2c warmer."
Than the 1950's average.
At the polar regions.
Which are affected by polar amplification.
And today we're 4-6C warmer than the 1950's.
Dumbass.
"a reasonable, rational person would surely conclude that it is a plateau in temperatures."
If it were happening, indeed.
However a moron would just insist that they're reasonable and insist that there's a plateau, despite there being none.
"And today we’re 4-6C warmer than the 1950’s."
Is that right, wowse?
That explains your fever then.
sd:
Thanks for confirming you were wilfully ignorant about Sydney observatory's long term trend being excluded from the global warming long term trend.
Er, no. Uncertainty in your cherry-picked one or two data sources does not mean the same as a plateau. But understanding the difference exceeds your IQ.
You can go back to your beta standard now. I'll stick with BEST which tells us that statistically significant global warming is still happening since 1998. Of course, to conspiracy theorists such as yourself, BEST and everyone else compiling their own surface record are all in a giant conspiracy with Gavin. There is no reasoning with such conspiracy theorists.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Next thing you know our D-K afflicted self taught idiot will claim that this isn't enough; that Gavin Schmidt runs all of the organizations listed; that its all a big, big conspiracy. Take your pick. Every major scientific organization verifies the reality of AGW. Wow is correct that the Arctic is warming at an incredible rate. And the effects of increasing atmospheric concentrations of C02 on climate have been known for well over a century.
Still, I am wondering when SDs genius is going to appear in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. I'll take a stab at guessing here.
It won't. Bye, Drongo.
And here's more:
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
Drongo crushed again. Its so easy. He tries vainly to give the impression that Wiki made it up so here is more evidence of the consensus. Ouch! Poor old Drongo.
"“And today we’re 4-6C warmer than the 1950’s.”
Is that right, wowse?"
Yes, it is.And it rather destroys your claim it was 2C warmer. Not to mention that we're nearly 1C globally warmer than the graph you crowed about. And haven't finished warming from the CO2 currently there.
Which is something that you cannot recognise, because you're batshit crazy.
"That explains your fever then."
Since I am not a geographical region above 70N or below 70S, it cannot.
Please stop pretending other people are landmasses. If you are unable to do so, then try not to type it out where everyone can see how insane you are.
CoN and the rest of the off-the-planet Doltoids live and breathe the Karl and Peterson "Pausebuster" paper because this Fakery at the Bakery reinvigorates AGW prior to the big Paris Party and now these two have been given the opportunity to present their evidence to Congress for assessment.
And guess what?
They have squibbed it:
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/258375-agency-wont-give-go…
Could it be they fully realise their work will show it's not science, only political, after all?
As is the bulk of the crap "evidence" that cements the Doltoids religion together.
And once again poor silly jiff gives me a list of sci-orgs that believe in human caused GW.
As though I don't.
How dumb, really, are you jiff?
Didn't I just give you a link to a 21 lane freeway with a thermometer beside it?
Shades of Phil Jones Climategate 2009:
"We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."
Just what's needed to show up the Paris Party for the science scam it is.
sd:
work for BEST as well, do they?
You're absolutely right. The biggest conspiracy of all time.
says a person using an off-the-planet's-surface temperature measurement as his bible, a beta version no less.
You just can't make up irony like this.
CoN thinks that it's great science to re-homogenise the past to extract whatever you want from it.
At least Spencer is happy to appear before congress to explain his work.
Unlike these two who duck for cover.
So do Karl and Peterson work for BEST?
Of course Spencer is happy to appear before mainly his political friends.
"So do Karl and Peterson work for BEST?"
If they do it would explain a lot but..
They sure work for NOAA:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-…
"Of course Spencer is happy to appear before mainly his political friends."
Have you looked at the questions he answers? They don't pull punches.
This is why Karl and Peterson won't front their stuff.
They want the truth and K & P can't handle that.
"work for BEST as well, do they?"
Remember, spanked, like all deniers, don't DO definite claims, only insinuations.
Of course, YOU aren't allowed insinuation, you have to be definitive or you're "avoiding" questions.
Two faces on every denier.
The lower one does most of the talking...
"CoN thinks that it’s great science to re-homogenise the past to extract whatever you want from it."
No, spanky, homogenisation is what averaging and trend determination IS.
And it is done by real people with working brains to find out what is going on.
Only you retarded deniers do it to find what you want to be there. Like the "pause" for example. Or the "GCM Divergence" by selecting where and what data set you want to pretend is true and accurate at the moment.
As always, it's projection from you morons.
So do Karl and Peterson work for BEST, sd?
Did anyone deny they worked for NOAA?
So many questions. So few answers.
Thanks for citing that there's no recent slowdown in global warming by the way. You are actually useful after all.
"Thanks for citing that there’s no recent slowdown in global warming by the way. You are actually useful after all"
Well darn, lookit that, you slipped up agin:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/trend
And isn't it interesting, CoN ol' luv, how the satellite thermometers in the past have shown el Ninos warmer than the ground "data" but just not this time.
Fakery at the Bakery or what?
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/figure-intro-5.png
But when you are honest enough to accept the global unadjusted data instead of the fakery at the bakery that really makes CoN and the doltoids look foolish.
Well lookit that ! Rather than "no recent slowdown in global warming", how about; NO SIGN OF WARMING AT ALL THIS CENTURY:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/fr…
"But when you are honest enough to accept the global unadjusted data instead "
Why would that be honest?
And when would YOU accept it, given that it shows a higher trend than the adjusted data?
"Well darn, lookit that, you slipped up agin:"
Well damn, lookit here: spanky included a link that doesn't show what he thinks it does.
"Well damn, lookit here: spanky included a link that doesn’t show what he thinks it does."
Now, wowse, hop out of your wet bed and stop looking at things sideways as is your want.
My apolgies to Spangled Drongo as I am too busy to support him.
On second thoughts SD is wiping the floor with you over educated "Useful Idiots".
GC, it's great to have your support. I also got it years ago at Brave New Climate where, although I supported Barry's nuclear push, I didn't agree with some of his reasoning.
"On second thoughts SD is wiping the floor with you over educated “Useful Idiots”"
Says one old right wing deluded idiot who denies the reality of AGW. My reply is simple: "In your dreams".
Since you both have not got a friggin' clue about anything, its hilarious for one extremely biased fringe academic to claim who is winning debates when his stupid views are one and the same.
Now get lost.
Note that both Gormless camel and Spungled dumbo rely on shill blogs for their information. What we get from the both of them are wretched sites like WUWT, Nova, BH and C)2 Science pasted up here ad nauseum. Both of them cannot argue their way out of a sodden wet paper bag. They don't even attempt top explain how and why the entire scientific community for the most part agrees that humans are driving climate warming. That is clear; evidence abounds.I have said it a million times but I will repeat it: check the views of pretty well every National Academy and relevant scientific organization on the planet. Either there is some immense conspiracy going on or 99.9% of scientists are idiots and those who do no research and publish nothing and who are on the extreme end of the academic fringe and their army of uneducated armchair experts are correct.
This is the level of intellectual debate from the deniers on here. They dodge, weave, avoid, and squirm around the fact that it is they who are way, way outside of the mainstream. They are a bunch of nobodies claiming the high ground. But they don't have science or scientists on their side. Instead they contaminate the blogosphere where they think they are big guys. Where are the peer-reviewed publications? SD linked one up here - in E & E, a comedy journal with an impact factor of 0.15. It ranks at the very bottom of climate journals. Its in the anoxic layer. This is it folks.
And gormless claims Sd is winning. It cannot get much funnier than that. Its massive self delusion, peppered with political ideology.
Jiffy, if you're only going to blither, please keep it short.
"Jiffy, if you’re only going to blither, please keep it short"
Alternative Drongo:
"I know more than pretty much the entire climate science community. I don't publish in mainstream scientific journals but on blogs because this is where real science is done. Conferences and workshops are a waste of my time as a self-taught expert. I don't need to explain why every major scientific organization on Earth agrees with AGW because I can't.... er, I mean they are all led by Gavin Schmidt. Instead, I pay homage to true experts like Anthony Watts and Joanne Nova, who, depsite their apparent lack of relevant qualifications, are in truth esteemed scholars".
My challenge to Drongo": put up or shut up. Let's see you write up your arguments into a paper and then submit it to a strong climate science journal. E & E does not count. I want to see you write something in a journal with an impact factor of at least 2. Over 3 would be preferable. Until then, you are a coward.
Poor ol' jiff labours under the delusion that you have to be an "expert" to understand climate science.
I mean, you only have to listen to him to see how he destroys his own argument.
One of the best scientists said; "science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."
He was talking about our jiffy.
When you adopt that philosophy, jiff, you'll improve outa sight.
Good! I finally got it out of him.
What Dumbo is saying is that we don't need universities. We don't need scientists to be taught in specialized disciplines. We don't need peer-review or peer-reviewed journals. Blog science will do. Furthermore, leave complex fields to self-taught 'experts' like him and to other like him who have never done an experiment in their lives, have never attended a relevant conference of workshop, and who don't write in the primary literature.
You see, this is what I have been trying to get our legend in his own mind to say for some time now. Finally, he's said it. This comes straight out of Dunning-Kruger's now famous 1999 paper. To reiterate: he's saying that a formal education and training do not matter. This is why he has Gc on his side. Gc, like him has no formal training in climate or environmental science. The reason I agree with those who do is because I am not an expert in climate science. It is not a field I was trained in. In this case I defer my views to concur with those who are experts in the field, I am always suspicious of laymen claiming to have the intellectual upper hand when they are self taught. I could easily debunk Gc when he veered closer to my own field: population ecology. He claimed that warming conditions benefit nature, and tried to invoke conditions tens of millions of years ago to support this argument. I knew right away that he was way out of his depth and that his views were gibberish. He's a laser researcher, not an ecologist. On another blog he even went so far as to explain that there would be benefits to humanity of the melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets. This was comedy gold. Again, he has not even a basic understanding of what he was talking about. He pastes up links to blogs like C02 Science - a WFA-linked site - as 'evidence'. Again, no primary literature.
Again, this is what deniers on blogs do. People like Sd, Gc, Sunspot, Jonas N, Olaus Petri and others have no relevant training or expertise and most hide behind anonymous handles because they'd be laughingstocks if they revealed their true identities. They are hit-and-run posters who make arguments that beggar belief and then run away. They only answer what they want. Inconvenient questions and facts are ignored. They routinely smear and impugn statured scientists, something they would never do in person. This is one of the perils of the internet. It allows mediocre people to act like they are authorities.
"Until then, you are a coward."
Written any climate papers yourself, jiff?
Until then, you're a big bag of wind.
What Drongo is saying is that we don’t need universities. We don’t need scientists to be taught in specialized disciplines. We don’t need peer-review or peer-reviewed journals. Blog science will do. Furthermore, leave complex fields to self-taught ‘experts’ like him and to other like him who have never done an experiment in their lives, have never attended a relevant conference of workshop, and who don’t write in the primary literature.
You see, this is what I have been trying to get our legend in his own mind to say for some time now. Finally, he’s said it. This comes straight out of Dunning-Kruger’s now famous 1999 paper. To reiterate: he’s saying that a formal education and training do not matter. This is why he has Gc on his side. Gc, like him has no formal training in climate or environmental science. The reason I agree with those who do is because I am not an expert in climate science. It is not a field I was trained in. In this case I defer my views to concur with those who are experts in the field, I am always suspicious of laymen claiming to have the intellectual upper hand when they are self taught. I could easily debunk Gc when he veered closer to my own field: population ecology. He claimed that warming conditions benefit nature, and tried to invoke conditions tens of millions of years ago to support this argument. I knew right away that he was way out of his depth and that his views were gibberish. He’s a laser researcher, not an ecologist. On another blog he even went so far as to explain that there would be benefits to humanity of the melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets. This was comedy gold. Again, he has not even a basic understanding of what he was talking about. He pastes up links to blogs like C02 Science – a WFA-linked site – as ‘evidence’. Again, no primary literature.
Again, this is what deniers on blogs do. People like Sd, Gc, Sunspot, Jonas N, Olaus Petri and others have no relevant training or expertise and most hide behind anonymous handles because they’d be laughingstocks if they revealed their true identities. They are hit-and-run posters who make arguments that beggar belief and then run away. They only answer what they want. Inconvenient questions and facts are ignored. They routinely smear and impugn statured scientists, something they would never do in person. This is one of the perils of the internet. It allows mediocre people to act like they are authorities.
"“Until then, you are a coward.”
Written any climate papers yourself, jiff?"
And another quote that has NOTHING to do with what he spews onto the internet from Spanky here.
Why quote something if you're not going to deal with it?
Rampant stupidity? Or did the claim REALLY hurt you, so you had to attack back, with a tu quoque fallacy?
You're a credulous and ignorant moron, spanky, and a coward who will never bother to change its mind because its pride is tied up with their Walter Mitty imagingings.
"Jiffy, if you’re only going to blither, please keep it short."
IOW "I have no defence against what you said, so I will pretend your post had some irrelevant error".
Don't blame me for your citation: Science publishes new NOAA analysis: Data show no recent slowdown in global warming
Shows you what rubbish using satellite radio receivers to measure surface temperature are. Even Spencer thinks they're only beta.
I could ask again do Karl and Peterson work for BEST but clearly sd has a policy of "avoid mentioning BEST unless absolutely necessary" (like Basil Fawlty's "don't mention the war").
Must be tough for global warming denialists like sd to deal with apostates like Richard Muller. Makes it obvious sd is a conspiracy theorist.
Worth writing again: Science publishes new NOAA analysis: Data show no recent slowdown in global warming which incidentally Richard Muller likes to cite too: http://berkeleyearth.org/whither-the-pause-noaa-report-shows-no-recent-…
"A new NOAA analysis" hey CoN?
Well, waddya know! Not another reconstruction?
With Doltoids, the more fakery at the bakery the merrier they are:
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015-10-29-16-…
If you had any gumption, CoN, you wouldn't boast about BEST:
http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/01/closing-thoughts-on-best/
Poor silly CoN doesn't apparently realise that his link to NOAA is precisely the stuff that Karl and Peterson have refused to provide Congress the details of.
With a bit of luck they'll end up in jail over it.
Spanky has nothing to refute your claims, Chris, but he can't let them stand without putting a post after it, so he posts utter gibberish, quoting you as if it were relevant to what he will say.
The less relevant his "response" is to the quote, the more you're rattling him.
You're not suggesting you cite things you know nothing about? Say it isn't so!
Dumb clowns make a big deal about revisions of one temperature record in the 1880s.
"Gumption" isn't the right word here. "Shame" would be much more appropriate but global warming denialists like sd don't know what shame is.
Funny you should ask about gumption sd because if you had any gumption you would answer the question:
Do Karl and Peterson work for BEST?
We all know you think Karl and Peterson are part of the giant conspiracy who should all be in jail but have they sucked BEST into the giant conspiracy?
You're not suggesting you cite things you know nothing about? Say it isn't so!
Conspiracy theorists make a big deal about revisions of one temperature record in the 1880s.
"Gumption" isn't the right word here. "Shame" would be much more appropriate but global warming denialists like sd don't know what shame is.
Funny you should ask about gumption sd because if you had any gumption you would answer the question:
Do Karl and Peterson work for BEST?
We all know you think Karl and Peterson are part of the giant conspiracy who should all be in jail but have they sucked BEST into the giant conspiracy?
Do Karl and Peterson work for BEST?
1.What Sd is saying is that we don’t need universities. We don’t need scientists to be taught in specialized disciplines. We don’t need peer-review or peer-reviewed journals. Blog science will do. Furthermore, leave complex fields to self-taught ‘experts’ like him and to other like him who have never done an experiment in their lives, have never attended a relevant conference of workshop, and who don’t write in the primary literature.
You see, this is what I have been trying to get Sd to say for some time now. Finally, he’s said it. This comes straight out of Dunning-Kruger’s now famous 1999 paper. To reiterate: he’s saying that a formal education and training do not matter. This is why he has Gc on his side. Gc, like him has no formal training in climate or environmental science. The reason I agree with those who do is because I am not an expert in climate science. It is not a field I was trained in. In this case I defer my views to concur with those who are experts in the field. I am always suspicious of laymen claiming to have the intellectual upper hand when they are self-taught. I could easily debunk Gc when he veered closer to my own field: population ecology. He claimed that warming conditions benefit nature, and tried to invoke conditions tens of millions of years ago to support this argument. I knew right away that he was way out of his depth and that his views were gibberish. He’s a laser researcher, not an ecologist. On another blog he even went so far as to explain that there would be benefits to humanity of the melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets. Again, he has not even a basic understanding of what he was talking about. He pastes up links to blogs like C02 Science – a WFA-linked site – as ‘evidence’. Again, no primary literature in sight.
This is what AGW deniers on blogs do. People who have no relevant training or expertise make outrageous claims. They are hit-and-run posters who make arguments that beggar belief and then run away. They only answer what they want to answer. Inconvenient questions and facts are ignored. They routinely smear and impugn statured scientists, something they would never do in person. This is one of the perils of the internet. It allows mediocre people to act like they are authorities.
Note how he's linking to shill blogs again. No matter how many times he is caught out on it, back he goes. He can't help himself. CA this time. Where is the primary literature? And why won't he try and debunk the NA/RS document I linked? A: because he can't.
You will also notice that Chris has linked to a peer-reviewed paper in one of the two top journals around: Science. Sd does not attempt to discuss the contents of the article, but instead impugns the authors and/or the NOAA. Its all a conspiracy! is his clarion cry. His sole foray into the primary literature was a paper in E & E. The worst journal there is.
Oh, and where does Sd get his NOAA 'manipulation' graph from? Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard! The same clown sourced by Gc.
http://www.desmogblog.com/steven-goddard
Where is the scientific article where this stupid graph is published? On his blog that's where! Why has this not been published in Science or Nature? Or anywhere for that matter? Because its total crap, that's why!
You’re not suggesting you cite things you know nothing about? Say it isn’t so!
Conspiracy theorists make a big deal about revisions of one temperature record in the 1880s.
“Gumption” isn’t the right word here. “Shame” would be much more appropriate but global warming denialists like sd don’t know what shame is.
Funny you should ask about gumption sd because if you had any gumption you would answer the question:
Do Karl and Peterson work for BEST?
We all know you think Karl and Peterson are part of the giant conspiracy who should all be in jail but have they sucked BEST into the giant conspiracy?
It takes a form of perverse logic to write the following:
and an amazing lack of self awareness eh spangles (aka fruit drops).
this summation provides the context.
Anybody with the skill set of climate scientists would be able to download the data from the sources and proceed accordingly but then Lamar is a simple lawyer who believes in Noah's Ark saving all the animals, well at least those that lived near his house and were not so big they would sink the Ark - Brontotheriidae. Must have been fun keeping the predators and prey separated - then there are all the disease vectors flitting about and .... and.... and....!
A complete demolition of Lamar Smith's nonsense, rehashed by Sd on Deltoid.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/10/congressman-doubles-down-accuses…
This is the same Sd who Gc claims is 'wiping the floor' with the rest of us on Deltoid. That Sd supports a vile organism like Lamar Smith says it all - or should.
Doltoids Don't Do Data:
SCIENTIST 1: So why did Karl et al adjust the ocean buoy readings by a figure that is so uncertain as to be meaningless? From Kennedy et al 0.12 ± 1.7°C. What were you thinking?
KARL ET AL and co: snip [That's confidential. Stop this now. We're feeling harassed!]
What is the world coming to if congress succeeds in exposing objective, rational discussion about thermometers?
We simply can't have that !!!
I think any average cleaner would now consider the floor to be clean.
Doltoids are their own worst enemy. QED
"Doltoids Don’t Do Data:"
Yes we do.
You don't do truth, do you, though.
"SCIENTIST 1: So why did Karl et al adjust the ocean buoy readings "
Why did UAH change their satellite readings by up to +1.47C?
"Why did UAH change their satellite readings by up to +1.47C?"
Where was that, wowsie luv?
Show us your stuff. Otherwise you're just another blithering D.
You’re not suggesting you cite things you know nothing about? Say it isn’t so!
Conspiracy theorists make a big deal about revisions of one temperature record in the 1880s.
“Gumption” isn’t the right word here. “Shame” would be much more appropriate but global warming denialists like sd don’t know what shame is. Funny you should ask about gumption sd because if you had any gumption you would answer the question:
Do Karl and Peterson work for BEST?
We all know you think Karl and Peterson are part of the giant conspiracy who should all be in jail but have they sucked BEST into the giant conspiracy?
@Spangled Drongo,
"GC, it’s great to have your support. I also got it years ago at Brave New Climate where, although I supported Barry’s nuclear push, I didn’t agree with some of his reasoning."
I have the greatest respect for Barry Brook even though he worships at the CAGW shrine. The Marxists on his site (e.g. Ms. Perps) are a class act compared to the juveniles and pygmies here. Often I found myself agreeing with them and they seldom indulged in personal insults.
Governments are looking for heroic problems that only they can solve.
Too bad they decided to focus on the non-problem of CAGW.
Here are a couple of real problems that governments should be addressing:
1. Hardening our electrical grid to withstand nuclear EMP and Carrington events:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2015/10/28/emp-a-summary-starting-point/
2. Storing vast quantities of non-perishable food to maintain the human race when the next Mount Tambora or Mount Toba eruption occurs.
While the Mount Tambora eruption in 1815 caused immense loss of life, the Mount Toba eruption (77,000 years before present) came close to making us humans extinct:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
Yes, GC, we are living in a magical age but the alarmists desperately believe that we are heading into climate catastrophe. When normalcy returns and real world catastrophes occur, they will be lost.
But don't think they still won't blame ACO2 and the GHGE.
Data like http://berkeleyearth.org/data/
That's not data, CoN, that's climate reno.
Best has more Fakery at the Bakery this century than any of the bakehouses:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:2000/trend/plot/crutem4vgl/f…
We're already aware of your global conspiracy theory. Do you have anything else?
While we're on the subject of microwave sounding unit temperature measurements (beta version), it's interesting to see how much correcting has to be done to come up with a long term trend. In particular for:
Orbital decay: the required correction is in the order of 0.1°C/decade for TLT
Calibration changes: the correction is in the order of 0.1°C/decade for TLT and TMT
i.e. "some of the required corrections are as large as the trend itself"
Also, "In an attempt to remove the stratospheric influence, Spencer and Christy developed the synthetic "2LT" product by subtracting signals at different view angles; this has a maximum at about 650 hPa. However this amplifies noise,[13] increases inter-satellite calibration biases and enhances surface contamination".
2LT or TLT as it is now known is a combination of the MSU signals from various bands and directions designed to match, well, you'll have to look that up.
Believe it or not, some people want to stake humanity's future well-being on this.
Gc illustrates exactly what I said about the human inability to come to groups with what we perceive as slow. incipient change but which in evolutionary terms is remarkably fast. Yes, AGW on its own may drive humans towards extinction, as it unravels food webs and drives ecological communities beyond a point which they can sustain themselves and provide humans with a range of supporting and regulating ecosystem services that permit us to exist and persist. Gc understands the threat posed by immediate calamities like major volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, perhaps the impact of a large asteroid, but he simply is not evolutionary programmed, like many out there, to understand dynamics on a much slower scale. This is why humans are sleep walking towards extinction.
As for Sd, what we have shown is that he only does data he likes. That he doesn't he dismisses. The data he dismisses he does so on the basis of idiots like Lamar Smith and Steven Goddard, the latter with no relevant qualifications and who doesn't try and publish his stuff in peer-reviewed journals where it would be scrutinized and rejected.
Here we go again: Gormless camel with his Marxist comments. What a dork. His views on climate and the environment are so utterly puerile as to stagger the imagination. Like Sd, he doesn't do the primary literature. Sd bangs on about data all the time (the data he likes, that is), but neither of them do the scientific journals, with page after page after page filled with studies and data they don't like. What I won't do is shill blogs. I leave that to these two clowns.
CoN, both RSS and UAH closely agree with the unadjusted global mean of Hadcrut 3 for as far back as the satellites go:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/fr…
"Believe it or not, some people want to stake humanity’s future well-being on this"
You're worse than jiffy. You're getting hysterical awa blithering.
Meanwhile, jiffy the ignorant expert is working himself up to the point where he might consider writing a paper himself.
But then again, maybe not.
"Sd bangs on about data all the time (the data he likes, that is),"
You mean as opposed to Doltoid fakery at the bakery, jiff?
Don't be shy, you're allowed to say it.
"“Why did UAH change their satellite readings by up to +1.47C?”
Where was that, wowsie luv?"
What, don't you do data, donkey-brain?
It's in your UAHv6Beta vs UAHv5.6 dataset, moron-pants.
Don't tell me. You've never even looked at the data, only been pointed to it by Tony who pulls your strings as you pull your pud.
"I have the greatest respect for Barry Brook even though he worships at the CAGW shrine. "
Who cares who you have respect for?
And since the only CAGW shrine is in the denier camp as a group fiction, he doesn't worship at it.
"Governments are looking for heroic problems that only they can solve."
Nope.
Sorry.
Your idiocy-created conspiracy theory doesn't hold up.
Please tell me how GW Bush and Ronnie Reagan (PBUH) were commie watermelons looking to expand government by pushing AGW.