If you do not understand that this is a valid question, then you do not actually deserve to be breathing our chemically-altered air right now. No excuses.
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
No one can predict the future greg. For example, who could have predicted 8 years ago that Michael Mann’s lawsuit against Tim Ball for libel would be dismissed with prejudice because Mann refused the court’s order to hand over relevant scientific data? Not you, certainly.
So if I don’t “understand” that the title of your article is a valid question, I don’t deserve to breathe? No excuses? Elitist creeps like you are the reason everyone should pray the climate crowd never gains political power. The theory of AGW is nothing more than a plea for global communism. I have no doubt that if you could, you would murder plenty.
Your comment says more about your future actions IF YOU COULD than what Greg would do.
You have, for the moment, out-stupided one of Greg’s other ignorant right-wing posters. Take pride in your accomplishment in stupidity, because you clearly aren’t able to do anything else.
By the way Wes, since you are, apparently, reading impaired (meaning you read only the right-wing sites written by paid liars, in short sentences and small words, for people like you), it is worth pointing out that the judge in the case did not make a ruling based on “not turning over data” — that wasn’t mentioned. It seems to have had to do with congenital liar Ball sleazing out.
a) The BC Supreme Court did not make a finding about the data. On the other hand, Ball did request that the suit be stopped because of his health:
Ball’s lawyer also made this submission to the Court:
??To make that as simple as possible for you (in the small chance you’ll understand): Ball’s lawyers said Ball’s accusation were not given any credibility by most readers. ??
And again, ruling did not make a finding about whether Mann’s claims were valid or whether Ball’s defenses had merit. It was, essentially, a statement that Ball’s assertions were so outstandingly stupid that nobody with a whit of science in them would take them seriously. (And Mann has the option to appeal, which is, as far as I know, being considered.)
Considering the rePUKEian agenda, yes you will have all you can get by TAKING it away from others!
Aw the poor little Trumptard has been triggered by facts.
Greg – given the inability of politicians in most countries to actually take significan action on these crises I suspect the answer is no you won’t, or at least many tens of millions won’t.
Wes, you are a repugnant, repulsive human being. And those are your good points. Take note. You are another right-wing conspiracy theory nut. If indeed AGW is a plea for global communism, it involves virtually the entire scientific community along with the National Academies in every industrialized nation along with every relevant scientific body.
Some conspiracy. But go ahead, stick with the wonderful pseudo-fascist neoliberal system that is slowly annihilating the planet if that is what you prefer.
Nice ad hominem. Tell me, how do we solve AGW without communism? Also you might want to tune up your vocabulary…calling Trump the pseudo fascist king of neoliberals…Trump is the king of neoconservatives as evidenced by his employees…Hillary was the queen of neoliberals…and AGW is neoliberal orthodoxy.
The comments directed at you have been facts. Don’t use words you don’t understand.
Perhaps read some real articles first. (Again, don’t use words like “communism” when you clearly have no fucking idea what you’re talking about.)
Dean my boy, you have always been a vicious and unhinged commentator, a real poster boy for leftism.
You haven’t hit me with any relevant facts. You deny the central fact of the lawsuit’s dismissal – that Mann missed a court-ordered deadline to turn over the data and code he used to construct his hockey stick.
If I’ve got the story wrong, kindly link to a source that can explain it properly. I’ve been looking for MSM coverage of the dismissal, but find only chirping crickets.
Dean – I had no idea that trial took place here in BC. When I read your comment I thought it was a typo for DC 🙂 I had to Google it to be sure. LOL
It saddens me to think Dr. Ball is a resident here in this beautiful environment (otherwise why would the trial be here?) and that people like him and the one above would see destroyed because of their stupidity.
No you fucking tool, that is 180 degrees from the truth. Clearly you didn’t read anything.
You may be even more of an ignorant, dishonest, uninformed ass than rickA.
Dean wrote to RickA: “No you ignorant tool, that wasn’t even mentioned in the decision.”
It is my understanding that a decision has not been published. The dismissal was a ruling from the bench. What we have right now is Ball’s word vs. Mann’s.
Link to the decision or shut your mouth.
Wes: read some other posts. Don’t worry that your lips will flap on the long sentences – none of us will hear it.
Until you’re capable of showing a base level of understanding you aren’t worth further response.
Well dean, I for one am thrilled that you will no longer be responding to me, since you refuse to provide sources, and resort to ad hominem as a first line of defense. I must say, you and Greg are two peas in a pod. I missed it, did Greg write a story about Lawrence O’Donnell saying that fake crap about Russian oligarchs co-signing for Trump’s loans? Did we ever get a mea culpa for years of breathless Rachel Maddow impersonations, such as two years spent on the Russian collusion conspiracy theory, or the year spent telling us there’s no way Hillary could lose the election? The MSM has a huge credibility problem, and that’s one reason why if the MSM insists AGW is a real and catastrophic threat, I am going to take it with a pinch of salt. You can’t lie out one side of your mouth and speak truth out of the other and expect anyone to believe you. I greatly look forward to your lack of reply, though knowing you are a total hypocrite, I expect to be disappointed.
So why won’t Dr. Mann produce his R2 statistic (and how he derived it)? Dr. Mann let this case against Tim Ball be dismissed for failure to produce this piece of information. Obviously Dr. Mann knows how he derived his R2 statistic – as it is discussed in the MBH98 paper. But he won’t disclose the details of its derivation. Dr. Mann wouldn’t tell the House Energy and Commerce Committee about the R2 statistic in 2005 and he won’t tell Tim Ball about the R2 statistic (during 2011 to 2019). Hmmmm – that is interesting.
My guess – Dr. Mann knows if he discloses how he derived his R2 statistic, it will give ammo to his critics. Dr. Mann obviously doesn’t want anybody to know how the sausage was made for MBH98.
Dr. Mann is correct – if people knew how he created his Frankenstein hockey stick graph, people would use this information against him. Why one could even assume the hockey stick graph is fraudulent (at least the MBH98 one), in the face of Dr. Mann’s refusal to cough up the requested information.
Next up the Mann vs. Steyn litigation. As I have said before, my money is on Steyn to win that case. I wonder how long before the Steyn case resolves? I am hoping before 2100.
“So why won’t Dr. Mann produce his R2 statistic (and how he derived it)? Dr. Mann let this case against Tim Ball be dismissed for failure to produce this piece of information. ”
No you ignorant tool, that wasn’t even mentioned in the decision
You (and others as ignorant and dishonest as you) repeatedly claim that Mann wouldn’t release information. It’s bullshit, of course, but as readers of Greg’s blog know, if you say it, it isn’t true.
But, just to play along, in 2005 Mann responded to the foolishness from the non-science literate members of the House Committee on Energy And Commerce
– The assertion that his work wasn’t replicable was given a response. He noted that all guidelines of the NRC’s guidelines on disclosure of data and methodologies were available to anyone with computer, appropriate software, and an internet connection. He also referenced scientists who had replicated his work?
– They asked for the “location of all data archives” that were relevant for his work or that on which he was a co-author. He pointed out that that data had been archived and available, and repeated where it could be found?
– They asked for the “exact computer code” he used, why he had not released it, and for the policy he used to justify that. He pointed out the assumption that replication could only occur with the “exact computer code” he used was wrong (and, I will point out, it would be stupid to do so, since routine deniers like you would say the replication was due to the code and northing else) and noted
– different researchers had replicated his work without his code
– The NSF and its lawyers had recognized his code as private intellectual property, and that the NSF had repeatedly confirmed that he and his associates had met all requirements for openness and transparency in their work
– He also pointed out that the NSF had twice told McIntyre and McKitrick that he had complied with all standards.
– After repeatedly telling the buffoons on the committee that he was under no requirement to share his code, he provided a link to the directory that contained the program he used (for his 1998 work)
When it came to questions about the bogus complaints by McIntyre and McKitrick, he pointed out??- He and his researchers stand by their conclusions
– He referred them to the work of other researchers who found McIntyre and McKitrick’s “concerns” were unfounded
– He pointed out that there had been no research supporting M&M’s concerns
– He pointed out that the publication where M&M published their concerns is not a peer reviewed journal
– He also pointed out that M&M do not have any relevant education or experience in climate science
– Note: The “editor” (at the time) of the journal M&M used has stated that her policy was to “enforce her political agenda — that’s the right of an editor”, and that the M&M paper had been amended until the last moment, for policy reasons.
Finally, for the worthless point you pick on (and I realize that, given your ignorance of statistics, you’re just mimicking what the liars you follow say), concerning the R2 issue:” this is what he said: ??
??
That’s not a dodge: measuring the performance of a model is best done with the use of metrics that measure the decrease of some measure of error: R2 doesn’t do that. ??He ends with references to articles from statisticians that support this. ??rickA, we know you don’t like facts, and don’t have a clue about the science or statistics involved, and are more than willing to repeat lies that make you feel warm and comfy. Your behavior got tiresome a long time ago, and it seems to be getting worse.
Oh — if you really are interested (previous behavior tells us you’re never interested in examining details and possibly changing your mind, but …) here’s the data and code Mann used.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/MANNETAL98/
Since his work has been replicated, and the validity of the hockey stick upheld, this is nothing but pure bullshit from you. One of your most blatant, yet most repeated, lies.
Since you are an ignorant right wing troll, RickA, your opinion is worth diddly squat. Mann has more scientific ability and dignity in his little finger than scum like Ball and Steyn have in their whole bodies.
As the recent Nature paper and numerous proxies have shown time and frigging time again, the recent warmth on the planet is unique because it was global. Previous warming episodes were regional and thus limited in scale.
Now you can saunter off with your new ‘buddy’ (Wes) and worship at the alter of nakedly predatory neoliberal capitalism and its puppet hero, Trump.
RickA there is no longer any excuse for you to be continuing spreading such nonsense around, malicious nonsense that has been countered time and time again.
Perhaps you are a very slow learner so here is one more lesson:
On hockey sticks
Great posts dean, in answer to long term dullard RickA and his even duller latest recruit Wes, the one who seems to have bought into Trump’s idiotic rhetoric about AGW’s lack of authenticity.
He did produce the information years ago.
Why the fucking fuck are you still attempting to prosecute a canard that was refuted years ago? Are you constitutionally stupid, or just plain mendacious in the most sociopathic way?
The hockey stick a an actual thing. It’s been replicated time and time again by completely independent researchers, and using a wide range of completely independent proxies. It is demonstrated by the current incontrovertible phenological and range changes that ecologists have documented, by changes in cryological and oceanographic and meteorological parameters; and all of this has been drawn to your attention countless times in the past.
So what’s your excuse? Is is shit-for-brains, or just being a shit?
And yes, I am angry. It’s fuckers like you who have dissembled and delayed for decades, and left the world in the parlous situation where humanity and biodiversity are now confronted with the inevitability of serious existential damage. There’s no time left to sip tea with pinkies extended – I’m calling you out for what you are.
ignoring the red herring of Mann [seriously ? Better be careful or you’ll sail right off the edge of the earth] the question is about the future – you know- the one that now is scaring the folk on the front lines of research- “I do not feel any satisfaction because of the predictions of climate science coming true,” said Rahmstorf. head of Earth System Analysis at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany”Rather, I feel increasingly worried for my two children’s future.”mashable.com/…
a lot of systems are intensifying faster than predicted: – European extreme heat [Yale 360 edu], the permafrost melt – [nat geo this month ], as is the Beaufort Gyre [with AMOC implications] as is the extent of Arctic ice melt [Scripps Institute] as is the Gulf of Maine heat content, as is the rate of increase in atmospheric methane ….because of the complexity of these systems , the tipping point when feed back loops kick in is almost unpredictable until they are ‘right now’ events. – but I sure do hear more and more scientists using ‘alarmist’ language.
“This is actually really getting quite scary,” she said. “It’s a human problem, not a scientific problem.said University of Reading (UK) climate researcher Hannah Cloke,
“That is scary, because you can imagine a whole summer that is hotter than the extremes right now. We are locked into a large amount of additional warming even in an optimistic emissions scenario,” said Daniel Swain, a climate scientist with UCLA and the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
“Thus even if anthropogenic CO2 emissions are successfully constrained to a RCP2.6-like pathway, the unexpected and sustained current rise in methane may so greatly overwhelm all progress from the other reduction efforts that the Paris Agreement will fail.”[19]23 scientists Nisbet et al 2019 [BTW- that 2019 surge was definitely delinked from permafrost melt – so we still have THAT to look forward to]
“The further we go into the uncharted climate territory of unprecedented CO2 levels, the more likely we are to encounter surprises,” added Green,Sarah Green, an environmental chemist at Michigan Technological University. referencing the extreme weather and climate disruptions wrought by such warming. “We are heading toward the part of the climate map labeled ‘here there be dragons’ and rather than turning around, or even slowing down, we are running faster.”mashable.com/…
access to food and water? yeh- its a very legit question- might well be all dragons….
“ignoring the red herring of Mann…”
Sadly, the lie pushed by rickA and wes, the one that is at the core of their denial of facts, centers on him. Neither would even read (probably because they aren’t capable) of reading the stuff posted above. When they can still repeat the crap about Mann never making data or methods available despite the widespread availability of both is important. Talking over those people about the things that are being observed is too easily drowned out by their “why didn’t Mann …?”
Where did that particular line of shit come from in the first place?
Wes is full of it. First he takes the word ‘neoliberal’ literally. Actually, neoliberal capitalism is neither new, nor is it liberal. Like neoconservatism, it worships free market absolutism and its attendant tenets: austerity programs, deregulation, tax cuts for the rich etc. The world has been ruled by this mutant, ugly form of capitalism for over 40 years. Neoconservatism is merely an ideology that adheres to the neoliberal capitalist doctrine but with a violently aggressive foreign policy: endless wars.
Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, Dick Cheney and others are neoconservatives but greatly admire Hillary Clinton. They support any candidate who supports endless wars of expansion and her track record fit right in with their agenda. At first, based on his now clear lies, Trump tried to give the impression that he was against foreign interventions, which alienated him from the neocons. But he quickly got on board when he brought scum like Mike Pompeo, John Bolton and Elliot Abrams on board. Then Trump filled his administration with corporate lobbyists so he could gut agencies tasked with protecting nature and society but which were an impediment to corporate profit maximization.
Then dumb old Wes tried to argue that any attempts to deal with AGW would invoke -shock, horror, – communism! Utter drivel of course. By his reckoning, every relevant scientific agency and National Academy of Science on Earth along with more than 97% of the scientific community must be card carrying communists. I am sure that if a clot like Wes had his way we would bring back the good old days of McCarthy-type witch hunts to round up and incarcerate these communist hordes.
Sheesh. What an idiot, but social media has opened the flood gates for them to spew their ignorance far and wide. And the media overplays AGW? Is Wes really serious? It is the complete opposite: the media downplays the threat of warming at every turn. Despite the overwhelming consensus, a recent Nature Climate Change article found that climate change deniers, most of whom are unqualified, get more press coverage than climate scientists in the mainstream media. Moreover, the media never says what needs to be done to mitigate warming, because this conflicts with the agendas of corporate owners or advertisers (the propaganda model devised by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky in their groundbreaking book, ‘Manufacturing Consent’). What else explains the massive consensus gap between public and scientific opinion on climate change? The media has created it and nurtured it.
To give some idea of how flippantly extreme climatic events are treated by the media, we need look no further than the recent record-breaking heatwaves in France, Great Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. As temperatures soared well over 40 degrees C (104 F) in four of the five countries, print and online media showed photos of people frolicking in fountains, swimming or sunning themselves on the beach. This was true across the board. One Dutch climate scientist said that these searing temperatures would have been a once in 20,000 year event just a century ago; now they will occur every few decades and even more with time. The ecological costs are incalculable but enormous. Many thousands of people died across Europe. But the impression given by the media was that we may be going to hell but enjoy the ride.
Wes, you are clueless.
reply to jeefh- your last paragraph is particularly on point. Even on sites of a Very Democratic Party persuasion there is little Climate Crisis discussion. Inslee never polled past 1 or 2 % and most diarists who highlight the ‘this exceeds predictions ‘ points I made above are met with “don’t harsh my mellow , dude” or ” this [pick any issue Trump has been involved in ] is the MORE pressing issue!” or ” pfft- technology and free market bro! we got this”
Not sure if this is a world wide attitude. The UK has a Govt Science Advisor attached to most agencies for instance, but then again the mealy mouthed response from the Australian govt re the downgraded status [to “very poor” ] of the Great Barrier reef sounds like same ‘ol “oh now we need to be centrists here lads” BS
Hello Jeff, you seem like a brighter and more earnest person than dean, which I appreciate, so I will suggest you not use ad hominem attacks and constant insulting adjectives, it only makes your argument look weak. If you were better at being insulting it might be rhetorically effective, but you’re not, so as Faulkner would say, kill your darlings.
You are of course right that Trump is neoliberal and Clinton neoconservative, but that inky goes tho show that Denicrats and Republicans are two aides off the sane oligarchic coin and neither has your interests at heart. As for communism, yes I do quail at the thought, it’s not as though USSR and PRC have been inspiring examples. Communism is the death of freedom and morality, it promotes its virtues solely through enforcement. It could still rule the world.
“Wes, you are clueless.”
Too kind. Ignorant, intentionally dishonest, and unwilling to learn make more sense.
And just a month ago Laden was warning about Europe getting too **cold**.
“Gibraltar would have a climate similar to the coast of Maine, and Berlin would have a climate similar to the Northwest Territories or northern Hudson Bay.
The models have predicted this, but it now seems that they’ve under-predicted it. It appears to be happening faster, and more furiously, than expected.”
https://gregladen.com/blog/2019/08/17/the-cold-spot-caused-by-global-warming-and-why-it-should-scare-you/#comments
So which is it?
This new commenter, Wes, seems to be of the “drive by shooter” type, firing off salvos of accusation and applying labels with no supporting links. quotations, or even descriptions of relevant actions to support them. Sorry to see this here; its all too frequent on sites dealing with evolution. (Since this comment refers to someone posting on the same site and on the same original topic, anyone can just scroll up and judge for themselves whether or not my description of Wes is apt.)
Dean, from your link to Mann’s code and data,
is this a calculation of R2 listed under calculate verification statistics?
amean1 = zero
amean2 = zero
amean3 = zero
amean4 = zero
varverglob = zero
varvernhem = zero
varcalglob = zero
varcalnhem = zero
corrglob = zero
corrnhem = zero
do iy=iymin,iymax
amean1 = amean1+globv(iy)
amean2 = amean2+nhemv(iy)
amean3 = amean3+globc(iy)
amean4 = amean4+nhemc(iy)
end do
amean1 = amean1/float(iymax-iymin+1)
amean2 = amean2/float(iymax-iymin+1)
amean3 = amean3/float(iymax-iymin+1)
amean4 = amean4/float(iymax-iymin+1)
do iy=iymin,iymax
varcalglob = varcalglob + (globc(iy)-amean3)**2
varcalnhem = varcalnhem + (nhemc(iy)-amean4)**2
varverglob = varverglob + (globv(iy)-amean1)**2
varvernhem = varvernhem + (nhemv(iy)-amean2)**2
corrglob = corrglob + (globv(iy)-amean1)
$ *(globc(iy)-amean3)
corrnhem = corrnhem + (nhemv(iy)-amean2)
$ *(nhemc(iy)-amean4)
end do
corrglob = corrglob/sqrt(varverglob*varcalglob)
corrnhem = corrnhem/sqrt(varvernhem*varcalnhem)
c
open (unit=9,file=’corrs-verif1.out’,status=’unknown’)
c
write (9,*) ‘globe: ‘,corrglob,corrglob**2
write (9,*) ‘nhem: ‘,corrnhem,corrnhem**2
write (9,*)
write (9,*) ‘gridpoints: ‘
do i=1,iabv
write (9,*) i,corrgp(i),corrgp(i)**2
end do
c
close (unit=9)
c
Just a thought experiment but perhaps Wes is actually RickA’s sock puppet – putting out a puppet that is stupider than him (assuming that’s possible) in order to try and make him look more reasonable.
Re Mann: nice summation here:
“Tim-Ball-Pleads-For-Mercy-As-An-Irrelevant-Sick-Old-Man-Gets-It-Declares-Victory”……
“no, the court didn’t rule that Mann’s hockey stick was a fraud. And no, it has nothing to do with Mann supposedly refusing to release the data for deniers to double check. Again, Mann took to Twitter to explain that “The ‘Hockey Stick’ data & code are all available & have been for more than a decade,” with a link to the FTP site that’s hosted the data since, by the looks of it, at least 2003.
And for whether or not the hockey stick, showing a rapid increase in temperatures in the modern era, has broken, Mann points out that multiple other teams have come to the same general conclusion.
Far from being a clear win for the deniers, the ruling appears to be more a judgement of the state of Tim Ball: a broken down old man, who’s lucky that no one takes his conspiratorial and accusatory ramblings seriously.
And that’s what his own defense said about him!”
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/8/28/1881956/-Tim-Ball-Pleads-For-Mercy-As-An-Irrelevant-Sick-Old-Man-Gets-It-Declares-Victory
Yup, as posted above in a way less concise than you used, so thanks.
And yet the deniers prattle on about the r2 statistic, as if it were some magic value. That shows ignorance, since it doesn’t provide the information they falsely claim Mann hides. Deniers: ignorant of science and statistics.
Yes, his own people admitted that Ball’s comments were so unsupportable and false that nobody with any understanding would ever believe them. That will be viewed as a “win” for Ball by some loser before too long, no doubt, and that’s the issue: Ball and the other high profile liars aren’t trying to sway people with any bit of knowledge, they’re continually trying to please the hard core deniers who don’t have a whit of understanding of science but who do buy into the conspiracy that scientists are pulling a gigantic scam. The deniers who post here (rickA, miken, swallow, ron, …) all show those characteristics.
Curtis, not being taken seriously is a defence against defamation. If the court dismissed for that reason, then Tim Ball won the case, and Mann’s defamation case was weak.
Probably best to wait for the written opinion to see whose explanation is closer to the mark. The old age defense is not one I have heard of, but is plausible given that the case has been dismissed after previously being scheduled for trial.
The decision has been released. Dean is correct. R2 is not mentioned anywhere in the decision. Ball’s poor health is mentioned in the decision.
None of the defamation statements were considered by the judge on the merits.
The court made the decision based on delay, blaming Michael Mann for the delay. The judge explained that a fair trial would be impossible as 3 witnesses Ball had intended to call had died, and Ball was in poor health himself.
It was Mann that brought the case, it was up to Mann to get the case resolved in his favor. As Mann gave no reasons for the delay, Ball wins the case by default.
Mann tries to hide this loss by saying, “Ball effectively told the world he did not want a verdict on the real issues in the lawsuit.” It was Mann that made no effort to get a verdict. He was the one who brought the suit, and then let it languish.
Mann says he will not be paying Ball’s legal fees. The court awarded costs to Ball to be paid by Mann. Look like a lie by Mann, or perhaps he plans to avoid his legal obligations.
https://www.steynonline.com/documents/9740.pdf
Contrary to Curtis above, the judge did not rule that ‘no one takes Ball’s conspiratorial and accusatory ramblings seriously’ to reach its decision. The statements made and defamation law were not considered in the ruling, just the delay.
“How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think,
that “our” reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann’s work were not
especially honest.”
Douglas Maraun, UEA
Trust MikeN to scrape up a 12-year old quote by someone who was a postdoc at the time and who is now a tenured Associate Professor in Graz. So what?! Disagreements are common in the scientific community. We rarely agree on anything. I am sure that he and Mann have probably discussed this since then. It is clear that you scraped this relatively ancient quote up from WUWT. It is utterly irrelevant. Another epic own goal from increasingly desperate climate change deniers as the empirical evidence overwhelms them.
Well done MikeN, for winning the “Desperate quote-mining of the day” Award. Besides, the evidence for AGW is not based solely on one line of evidence (the hockey stick) that you deniers would have us believe. It is based on many multiple lines of evidence.
If you have something useful to write here, by all means write it. But if not, stick with your alt-right b* sources where you feel at home.
Mike, p*** off. Keep your right wing views to yourself.
Ball’s so called defendents all died? How old were they? 120? That would be in keeping with the bulk of climate change deniers who are primarily very old white males. Actually, given all of the stuff Ball has made up about himself over the years to inflate his credentials, it was about time that somebody stood up to him. If more actual bonafide climate scientists stood up to the thugs on the denier side, then that might just shut them up. Bolstered by the fawning treatment they get on denier blogs and the right wing media, minions like Ball become chest-thumping silverbacks, unafraid of smearing other scientists. Bravo to Mann for standing up to them.
As for Maraun’s quote, it is ancient history. You lying right wing Trumpards are desperate for vindication. Ball lost.
One given with no context of what the alleged ‘errors’ might have been or that the author disagreed with the larger notion of validity of climate change.
Also — as Jeffh points out — nothing addressing the points that Mann’s work has been replicated and supported since then.
But then mikeN claimed (may still claim) that the nazi who willfully drove his car in to a crowd and injured several, killed one, as video showed, was defending himself, and also still asserts that T Martin was a thug who was killed in self defense rather than simply murdered by a racist, as the data truly showed, so this latest is simply another demonstration that critical thinking doesn’t matter to him.
You guys were talking about R2 from a 21 year old paper, so I think a 12 year old quote about the author’s errors is on point. You still haven’t answered if that snippet of Mann’s code is a calculation of R2.
Greg Laden
August 30, 2019 at 8:45 am
“He did produce the information years ago.” If that is true, then where is it? Provide a link so we can all see this “information”.
Jeffh writes; “Since you are an ignorant right wing troll, RickA, your opinion is worth diddly squat. Mann has more scientific ability and dignity in his little finger than scum like Ball and Steyn have in their whole bodies” I do not imagine that Jeffh ever wonders why no one ever places any credence on what a fool who operates under an assume name that does not have enough faith in his own believes to use his real name, actual might believe.
These two examples are all that needs to be known about how and why Mann’s hockey stick is bogus.
Figure 2 Variations in regional surface temperatures for the last 18,000 years, estimated from a variety of sources. Shown are changes in°C, from the value for 1900. Compiled by R. S. Bradley and J. A. Eddy based on J. T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vol 5, no 1, 1991.
http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/article1-fig2.html
The truth always prevails because in 2003 two Canadian statisticians, Steve McIntyre & Professor Ross McKitrick, showed how the graph had been fabricated by a computer model that produced “hockey stick” graphs whatever random data were fed into it. Mann would never show his “work” so now a Canadian court has ruled against him and he must pay all court cost to Dr Ball.
“More and more concerned about our statement”
Steve McIntyre, posted on Apr 8, 2010 at 6:56 PM
In a previous post, I reported that Coordinating Lead Author Overpeck wanted to “deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature”. The MWP was one such target; the Holocene Optimum was another.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/08/more-and-more-concerned-about-our-statement
Overpeck was correct to object to the unscientific misuse of the term ‘MWP’. There was no such thing as an ‘MWP’ in the sense of a global and synchronous period of warmth. Disagree? Find me some references in the recent literature.
Here’s how it works. You make a claim and then you provide scientific evidence to support it:
PAGES 2k Consortium (2013) Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia
I’ve not heard that Overpeck said anything about the HCO. Quotes and links please.
Before the bullshit machine cranks up again, let’s say a few words about the Holocene Climatic Optimum (HCO).
First, Overpeck was – again – correct to caution against imagining the HCO as a global and synchronous warm period. Early work – pre-1990s – had suggested this but subsequent research revealed a much more complex, heterogeneous picture of diverse spatial and temporal climate behaviour during the so-called HCO. This is why Overpeck wanted the discussion tightened up – to bring it into line with the improving scientific understanding of the early-mid Holocene climate.
McIntyre misrepresents this entirely laudable intention as some sort of ‘cover-up’, which is both silly and paranoid in equal measure. How can advocating for the use of the best and most current scientific evidence be a cover-up?
Not that he will read it, but JS needs to look at Baker et al. (2017) Holocene warming in western continental Eurasia driven by glacial retreat and greenhouse forcing. This is an up-to-date investigation of Holocene climate and its drivers, and yet more evidence that the old, monolithic picture of the ‘HCO’ was incorrect. Amusingly, the study reconciles the diversion between modeled Holocene climate and proxy reconstructions, which it finds to be distorted by a preponderance of summer temperature influence on proxies.
Holy crap swallow, I am beginning to be impressed with your continuing trail of dishonest and stupid spewings.
Mann’s code and data have been available for years. The court did not rule against him: “Dr” Ball pleaded like a whiney baby that
– he was old
– he was not in good health
and asked for the case to be tossed aside. In his writing the judge stated that Ball’s “objections” were so unsupportable and wrong that nobody knowledgeable would take them seriously and seriously indicated dishonesty on Ball’s part. No monetary judgement decreed.
So, basically, Ball’s stuff was judged to be the mindless blathering of a dishonest and incompetent old fool. While that explains why you support him (he could be your twin, apparently) it doesn’t vindicate him (or you).
Jeffh writes; “Disagreements are common in the scientific community. We rarely agree on anything”. I wonder if Jeffh would find anything in what follows that he would agree with? The sun makes up 99.86% of the mass of the solar system. Do you agree with that summation? Carbon dioxide is .03% [according to Caltech] of the earth’s atmosphere. Do you agree with that summation? Of the two, the sun or CO?, which do you believe has the most influence on the earth’s climate? http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/64-What-is-the-atmosphere-of-Earth-made-of-
The following IPCC mandate
IPCC mandate of human caused warming had to have been what caused M. Mann to come up with the “hockey stick” graph to get rid of the Medieval Warm period.
1. Scope and Approach of the Assessment 1.1. Mandate of the Assessment
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in 1988 to assess scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information that is relevant in understanding HUMAN-INDUCED [my emphases] climate change, its potential impacts, and options for mitigation and adaptation.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=22
Proposing false dilemmas is a juvenile rhetorical trick, JS.
Of course the sun is the principle driver of Earth’s climate as it provides the energy source. This is fully consistent with CO2 being an effective climate forcing – something I’ve already explained to you on the previous thread.
If you are having trouble understanding the basic concepts you should say so and they can be explained again, if necessary. Bluffing in confusion and / or just repeating complete bollocks is a waste of your time and ours.
Swallow, you are like a broken record. We have comprehensively debunked your ‘CO2 is insignificant’ argument a million times seemingly on here already. Peter Sinclair’s video does it perfectly. In his video he shows a number of the thousands of scientific papers that affirm the relationship between CO2 and temperature. Sinclair wonderfully explains how deniers do not use empirical evidence to dismiss the importance of CO2 but instead go on their ‘feelings’. Where is your ‘science’ to disprove the role of CO2? If you were to ingest a drop of pure dioxin that represents .03% of your biomass, what do you think would happen? Any guesses? Sinclair also exposes the hypocrisy of lunatics like Christopher Monckton who on the one hand claims that CO2 must be irrelevant given that it constitues a tiny proportion of the composition of the atmosphere, and that humans have added only .01% to it since the industrial revolution, but then, seemingly oblivious to this dismissal, he says that it is ‘plant food’ and that the increase in atmospheric CO2 has been ‘great for plants’.
So let me get you loonies right: CO2 is so inconsequential that it simply cannot influence climate, BUT plants metabolize this inconsequential gas and need it to grow and survive? So which is it?
As for Mann et al. (1998), the results of his seminal Nature paper have been since confirmed by at least 8 other research groups, and you know it. We have debunked that tired old denier meme on here and elsewhere too, a gazillion times. Once again you are wash, rinse, repeat, wash, rinse, repeat, wash, rinse, repeat ad nauseum. Your head is clearly stuck somewhere the sun ain’t shining.
You are an fool, Swallow. Got that? But you are too ideologically blinded to see it. Nobody – NOBODY – on this or other progressive blogs takes you seriously. Indeed, even some of the ‘usual suspects’ on here have shied away from your posts. That says enough. Your modus operandi is to bombard blogs with your piffle, drowning out those – most of us – who can easily counter everything you say. You are Gish-galloping time and time again. I wish that Greg would ban you but I am sure that in due course he will.
Climate Audit is a denialist site, no links to that site allowed. Comment deleted.
Jeffh must realize that his inane nonsense that he posts consistently, time after time, that contains nothing of any scientific value, did not need to clarify just who “Anonymous” was in the garbage that was posted under that name. Then this no name fool, Jeffh, puts forth this stupid question; “If you were to ingest a drop of pure dioxin that represents .03% of your biomass, what do you think would happen?” Is old “what’s his name” so dense that he cannot differentiate between the confines of the human body and the vastness of the Earth’s atmosphere? Then the fool once again asks us to get our scientific information from Peter Sinclair, who graduated from the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor years ago with a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree & in the 90’s he worked as a graphic artist. Next the poor delusions fool writes; “…. he says that it is ‘plant food’ and that the increase in atmospheric CO2 has been ‘great for plants’.” What is the deal here, Einstein, is this the first time you have been made aware that plants MUST have carbon dioxide and sun light for photosynthesis to take place. Have you never been made aware that if there were no plants on earth there would be no animal life?
Then I get this totally stupid comment from old “what’s his name”, Jeffh; “So let me get you loonies right: CO2 is so inconsequential that it simply cannot influence climate, BUT plants metabolize this inconsequential gas and need it to grow and survive? So which is it? Good Lord, how could anyone be so irrational as to say such crap as this; “….BUT plants metabolize this inconsequential gas and need it to grow and survive?” This poor fool is acting like what he posted is news to him, and it well may be, due his lack of understanding about what CO2 actually does for the Earth and all those life forms that depend on it to exist [BTW, that is all life forms on the planet]. This may actually be something that this individual who was given his PhD 24 years ago actually does not know about CO2, plus most other important matters regarding the earth and its climate.
“CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life– plants and animals alike– benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.”
By the way, that was me responding to Swallow’s latest 3 rants. I was so exasperated that I forgot to include my name.
He won’t go away soon if I keep responding to his peurile gibberish. I must resist the urge to do so.
Jeffh writes; “Disagreements are common in the scientific community. We rarely agree on anything”. I wonder if
Jeffh would find anything in what follows that he would agree with? The sun makes up 99.86% of the mass of the solar system. Do you agree with that summation? Carbon dioxide is .03% [according to Caltech] of the earth’s atmosphere. Do you agree with that summation? Of the two, the sun or CO?, which do you believe has the most influence on the earth’s climate? http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/64-What-is-the-atmosphere-of-Earth-made-of-
What could be so difficult regarding you just answering the above question?
So, having been taken apart on another thread here he tries repeating the same old well debunked bunkum here in this one. Note he never comes back on the points on which he has been so soundly debunked but throws in fresh, even though stale, meat.
I wonder if somebody is paying him by the post, if they are they are getting poor return on their money.
Indeed Jeff, I would put it like this, JS your head is stuck up seventh rock from the sun.
Swallow, P*** off. You are a pathetic cretin. To answer you stupid, stupid, stupid question BOTH are important. The sun clearly is the major catalyst for climate as well as many other processes that make our precious planet habitable. But CO2 helps to regulate suface temperature; without it plants would die and the planet would become bitterly cold.
Swallow you are imo an ignormaus. Do you actually think that climate scientists have ignored the role of the sun in regulating the Earth’s climate? Wtf do you think the IPCC did? Do you think that you and a few shills have somehow stumbled into a field that has by some quirk of fate been overlooked by thousands of qualified experts?
I repeat: p*** off.
Sorry Jeff – I responded to JS’s silly false dilemma above before reading down to your comment.
“Wtf do you think the IPCC did?” Lie just like you do is exactly what they have done. Do you remember when the IPCC predicted that the glaciers would all be gone in the Himalayan mountains, where I have been to in Nepal on three separate occassions to go to Poon Hill, Everest Base Camp and on the Annapurna Circuit that takes one higher, 17,765′, than what the Everest Base camp is, 17,585′, and one doesn’t travel on the same trail because a circuit is made around the Fishtail sacred mountain, Machapuchare, that has never been climbed. “The 2035 Himalayan glacier doomsday date in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report was a mistake, say Indian scientists”
Here are more mistakes that you goons have made with your false, uneducated predictions.
Projected warming from Broecker 1975 (thick black line) compared to observational temperature records from NASA, NOAA, HadCRUT, Cowtan and Way, and Berkeley Earth (thin colored lines) from 1970 to 2020. Baseline period of 1970-1990. Chart by Carbon Brief using Highcharts.
Projected warming from Hansen et al 1981 (fast growth–thick black line–and slow growth–thin grey line). Chart by Carbon Brief using Highcharts.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming
Responses from Jeffh and BBD noted but JS must be a very slow learner who has clearly not seen this:
Richard Alley: “The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History”
Watch and learn JS. Alley is another legend in his on time.
Thanks Lionel, BBD and Dean for comprehensively deconstructing JS’s crap. And it is that – pure, unadulterated crap.
“As for Mann et al. (1998), the results of his seminal Nature paper have been since confirmed by at least 8 other research groups…” Name them, if you can. That is just another one of your prevarications that has no substantiations, like most of your “comments”.
The truth always prevails because in 2003 two Canadian statisticians, Steve McIntyre & Professor Ross McKitrick, showed how the graph had been fabricated by a computer model that produced “hockey stick” graphs whatever random data were fed into it. Mann would never show his “work” so now a Canadian court has ruled against him and he must pay all court cost to Dr Ball.
“More and more concerned about our statement”
Steve McIntyre, posted on Apr 8, 2010 at 6:56 PM
In a previous post, I reported that Coordinating Lead Author Overpeck wanted to “deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature”. The MWP was one such target; the Holocene Optimum was another.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/08/more-and-more-concerned-about-our-statement
All one who is able to use logic and has a desire to know what the truth is, that leaves Jeffh out of the picture, needs to do is look at this IPCC graph; Consequences Vol. 2, No. 1, Winter 1996 that shows the Holocene Maximum, MWP & LIA, to know what the IPCC was trying to do with the fraudulent “hockey stick” graph that Mann produced from tree rings from a tree from Siberia. I have been to Siberia, have you, “what’s his name”, Jeffh?
Figure 2 Variations in regional surface temperatures for the last 18,000 years, estimated from a variety of sources. Shown are changes in°C, from the value for 1900. Compiled by R. S. Bradley and J. A. Eddy based on J. T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vol 5, no 1, 1991.
http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/article1-fig2.html
It is no surprise that you true believing charlatans do not accept a judge’s decision but now try to discredit Dr. Ball. You are sickening.
I read where BBD quotes that, “There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century” I assume that due to many causes, BBD, cannot understand this that was stated in the copy/paste from “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia”; “…but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century”.
Is BBD not aware that many say that the LIA was from about 1300 to about 1850? BDD’s source is claiming that there was a change in climate from it being warm in the Middle Ages to “a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century”.
It is too bad that BDD’s source didn’t’ get some valid information and show that the MWP was planet wide in scope.
“Disagree? Find me some references in the recent literature” There is much more; but, why should I waste my time on explaing to someone who will never change their mind?
“We showed that the Northern European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica,” Lu says. “More importantly, we are extremely happy to figure out how to get a climate signal out of this peculiar mineral. A new proxy is always welcome when studying past climate changes.”
http://asnews.syr.edu/newsevents_2012/releases/ikaite_crystals_climate.html
Late Holocene air temperature variability reconstructed from the sediments of Laguna Escondida, Patagonia, Chile (45°30?S)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018212006517
“Disagree? Find me some references in the recent literature”
The mean series shows the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly, with the MWP being approximately 0.3°C warmer than 20th century values at these eighteen sites.
The results obtained by this procedure are depicted in the figure below, where it can be seen, in the words of its creator, that “the mean series shows the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly, with the MWP being approximately 0.3°C warmer than 20th century values.”
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/095830507782616797
On my first of three trips to New Zealand I floated through this cave and saw the glow worms that it is famous for. Have you seen them, BBD? You could also bungee jump while you are on the N. Island because that is where Hacket got it started at.
Caves at Waitomo, on New Zealand’s North Island
The postglacial thermal optimum occur-red around 10.8 ka BP, which is similar in timing to Antarctica but up to 2000 years earlier than most Northern Hemisphere sites. Increasingly negative delta(18)O values after 7.5 ka BP indicate that temperatures declined to a late mid-Holocene minimum centred around 3 ka BP, but more positive values followed to mark a warm peak about 750 years ago which coincided with the ‘Mediaeval Warm Period’ of Europe. Low 5110 values at 325 years BP suggest cooling coincident with the ‘Little Ice Age’.
https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:73809>
You need to learn to read properly. There is no inconsistency between that statement and the key finding that:
The simplistic imagining of the ‘MWP’ and ‘LIA’ by contrarians is a myth. If you don’t know what the phrase ‘spatially and temporally heterogeneous’ means, just say so and someone will explain it to you.
None exists for a global and synchronous event, a fact established by the global scale study carried out by the PAGES 2K project.
Ah – caught you out bullshitting.
You go on to repeat the misrepresentation of Zunli Lu’s research into ikaite as a proxy. This was, at the time (2012), so severe that Dr Lu was obliged to make a corrective statement:
Caught you bullshitting again.
Then you repeat the misrepresentation of a regional proxy as a global one, this time with the lake sediment analysis from Patagonia.
Then you wheel out Loehle’s deeply flawed analysis, multiply rebutted since.
Then you provide a broken link to a 2004 paper on speleotherm proxies which doesn’t demonstrate that there was a globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold interval that defines a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age. Some regions were warm and some were cool. Picking out one or two warm regions does not establish that the global mean temperature was warm. Contrarians *always* get this muddled up.
All in all, you just keep on demonstrating that you don’t have the first clue what you are talking about. And I get a distinct whiff of ‘CO2 Science’ or some similar aggregator of misrepresentations for the contrarian bluffer. You ought to actually read the stuff you are linking to rather than just throw it at the wall uncomprehendingly.
Many reconstructions:
https://medium.com/@USC/the-hockey-stick-is-alive-the-charted-trend-confirms-global-warming-2df259de173c
https://skepticalscience.com/images/NH_Temp_Reconstruction.gif
See multiple studies here: https://skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Nature, July 2019: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2
Get lost dumbo. We are wiping the floor with you.
Jeffh
That Nature paper “No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era” is particularly on point, so JDS read, learn and inwardly digest and stop your bouts of diarrhoea.
None of the scientists whose work Swallow mangles are anthropogenic climate change deniers. They would be pretty disgusted to see how nincompoops like him are deliberately distorting their findings in support of an ideological agenda. I have seen it done with the work of colleagues as well. They were rightfully annoyed that the Idso mob had deliberately distorted the findings of their Nature paper.
Calling the hundreds of scientists and economists who contributed to the IPCC documents ‘liars’ is in keeping with this bombasic a** and his hubris. The document went through 12 rounds of internal peer-review and 3 rounds of external peer-review, making it one of the most heavily scrutinized documents in scientific history. Swallow, as I said is either nuts, deluded, or both. One thing for sure, he is obsessed. He doesn’t seem to have a life aside from his serial ranting on blogs. IMHO he needs medical attention asap.
We are annihilating this brainless twerp, and he doesn’t like it.
Note how Swallow quote-mined an interview with Dr. Zunli Lu who studies Geochemistry at Syracuse University. Here is a more recent interview with him based on a Nature paper he had just published:
http://thecollege.syr.edu/news/2018/zunli-lu-nature-paper.html
The opening line of the article and interview: “Scientists have long known that atmospheric carbon dioxide is closely linked to climate change”.
The article highlights a paper by Lu in Nature that reinforces the important role played by CO2 in mediating climatic periods and ice ages over deep time.
OUCH! Another own goal for the intrepid legend-in-his-own-mind.
This is fun. I am awaiting another series of lengthy, tantrum-ridden rants from him as he sinks deeper and deeper…
This newie also obliterates him, published in the world’s leading scientific journal (Nature).
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2
From the abstract: “By contrast, we find that the warmest period of the past two millennia occurred during the twentieth century for more than 98 per cent of the globe. This provides strong evidence that anthropogenic global warming is not only unparalleled in terms of absolute temperatures, but also unprecedented in spatial consistency within the context of the past 2,000 years”.
Buh-bye Swallow. Back to the Daily Caller for you.
These links explain to anyone with an actual mind that there was a MWP, in spite of what M. Mann hopes some fools will believe. I can hardly wait to get Jeffh’s well thought out view of these sites. Jeffh’s, falling back on his years of working in the field of science, can tell me that; “….he knows that he looks like a hypocritical idiot either way. If he, an utter laymen, with ZERO publications, says YES to my question, then he will come across as a putalant, arrogant jerk who rates his own non-qualifications above those of 4 trained climate scientists with a combined total of around 500 career papers in peer-reviewed journals and over 30,000 citations.” I do not think that I have ever heard or read Roy W. Spencer, PhD & Richard Lindzen, PhD ever write or talk this way. Could it be because they are actual scientist and act the part? This one puts me in mind of a 13 year old school girl who is having trouble on the playground with a classmate;
“Greg, I am sure that I speak on behalf of most posters on here. Ban Swallow. In my honest opinion he is a lunatic, full of himself and his ‘ideas’. He only persists in order to have the last word. Everyone on here is sick of him”. Where is the important “science” hiding in any of Jeffh’s comments?
Climate change killed off Viking settlement on Greenland
http://www.earthtimes.org/scitech/climate-change-killed-viking-settlement-greenland/942/
Norse ruins at Brattahlid.
http://www.greenland-guide.gl/leif2000/history.htm
“The Norse arrived in Greenland 1,000 years ago and became very well established,” says Schweger, describing the Viking farms and settlements that crowded the southeast and southwest coasts of Greenland for almost 400 years.
http://www.folio.ualberta.ca/38/16/03.html
Evidently in the kind of “science” that Jeffh was taught by Michael Mann, means that deception and lying are OK. What Jeffh, who did his PhD 24 years ago, is desperate to try to blame his devil in the sky, CO2, for this 2°C over the previous record set in Paris 72 years ago after telling me that; “Climate is no different. Climate change deniers like Swallow constantly conflate weather and climate. Note how Swallow is a master of picking single data points out of long-term data sets (as he does by cherry-picking temperature records in various countries). He then greatly exaggerates the significance of these cherry-picked data points”. Yea! OK.
He does not know what it means to take something out of context as he did when he posted this; “Scientists have long known that atmospheric carbon dioxide is closely linked to climate change”. He did not want to present the “rest of the story” it seems. The object of the research has more to do with; “Glacial expansion of oxygen-depleted seawater in the eastern tropical Pacific” than it does with C02.
“Scientists have long known that atmospheric carbon dioxide is closely linked to climate change. Studying ice age cycles, carbon dioxide increased during warmer times and reduced during glacial periods. When carbon was stored in oceans during these glacial periods, oxygen levels in the ocean were supposed to decrease. However, there weren’t sensitive and reliable methods to measure such changes. Until now”
“…..reconstruct oxygen levels in the Pacific Ocean during the last ice age 20,000 years ago. Their paper, “Glacial expansion of oxygen-depleted seawater in the eastern tropical Pacific,” demonstrates that the respired carbon reservoir of the glacial Pacific was increased, confirming this mechanism as a contributor to lower levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide during these periods. […]As more and more carbon dioxide was transferred from the atmosphere into the ocean by marine planktons, oxygen in the water is reduced.
http://thecollege.syr.edu/news/2018/zunli-lu-nature-paper.html
Buh-bye Jeffh. It is back to your favourite sources of climate “science” for you, John Cook’s skeptical science & Peter Sinclair’s climate crooks, or is that crocks?
I looked at your source and it is not accurate and it is; therefore, as bogus as what you are. You still have not dealt with this fact. I made a special trip to Death Valley to see the large sign that the Park Service has up commemorating this occasion that took place 106 years ago. Come up with some lie to try to explain your way around this this fact.
World Meteorological Organization Assessment of the Purported World Record 58°C Temperature Extreme at El Azizia, Libya (13 September 1922)
“On 13 September 1922, a temperature of 58°C (136.4°F) was purportedly recorded at El Azizia (approximately 40 kilometers south-southwest of Tripoli) in what is now modern-day Libya…………. The WMO assessment is that the highest recorded surface temperature of 56.7°C (134°F) was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley) CA USA.”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00093.1?af=R&
This is why your bogus site is wrong. This is the kind of crap that people like you believe that comes from computer models.
“Feeding this information into computer climate simulations, Neukom and colleagues determined that none of these past climate epochs affected the entire planet at the same time, not even the Little Ice Age”
https://eos.org/articles/the-little-ice-age-wasnt-global-but-current-climate-change-is
Are climate change models becoming more accurate and less reliable?
“The uncertainty remained hidden. Now that more real-world factors are being included, the uncertainties endemic in these factors reveal themselves and get tacked on to the models. You thus face an ironic tradeoff; as your models strive to mirror the real world better, they also become more uncertain. It’s like swimming in quicksand; the harder you try to get out of it, the deeper you get sucked in.”
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2013/02/27/are-more-accurate-climate-change-models-worse/
What are you wittering about now?
The study shows that, yes, the oceans do absorb CO2 during glacial periods. This contributes to the net reduction in forcing, along with the increased surface albedo. So it gets even colder.
Yet more evidence that you simply don’t have a clue what you are talking about.
For obvious reasons, Jeffh got mixed up and did not understand that what I had posted about Dr. Zunli Lu was in regard to his work on the ikaite record that; “qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.” You, being a true scientist who is seeking out the truth, above all else, I assume, unless that truth interferes with your agenda about climate change being caused by a trace gas, C02, should be interested in this information that makes a lie out of all of the phony alarmist that claim that the MWP was isolated to Northern Europe.
“Our interpretation, based on ikaite isotopes, provides additional qualitative evidence that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were extended to the Southern Ocean and the Antarctic Peninsula.”
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AGUFMPP51A1819L
Earth and Planetary Science Letters
Volumes 325–326, 1 April 2012, Pages 108–115
An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula
(Same authors & affiliations)
“This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X12000659
Time for more name calling and that seems to be somewhat infantile to me; but, what do I know?
Have you always been a serial liar swallow, or are you being paid to be this dishonest and morally bankrupt?
John Swallow falls into an E&E trap with the link to a paper published under no peer review process worthy of the name. More on E&E in another post for I wish to use number of allowed links in one post for more immediately germane links.
At the end of this ill formatted opening, do try and be more logical and tidy in your posts JS such that we can be sure who is saying what, JS links to Sage pubs who have published under the Energy and Environment label a paper by a well know obfuscater of climate science one Craig Loehle [1].
This paper by Loehle has been reviewed by the knowledgeable and thoroughly critiqued here in an article on Past reconstructions: problems, pitfalls and progress from which I will pick just one critical comment amongst the many.
[1] Loehle has come to some strange conclusions in more recent papers, in E&E, such as:
Why do you task me with all of this crap that you copy/paste? There are hundreds of papers on how the MWP & the LIA were global in scope. Why does the truth bother you so much that you have to search for bogus outliers to try to dispute what is the truth?
Then you say; “John Swallow falls into an E&E trap with the link to a paper published under no peer review process worthy of the name” as though you are a great judge of the peer review process that in most case with your kind of alarmist papers amounts to Pal review. Do you think that these papers were properly reviewed and I’m sure you do not like the findings that they have presented.
“Our interpretation, based on ikaite isotopes, provides additional qualitative evidence that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were extended to the Southern Ocean and the Antarctic Peninsula.”
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AGUFMPP51A1819L
Earth and Planetary Science Letters
Volumes 325–326, 1 April 2012, Pages 108–115
An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula
(Same authors & affiliations)
“This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X12000659
Interestingly, there’s nothing much else about the potential of ikaite as a climate proxy after 2012, which rather suggests the research ran into a wall. This isn’t surprising given the various caveats the authors actually applied in the study:
So no evidence for global synchronicity in this study whatsoever.
(Source: Lu et al. 2012)
So the proxy isn’t even interpreted quantitatively to produce an actual temperature reconstruction, only qualitatively as there are so many uncertainties about the physical processes involved. This is all a bit tenuous, yet to you, constitutes definitive evidence for a global and synchronous MWP.
But it isn’t at all. It’s not even close. Yet you keep on citing the one research group over and over again.
You are bullshitting again.
John Swallow Energy & Environment was edited solely by one Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen who, if she wishes to be taken seriously on science matters displays poor judgement in the papers she allows published and the company she keeps.
The forces that are driving her become clear when we read this quoted from the above linked article:
The above is an astonishing and worrying revelation, but it demonstrates unequivocally the true concerns of those who are making war on climate science and climate scientists. It would not surprise me if another ‘Climategate’ like event were to make itself apparent in the near future for the dark forces are sure to have been stirred up by recent ‘Extinction’ event and climate change action. I see widespread brute force and repression ahead spurred on my extreme demonisation of those trying to ensure that we can retain a liveable planet.
John Swallow wrote this disgraceful statement which plumb new depths of scurrilous behaviour, even for him :
That is one of the most ridiculous, laughably things you have written JS.
As you don’t appear to understand the overlapping use of proxies then I suggest that you study some texts on Palaeoclimatology.
The most immediately useful would be
Paleoclimatology: Reconstructing Climates of the Quaternary by Raymond S Bradley, which has an excellent Foreword by Lonnie Thompson. If you don’t know who that latter is then that is because a poor knowledge base on your part.
for an overview which includes deeper time then the following would be useful:
Thomas M Cronin, ‘Paleoclimates: Understanding Climate Change Past and Present’
Now your confusion over the levels and effects of atmospheric CO2 can be settled by studying the works of William F Ruddiman;
1 ‘Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate’
2 ‘Earth’s Climate, Past and Future’
3 ‘Earth Transformed’
Here is one talk by Ruddiman, there are others which you should explore:
Early Anthropogenic Transformations of Earth’s Climate
More on Ruddiman shortly as I am out of links.
“That is one of the most ridiculous, laughably things you have written JS.
As you don’t appear to understand the overlapping use of proxies then I suggest that you study some texts on Palaeoclimatology.” Don’t even pretend that you can tell me what I understand and do not understand. I understand that a trace gas, CO2, that is only .03% , according to Caltech, of the Earth’s atmosphere does not drive the Earth’s climate and you cannot show evidence that it does.
You seem to be enthralled with peer reviewed science. Have you read Donna Laframboise’s book: “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert”? I have and it reveals much about what some seem to think so highly of.
In assessing Pachauri’s style and record, the transcript of his talk to the North Carolina legislative committee is worth further study, although it is oddly transcribed (“anthropogenic” becomes “natural progienic” and Pachauri is vexed about “vulnerable dentures”).
Normally one is careful not to mis-speak to legislators. Pachauri hardly began before telling a whopper: “The IPCC … mobilises the best experts and scientists from all over the world and we carry out an assessment of climate change based on peer-reviewed literature, so everything that we look at and take into account in our assessments has to carry credibility of peer-reviewed publications, we don’t settle for anything less than that” (emphasis added).
Pachauri was wrong, 5587 times wrong, because that’s the number of non-peer-reviewed or “grey-lit” citations in the IPCC’s 2007 assessment report—30 per cent of all citations, as journalist Donna Laframboise discovered. The grey-lit included press releases from Greenpeace and Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), not to mention a “first version of a draft”. The science team even used grey-lit in preference to unwelcome peer-reviewed findings. As George Filippo, a 2002–08 IPCC vice-chair of Group 1 (science), put it in a Climategate e-mail in 2000:
I feel rather uncomfortable about using not only unpublished but also unreviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions) … I feel that at this point there are very little rules [sic] and almost anything goes.
http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2012/03/the-fictive-world-of-rajendra-pachauri/
Swallow, you are naive enough to believe a paper in a bottom-feeding journal like E & E (IF 0.319) and to dimiss papers in journals about ten million times more respected, like Nature (IF 41.577). You are a real hoot. Simply, everything that you write is cherry-picked and/or misinterpreted, based exclusively on your ‘gut feelings’ that in truth are nothing more than a camouflage for your extreme right politicial views. What a pompous old oaf you are. You aren’t welcome here. Go back to Breitbart and the Daily Caller where you are probably treated like a deity. You won’t be on here.
When it comes to science, Swallow, you don’t reach up to my shoelaces. You have NO qualifications whatsoever in ANY scientific field. I told you yesterday that there are by now thousands of published studies reporting biotic responses to the recent warming. You ignore them as if they don’t exist. Like you ignore lots of other inconvenient facts. You have a ‘gut feeling’ that CO2 is inconsequential. You have lots of ‘gut feelings’, bolstered by your mendacious cherry-picking and beyond simple understanding of complexity.
You are also all over the place. First it isn’t warming. The it is and it’s all due to the sun. Then it isn’t again. Then it is. And so on and so on and so on and so on ad nauseum.
It is warming. There are no ands, ifs or buts. Nature proves it categorically. So you had better stick with your ‘the sun dunnit’ argument Swallow. Playing dodgeball with the facts may work on the crappy blogs and web sites you glean your ‘science’ from but it doesn’t work here. You can post one rant after another here but nobody is listening to you. Why not look in the mirror when you rant? At least you will have an audience.
Donna Laframboise? HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
Now you are just becoming hilariously funny! I need a good belly-laugh today so thanks!
Laframboise is a right-wing hack. She has no scientific qualifications whatsoever (lots of those good old ‘gut feelings’, though). Her degree is in ‘Women’s Studies’ (1989). Now the last time I looked, having such a degree really did not confer someone with deep acumen into the functioning of complex systems. A great article (below) by Graham Readfearn shredding some of her bilge:
https://www.readfearn.com/2012/07/laframboise/
Good grief you stink at debating Swallow. My small dog is miles better than you.
Jeffh
Excellent article by Redfearn there, more muck exposed.
JS offers links to the Quadrant – the sucker.
John Swallow again trawls the depths of crank thought and denial, whilst he shifts target to Pachauri , note what he did there, the old switcheroo.
Source.
Source
Laughing at you now JS your credibility is totally shot.
Since JS is fixating on the ‘MWP’ fallacy, I invite him to consider the ramifications of this argument.
If we imagine that there actually was a global, synchronous warm event, as warm or even warmer than the present, it is a deeply troubling prospect.
There is no evidence of any significant forcing change during the period of the supposed ‘MWP’. Yet we are asked to accept that a global warming event occurred anyway. This would require that the climate system be very sensitive to radiative perturbation. It would therefore be very sensitive to the increasing radiative forcing from CO2, which is bad news indeed for humanity, including climate ‘sceptics’.
So either you keep the ‘MWP’ (in defiance of the evidence that it didn’t really exist) and get a highly sensitive climate, or you ditch it and make a play for low climate sensitivity as a basis for inaction.
You don’t get to do both.
Since BBD has demonstrated that he is incapable of allowing himself to believe that there was a Medieval Warm Period for the obvious reason that would have happened when carbon dioxide levels were far lower than what they are at today and the alarmist fools cannot explain that. Showing their total disregard for science and history, they have to try to invent lies to get rid of this documented period of Earth’s history. This demonstrate that these people have no interest in science and have exactly no sense of honesty within their bogus, flawed agenda of making the essential for all life on earth trace gas, CO2, out to be some kind of a devil in the sky that just has to be dealt with by eliminating all of the means that it is produced and added to the atmosphere. These same poor naive folks do not care to admit that each breath that they exhale is carbon dioxide and that the life sustaining oxygen, that is at 21% of the atmosphere, while their hated CO2, that is the bases for all life on Earth, is at between .03-.04%. BBD needs to let those numbers sink in to see just how stupid someone could be to believe that CO2 is somehow a BAD thing that is going to destroy the earth. “OSHA CO2 exposure limits: OSHA recommends a lowest oxygen concentration of 19.5% in the work place for a full work-shift exposure. As we calculated above, for the indoor workplace oxygen level to reach 19.5% (down from its normal 20.9% oxygen level in outdoor air) by displacement of oxygen by CO2, that is, to reduce the oxygen level by about 6% (1.4 absolute percentage points divided by 20.9% starting point = 0.06), the CO2 or carbon dioxide level would have to increase to about 1.4% 14,000 ppm”.
I will again present actual facts regarding what the MWP caused to happen in Greenland and to the north of there so that a poor, indescribably naïve, due to the brainwashing that he allowed to take place by the charlatans who push this hoax of anthropogenic climate change, can perhaps come to understand that there is ample proof of the MWP. There are actually scientist such as University of Alberta Anthropologist Dr. Charles Schweger who get off of their dead asses and go out to seek out the truth instead of just writing inane crap on an online blog
“The farm under the sand
Researcher challenges conventional thinking on disappearance of Viking community
“The Norse arrived in Greenland 1,000 years ago and became very well established,” says Schweger, describing the Viking farms and settlements that crowded the southeast and southwest coasts of Greenland for almost 400 years.
“The Greenland settlements were the most distant of all European medieval sites in the world,” said Schweger. “Then the Norse disappear, and the question has always been: what happened?”
Cross-sections of the GUS soil show the Vikings began their settlement by burning off Birch brush to form a meadow. Over the next 300 to 400 years, the meadow soil steadily improved its nutritional qualities, showing that the Greenland Vikings weren’t poor farmers, as McGovern and others have suggested. “At GUS, the amount of organic matter and the quality of soil increased and sustained farming for 400 years,” says Schweger. “If they were poor farmers, then virtually all the farming in North America is poor farming.”
https://sites.ualberta.ca/~publicas/folio/38/16/03.html
1/. No evidence for an global and synchronous ‘MWP’ as warm as or warmer than the present
2/. You did not address the problem of climate sensitivity presented by pretending that there was an MWP
Try again.
Swallow, I (PhD, if you insist on putting the title after people’s names) have more professional scientific integrity in my little finger than Spencer or Lindzen have in their combined bodies. I have not been on the payroll of a fossil fuel corporation with an axe to grind nor have I affiliated myself with corporate-funded think tanks as those two are or were. Indeed, they, like many deniers, keep some pretty sordid company.
As I said before, the number of scientifically qualified climate change deniers is so small that the industry of denial has relied on the same small number of old white men for the better part of 30 years. If any proof were needed of the overwhelming consensus, this is it. Spencer also is a creationist. That says enough. Truth is that in my opinion and that of many others, history will hold these shills in complete contempt.
As for science, you simply ignore thousands of studies, cherry-pick a few and distort the findings of others. I linked to the July paper in Nature (which you ignored) plus a 2018 study affirming the hockey stick (which you ignored) plus describe at least several hundred papers in scientific journals affirming the indisputable relationship between CO2 and temperature (many are in Sinclair’s video which you ignore) and then describe the enormous ecological evidence for warming (which you ignore).
You think that you are uniquely qualified to ignore and therefore dismiss thousands of papers you have never read and probably would not understand even if you did. There are several reviews and meta-analyses showing biotic responses to warming over the past several decades by Walther, Parmesan, Post and others. You have never read any of them. Instead what you do is search under every slimy rock you can to find the odd study which questions the warming and the role of CO2 in it. Then you pound your chest like a silverback gorilla asserting his dominance, but when confronted with the fact that the studies you like are in conflict with 97% or more of research in that area, you attempt to smear the scientists who conducted these studies, or else you claim that the peer-review system is crap. By doing so you intimate that peer-review ONLY works for the few studies that contradict AGW theory.
So here is the Swallow strategy: ignore and/or dismiss studies 1-362 showing the clear relationship between CO2 and temperature. Study 363 disputes this, and even though it is published in a bottom-feeding journal, Swallow rants on and on about the ‘proof’ it provides in dismissing the importance of CO2. Then Swallow ignores or dismisses studies 364-722 which again affirm the CO2-temperature relationship. Study 723 again challenges it, so Swallow once again blows this study out of all proportion. And so on. This is his ‘debating’ strategy.
If he did this in front of a scientific audience who have some knowledge of the field he would be eaten alive. But as an anonymous nobody on the internet, he can troll to his heart’s content. There are no established rules for debating on blogs. Swallow clings to his memes not because of scientific integrity or truth but because denial conforms closely with his far-right political ideology (which he never discusses, of course, because it would blow his cover). He sticks to discredited ‘facts’ even when they are blown out of the water, like the ratio of the number of record high temperatures set around the world against the number of cold records set since 2000 and especially since 2014. Cornered, his only defense was to claim that the records are on Wikipedia, which he claims is ‘unreliable’. But he has no trouble at all with the supposed ‘reliability’ of articles in E & E, Quadrant, or of people affiliated with right wing think tanks like Donna Laframboise, Roy Spencer or Richard Lindzen. And note that he doesn’t do his own homework to check if these records are reliable; as long as I don’t do it, they don’t exist as far as he is concerned. In my experience climate change deniers not only cherry pick and ignore volumes of evidence that they don’t like, they are masters of dismissing volumes of research that does not conform with their world views.
I also highlighted earlier the fact that there are clear trends in various parts of the world showing an increase in the duration, frequency and intensity of heat waves, droughts and extreme precipitation events. Type these terms into Google Scholar and it is easy to find piles of published and well-cited studies. The scientific community by-and-large knows about them, but Swallow won’t look for them. And as long as some of us on here don’t as far as he is concerned they don’t exist. Deniers if anything are predictable. They all do it.
Again, Swallow is shouting to an audience of one here: himself. We all think that he is a self-righteous idiot. But like a schoolground bully who has been humiliated, he will be back here again tomorrow with more bluster and bile. I am done with him, fed up to the teeth with his rancid arguments.
My, my, I had best cease and desist before I put poor old “no name” Jeffh totally further over the edge than he now appears to be. It took him 2 pages, 867 words, in 63 lines contained in 10 paragraphs for him to try to tell me that because I do not believe that the trace gas, CO2, that is along with the sun, responsible for ALL life on earth, is going to cause the Earth to be incinerated in a matter of a few years & that for holding that belief I am somehow not a good and worthy of life person. This sounds more like a religious finding than it does being one that has anything to do with something that poor old “no name” Jeffh appears to know little about, science, because he seldom offers up any scientific proof to back up his inane claims.
Due to “no name” Jeffh’s pseudoscience training, he is not able to understand that during the Cambrian Period of the Earth’s history the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 15 times that of the present day, or over 6,000 ppm and because I am able to read and learn and hang on Jeffh’s every word, he needs to explain why the Earth did not incinerate during that and the other periods when the CO2 levels were much higher than today’s 410 ppm. One would be foolish to not learn from “no name” Jeffh because he informed me that he has; “more professional scientific integrity in my little finger than Spencer or Lindzen have in their combined bodies.” I’m not sure how to check that claim out because Jeffh will not disclose his name or his background for me to get an idea of why he believes this arrogant and narcistic claim that he puts forth. I do know that “Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite.”
It is doubtful it you could get by security at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center because why would they want to allow you to enter when you would have no scientific knowledge that anyone has any interest in, other than your loyal followers on this thread who are as brainwashed and in the dark about the Earth and its climate as you appear to be.
Allow me to once more offer some help about what you need to know to deal with the Earth and why its climate is what it is today. The sun makes up 99.86% of the mass of the solar system. Carbon dioxide is .03% of the earth’s atmosphere. Of the two, the sun or CO?, which do you believe has the most influence on the earth’s climate?
How meaningful is 410 ppm of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere? If viewed realistically, not very, when one considers that if one million inches are laid in a straight line they stretch for 16 miles. Randomly scatter 410 inches along this 16 miles and even the genius, “no name” Jeffh, would have a problem finding them all. A million minutes is the number in two years’ worth of minutes. Maybe in that amount of time, if that was all “no name” Jeffh, had to study, he could figure out what actually drove the Earth’s climate, & if he quit lying to himself, he would know that it was not CO2.
“Relatively soon after carbon dioxide is released by man near ground level, it is removed from the atmosphere. Since carbon dioxide is heavier than air, carbon dioxide released by man near ground level sinks in air relatively quickly rather than rising up to the upper atmosphere to become a so-called greenhouse gas in the upper atmosphere.” Do you believe this above Jeffh? If not, then open this link and find out what it is telling you.
THE AUGUST 12 EXPULSION OF DEADLY CO2
http://sci.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/Nyos.html
Have you always been so box of rocks stupid that you cannot understand that the links that I provide to substantiate my points is where you should go with your claim that they are lying. Level that claim against Lu, Z.; Rickaby, R. E.; Kennedy, H.; Pancost, R. D.; Shaw, S.; Lennie, A. R.; Wellner, J. S.; Anderson, J. B. who are affiliated with AA(Earth Sciences, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA; zunlilu@syr.edu), AB(Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; rosr@earth.ox.ac.uk), AC(School of Ocean Sciences, Bangor University, Anglesey, United Kingdom; h.a.kennedy@bangor.ac.uk), AD(School of Chemistry, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom; r.d.pancost@bristol.ac.uk), AE(School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; s.shaw@see.leeds.ac.uk), AF(Diamond Light Source, Didcot, United Kingdom; a.lennie@minweb.co.uk), AG(Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA; jwellner@uh.edu), AH(Department of Earth Science, Rice Universityy, Houston, TX, USA; johna@rice.edu).
See how helpful I am with stupid people like you, I even provide the email address so that an idiot like you can get on line and point pout how they are serial liars.
Dean, on September 9, 2019 at 7:58 am said, using his most eloquent style and limitless vocabulary, asked this question of me regarding my links.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AGUFMPP51A1819L
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X12000659
“Have you always been a serial liar swallow, or are you being paid to be this dishonest and morally bankrupt?”
Have you, Dean, always been so box of rocks stupid that you cannot understand that the links that I provide to substantiate my points is where you should go with your claim that they are lying. Level that claim against Lu, Z.; Rickaby, R. E.; Kennedy, H.; Pancost, R. D.; Shaw, S.; Lennie, A. R.; Wellner, J. S.; Anderson, J. B. who are affiliated with AA(Earth Sciences, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA; , AB(Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom), AC(School of Ocean Sciences, Bangor University, Anglesey, United Kingdom), AD(School of Chemistry, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom), AE(School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom), AF(Diamond Light Source, Didcot, United Kingdom), AG(Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA), AH(Department of Earth Science, Rice Universityy, Houston, TX, USA).
See how helpful I am with stupid people like you, I even tried to provide the email address so that an idiot like you can get on line and point out how they are serial liars but I could not get it past moderation, for some reason. If you want to email these groups and explain how much they lie you can find the address under “Affiliation:”
You misrepresented their work. I showed you that.
Stop bullshitting.
swallow, you’ve just demonstrated that your dishonesty is willful and not due to breeding. Whether you’re paid to lie is unknown, but not worth pursuing.
To fellow loathers of Swallow on here some advice: Dr. Dade. Don’t respond, don’t answer, don’t engage. Starve him of the oxygen he craves. His worships himself, and he deliberately distorts the research of scientists to give the impression that they are on ‘his side’. As the interview with Dr. Lu at Syracuse University showed, the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature has long been acknowledged. Then Swallow writes as if the words never existed. The list of scientists above, were they to be asked, would distance themselves from a loathesome individual like MR. (emphasis mine, given the quack has no relevant education and certainly not a PhD) Swallow as fast as they can. It is pretty despicable for him to try and suggest that they are all climate change deniers like he is. They aren’t. Not even close.
And by deifying Spencer and Lindzen, he forgot to mention their links with corporate-funded think tanks which instantly disqualifies them as ideologues. Spencer also believes in creation over evolution. Enough said.
Doubtless the best course, Jeff. The man’s a mad onanist.
We know that Jeffh is a valid moniker for a distinguished scientist but is John Swallow a real identity? Will that latter dare to unmask himself.
Just saying. Will not bother to respond to anything more that he posts, he is what is known as a shit-poster.
It is evident that folks such as BBD & especially Jeffh have lost, as if they ever had, the desire to learn what is the truth about their favorite hoax, CO2 caused climate change. It appears that BBD is one very frustrated hermaphrodite who is unable to relieve his frustrations other than by attacking any one that is intelligent enough to not believe his preposterous claims about CO2
The only thing that is obvious here is that you won’t answer the question about the ‘MWP’ and climate sensitivity.
Perhaps because it’s a wee bit above your pay grade, or perhaps because you dimly sense a vast and looming problem with that particular bit of contrarian nonsense.
Christina Figueres is well aware of what benefits to the one world government under the control of the United Nations that this hoax known as anthropogenic climate change can bring to her organization. When one reads the beyond insane post that certain useful idiots for that agenda post on this site, then it is easy to understand that there are many folks who are stupid enough to believe all of this nonsense that is fabricated to support this hoax.
Christina Figueres, former U.N. climate chief: “We stand at the doorway of being able to bend the emissions curve downwards by 2020, as science demands, in protection of the UN sustainable development goals, and in particular the eradication of extreme poverty,”
Christina Figueres also said: “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.”
http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally
These remarks made by Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC should bother anyone with a brain and a desire to lead their own life free from the dictates of such an organization as the UN and their climate change agenda. The question is and the answer is obvious, is this a “fight against climate change” or a fight against basic human freedoms that all in civilized parts of the world have, up until now and this kind of request for dictatorial powers, to decide their own destinies?
“The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement” — Karl Popper
“Be not astonished at new ideas; for it is well known to you that a thing does not therefore cease to be true because it is not accepted by many.” Baruch Spinoza
I hope to read some of your “thoughts” about this issue of climate change at a later date because for the time being I am making preparations for another trip to Borneo where we were in 2007.
In 2007, I spent 6 weeks in the Malaysian portion of Borneo in both Sarawak and Saba and the amount of old growth rain forest being destroyed is depressing and it is being done to grow palm oil trees for some irrational desire to produce bio-fuels that take more energy to produce than what it renders. Borneo is home to some or the earth’s unique animals and their habituate is being destroyed to “save the planet.” I was also in oil rich Brunei and their forest are basically protected and in existence. I understand the destruction is more sever in the Indonesian portion of Borneo.
If anyone thinks that destroying old growth rainforest to produce palm oil is desirable, they need to go to Borneo and Malaysia to get the answer and that is all being done so some fool can have a “feel good moment” when they fill up their ride with biodiesel. How smart is it to use a food crop, corn, to produce vehicle fuel by government mandate?
Jeffh can call me whatever names he wants, I will not respond to him due to having much better things to do, at the present time.
“Swallow has better things to do at the present time”.
Of course the old, retired guy does. Sitting around on his lazy butt in front of a keyboard all day telling the world that global warming is a myth despite volumes of empirical evidence.
And he tries to draw a false equivalence linking the destruction of the world’s rainforests to biofuel production. How typical of him. Forests across SE Asia and in the neotropics were cleared for oil palm and agriculture long before anthropogenic climate change became an issue. And they are still being destroyed at a rapid rate as a result of policies linked to neoliberal capitalism, a system I am sure he supports with gusto. He probably supports Trump and his corporate goons as well as they systematically eviscerate regulations that protect wild lands across the United States, with huge repercussions for the nation’s flora and fauna. Indeed, the proceeds of development have long been largely apportioned by the rich.
Climate change is a serious threat to nature across the biosphere, along with other anthropogenic stresses to which it acts synergistically. Swallow’s crocodile tears don’t mean anything.
What follows fits in well with what Christina Figueres, former U.N. climate chief is wanting her organization to do, take control of & intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years.
Alarmist, such as the ones on this blog; ‘Want To Control Every Aspect Of Your Life’: ‘What you eat, what you drive, where you drive, what you believe, what you say, what you can own, how many children you can have…’ ‘how much you can travel, how much money you have, what your kids are taught, how big your house is, the temperature of your house, how your house is heated, how far you live from your work, what kind of light bulbs and other appliances you have ………’ ‘if you can eat meat…’ ‘if you are allowed to fly in airplanes’ & the list goes on and on and on.
“The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it” H L Mencken
There are many who comment on this site who have no idea, due to blatant ignorance, as to what the truth actually is. If they did know, would it matter to them?
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” – Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” – emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
This wonderful feat that BBC is heralding was accomplished due to the use of fossil fuels. It didn’t happen because of a group of publicly funded alarmist running around like Chicken Little crying that the sky was falling due to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
June, 19 2013 “One of the most remarkable feats in the world has been the lifting of about a billion people out of abject poverty in the past couple of decades. If the industrialisation trend continues, then this century could witness some of the rapid improvements in living standards seen in the West during the 19th Century. […] The prize, which many will hope is in reach, is that global poverty is eliminated entirely within another couple of decades. It is the reason why the Nobel Laureate Robert Lucas said that once you start thinking about economic growth and the improvements in standards of living, it is hard to stop.” http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470
Yes people have been so well-lifted out of poverty that there are still ‘only’ around 4.5 billion of them now – or about 60% of the world population.
https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/4/27/200-years-to-end-poverty
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/29/bill-gates-davos-global-poverty-infographic-neoliberal
This nonsense is generally promulgated by wealthy, neoliberal capitalists who have seen wealth concentrated more than ever before since Reagan and Thatcher ushered it in in the 1980s. The truth is that wealth inequality undewrpins every social and environmental problem facing humanity and the Earth. And this is, in turn, driven by neoliberal capitalism.
The Ripple et al. (2017) paper in Bioscience pretty well demolishes everything else Swallow writes here. It reveals how 7 out of 8 indicators of ecological health across the biosphere are in sharp decline – only the Montreal Protocol, which limited the use of CFCs, has had the beenfit of allowing the ozone layer to mend. The US under Trump and his corporate goons are trying to ease those restrictions as well, allowing methyl-bromide and other CFCs to be used again. Bear in mind that the chemical manufacturers fought with everything they had to delay or prevent implementation of the Montreal Protocol, just as the fossil fuel lobby is doing the same now to prevent us being weaned off of oil and coal. They do not give a rat’s ass about the future state of the biosphere. Their sole sociopathic obsession is profit maximization. This entails reducing overheads – low wages, reduced health and environmental regulations, and any other impediments to the ‘bottom line’.
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/67/12/1026/4605229
At a time when humanity needs to reconcile the ecocidal and genocidal effects of neoliberal capitalism, we seem hell-bent on accelerating our descent in to the abyss.
“Am I going to have access to food or water when I’m 30?” — the question your kids are asking now.
This is the theme of this section of this blog and the alarmist now have to depend on a 16 year old Swedish girl, Greta Thunberg, to try to get their false point across about how CO2 is going to incinerate the planet, in Greta Thunberg’s words when she spoke at Davos this year; “Our house is on fire. I am here to say, our house is on fire.
According to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), we are less than 12 years away from not being able to undo our mistakes. In that time, unprecedented changes in all aspects of society need to have taken place, including a reduction of our CO2 emissions by at least 50%.
And please note that those numbers do not include the aspect of equity, which is absolutely necessary to make the Paris agreement work on a global scale. Nor does it include tipping points or feedback loops like the extremely powerful methane gas released from the thawing Arctic permafrost.”
Several questions come up regarding this girl, Greta and her speech in Davos. It appears that the alarmist realize that since no one has believed the “climate scientists” who have been lying to the public about this hoax of anthropogenic climate change; then they will rest their hopes on a 16 year old Swedish girl and “use” her to revive their dying hope to use this hoax as a way to gain the control over the unwashed masses of the planet that they desire to exert.
The second question is; if this was a fact that carbon dioxide was going to do what Greta maintained after her handlers coached her as far as what she should say. Then why would all of these attendees who perhaps believe all of the nonsense flown in to the Swiss city in private aircraft?
I’m sure that Greta Thunberg and her elitists handlers did not bring up any of this below or what follows in this look into the real world & not the imagined one that the alarmist exist in.
“Nearly 1.1 billion people had no access to electricity in 2014, and more than 3 billion had no access to clean fuels and technologies. Goal 7 recognizes that extending access to electricity and other forms of energy is fundamental to improving people’s lives and communities. It aims for efficiencies in energy use and the promotion of renewable sources to sustainably manage resources for development.
Easing daily life through access to energy Modern energy improves many areas of daily life. Better sanitation systems, well functioning health care and education services, and dependable transportation and telecommunications all depend on reliable electricity. Lighting a single room allows a child to read or do homework at night, while continuous power can support larger appliances, keep food cold, and allow businesses to flourish. Other alternatives, where they exist, often have significant health or pollution risks. Emissions from inefficient household energy sources like kerosene and traditional biomass can directly contribute to diseases and premature mortality among the poorest people, who have little or no access to health care. Goal 7 seeks to expand access to affordable, reliable, and modern energy services to all (target 7.1).
Expanding access to electricity
In 2014 around 15 percent of the world’s population had no access to electricity (figures 7d and 7e). Nearly half were in rural areas of Sub-Saharan Africa, and nearly a third were rural dwellers in South Asia. In all, 86 percent of people without electricity lived in rural areas, where providing infrastructure is more challenging. Of the remainder in urban areas, most were in Sub-Saharan Africa.”
http://datatopics.worldbank.org/sdgatlas/archive/2017/SDG-07-affordable-and-clean-energy.html
It is very amazing just how heartless you climate change liberals are. You have a steady supply of electricity now thanks mostly to coal but you could care less if anyone else in the world has the same benefits you do. You appear to be as removed from reality as the old communist that you must worship, Bernie Sanders.
“Am I going to have access to food or water when I’m 30?” — the question your kids are asking now.
There are many billions of people in the world today that do not even have what you alarmist take for granted, electricity. The last time I was in Kathmandu, Nepal the power was off more than it was on. Once one got into the mountains by way of hiking on steep trails to villages that had hydro plants the electricity was on for 24 hours with no interruptions. When I was in India the power seemed to stay on with few interruptions in New Delhi, Agra and Chennai. India is going to try to bring electricity to the millions of their citizens who do not have electricity now.
I hope that people remember when this recently happened: (July 31, 2012) “On Tuesday, India suffered the largest electrical blackout in history, affecting an area encompassing about 670 million people, or roughly 10 percent of the world’s population.”
This is even more interesting regarding this incident:
“India’s power sector has long been considered a potentially crippling hindrance to the country’s economic prospects. Part of the problem is access; more than 300 million people in India still have no electricity.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/world/asia/power-outages-hit-600-million-in-india.html?pagewanted=all
Apart from being a flat-out lie, this indicates zero understanding of what is proposed, namely decarbonisation in developed economies to offset the inevitable increase in emissions by developing ones.
You are just making a noise, JS. There’s no argument in there.
India and most developing nations are trying to help their people and therefore they could care nothing about some devil in the sky, CO2, that they know has nothing to do with the climate and they are building coal fired power houses.
Progress in electricity access is accelerating
Efforts to promote electricity access are having a positive impact in all regions, and the pace of progress has accelerated. The number of people without access to electricity fell to below 1.1 billion people for the first time in 2016, with nearly 1.2 billion people having gained access since 2000, 500 million of which were in India. Most progress has been made in developing Asia, where 870 million gained access since 2000, of which India account for 500 million gaining access – one of the largest electrification success stories in history. There is also for the first time a positive trend in sub-Saharan Africa, where electrification efforts have been outpacing population growth since 2014. However, progress is uneven, and there are still more people without electricity today than there were in 2000.
https://www.iea.org/access2017/
India
The world’s largest coal-plant developer, however, is India’s National Thermal Power Corporation, which plans to build over 38 gigawatts of new coal capacity in India and Bangladesh. India’s state-run power utility plans to invest $10 billion in new coal-fired power stations over the next five years. Despite several relatively new coal-fired plants being idle, it plans to build three new plants with a combined capacity of over 5 gigawatts. The new plants consist of two 660 megawatt units: one is being built at Singrauli in central India’s Madhya Pradesh and the other at Talcher in Odisha in the east. Its biggest plant will have a capacity of 2.4 gigawatts and will be located in the eastern state of Jharkhand. The new coal-fired plants will be “supercritical” plants that are 2 to 3 percent more efficient than conventional plants and therefore have lower emissions.[iii]
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/coal/despite-paris-agreement-china-india-continue-build-coal-plants/
Until JS answers the question about the ‘MWP’ and climate sensitivity, I think he can witter to himself off in a corner somewhere.
* * * * * * *
In other news, it looks like Boris Johnson is well and truly finished:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49661855
Thoughts/odds on what your Supreme Court will rule? Can they turn a verdict around quickly?
The court can, in theory, act quite quickly, but of course whether it will act in accordance with the precedent now set by the Court of Session cannot be known. But there is no doubt that the precedent established by the CoS is going to influence the decision of the UK Supreme Court.
PMs who give illegal advice to the Queen have to resign, and sharpish. I think – imho but not without basis – BJ’s goose is cooked at this point.
Dean
Opinion this morning in The Independent by Thom Brooks, Professor of Law and Government at Durham University (highly ranked UK institution). In other words, someone with actual domain expertise, unlike me 🙂
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-resign-brexit-constitutional-law-supreme-court-queen-a9101806.html
But it seems I guessed it about right…
Agree BBD. JS is wittering on about coal as if it is the answer to all of our social and economic problems. Truth is, the use of coal is almost finished.
https://www.treehugger.com/fossil-fuels/another-country-and-two-huge-utilities-all-done-coal.html
About time too. Methinks this bombastic fool works or worked in the enery industry, hence his waffle.
As for the ‘hoax’, another well-worn denier canard, it must involve every major scientific organization and National Scientific Academy on Earth plus well over 95% of the scientific community. Strange that the hoax myth is perpetrated by only a few shills, corporate hacks and conspiracy theory nutters.
dean
It seems clear that Parliament could be called to sit by invoking para 8.11 of Erskine May :
para 8.11 of Erskine May
What a cluster-fuck this all is.
It’s an attempted rightwing coup, is what it is.
BBD
Indeed, it seems everywhere JDS trails his dirty coat it gets stamped upon, as the following demonstrates:
Source, abridged
Now we know he has visited both Skeptical Science and Real Climate besides gathering a reputation at Desmogblog, the only possible conclusion we can come to is the he is being wilfully ignorant probably from ideological blindness abetted by the chink of money.
Lionel, one of the most despicable things he does, and that is a lot considering his history on other blogs, is to cherry-pick some sound studies he likes, and then to manipulate the conclusions to support his narrative. Worse, he then suggests that the authors of these papers hold the same views that he does on climate change and the role of CO2 as a forcing agent. Note that he wouldn’t dare write to any of them because, as you show here, their views are miles from his. They would think that he is a crank.
Joanne Nova and Marc Morano did the same thing with Verheggen et al’s 2014 climate scientist survey. I know that Bart Verheggen, who is a climate scientist, loathes the blogs of Nova and Morano. The important thing is that, like creationists, climate change deniers are reactive and not proactive. They do very little of their own research and what they do is usually an attempt to discredit a paper they don’t like and which is prominent. Deniers only started bleating on about the MWP after Mann et al’s 1998 paper was published in Nature. They had done none of their own proxy studies beforehand. The other thing they do is to take studies that clearly support AGW and somehow fiddle with them to make it appear like they don’t.
BBD
Absolutely, Paul Mason nails it:
Chaos is being normalised. It is all part of Boris Johnson’s pernicious plan
George Monbiot nails it further in:
The insidious ideology pushing us towards a Brexit cliff-edge
To few people study history, not the hagiography stuff of JRM and even Winston Churchill but such as critiques of the British in India for example. Have been reading much on this over the last couple of years and sourcing books off the mainstream history. If only people knew about the millions that were starved into extinction by rapacious taxation and worse, makes the ‘Holocaust’ look like a blip.
Now their descendants have turned their attention to the people of so called democracies.
@ Swallow
This is a very bad argument.
0.03% of a 70 kg human represents 21 g.
Quite a number of toxic compounds are lethal to humans under the one-gram range. The worse is Botox. The LD50 is about 1.5 milligram for a 70 kg human.
So, no, I wouldn’t try eating 21 g of dioxin. Especially, in your analogy, all in one go (acute poisoning).
It is amazing how someone can be so ignorant as to try to equate the confines of the human body to the vastness of the Earth’s climate. It is stupid to do so. Besides that, the alartmist are yet to understand that CO2 is not toxic. It is something that even an alarmist exhales with each breath that they waste. It is also essential for all life on earth, along with the sun.
Oh, good. So we agree you are an ignorant.
You were the one to bring that analogy up, Mr Smartypant. Don’t blame me for pointing out you were wrong.
Depends on the dose, like everything.
At high-enough concentration in the air you breath, CO2 is going to modify the gas exchanges in your lungs. It may lead to acidosis, if your kidneys fall or are overwhelmed.
That’s an odd argument. My body prefers to get rid of it, ergo it’s non-toxic?
I don’t know about you, but there are plenty of things my body “waste” that I’m not interested in taking back.
In any case, I’m certainly not interested in letting my “waste” piling up.
But you do you.
And excess of either – CO2 or the sun – will lead to life-threatening issues.
Actually, there are a few scientific articles indicating that an increase of this harmless gas is actually detrimental for our food supply: a higher abundance of CO2 make certain plants produce more carbohydrates (sugars), but since the other nutrients the plant has access to stay at the same level or less (nitrogen sources, minerals…), the end result is grain with more sugar and less proteins and essential minerals.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13179
Seriously, little boy, stick to climate science. Don’t try to outsmart me on biology.
*“Am I going to have access to food or water when I’m 30?” — the question your kids are asking now.* If these children were asking that question of parents who had to cook their food using dung for fuels then the elitist question might have some merit. I have relatives that live near Solvesborg, Sweden that I have visited on 3 different occasions and last year we went on the train from Kastrup, Denmark to Malmo, Sweden on a day trip. I have never seen anyone in Sweden having to cook using dung for heat in Sweden & I doubt that Greta Thunberg has ever encountered this either and she, like the alarmist who are so worried about a trace amount of the absolutely essential for all terrestrial life on earth, CO2, could care less about other things that they appear to know nothing about, such as the number of people around the globe who are in poverty and must try to get by as best they can due to not having what anthropogenic climate change advocates take for granted, electricity and a clean, smoke free way to cook their food. I know that the alarmist, who only care for themselves and for perpetuating their hoax about how CO2 is going to cause the earth to incinerate soon with NO proof at all that CO2 has anything to do with the Earth’s climate, will fail to acknowledge how important liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) is to improving billions of people’s lives around the world due to an inability to ever understand how important petroleum is in even their wasted lives.
Since this information below did not come from the alarmist favorite sites, such as Climate Crocks, skeptical science or realclimate.org, they will not even read the report put out by International Energy Agency and never wonder at why they are viewed to be so naive and basically uninformed about energy and the climate.
“The means of achieving clean cooking depends on the availability of biomass and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in different regions. Overall, LPG is the most cost-effective means to access clean cooking in more than half of all cases, with most of the rest moving to improved and more energy-efficient biomass cookstoves. The resulting increase in LPG demand leads to a small increase in CO2 emissions, but the overall GHG effect is more than offset by reduced methane emissions from incomplete combustion of biomass as those using LPG turn away in many cases from burning wood and other biofuels
The number of people in the New Policies Scenario without access to clean cooking facilities decreases to 2.2 billion in 2030 and 1.8 billion in 2040. Developing Asia still hosts the largest population without access in 2040. In China, access to clean cooking is slow to reach the last 10-15% of the population, leaving 105 million people without access in 2040, the majority of which rely on biomass. In India, the access rate is 76% by 2040, which means around 390 million remain without access. In sub-Saharan Africa, the switch to clean cooking turns a corner around 2030, so that by 2040 fewer than 820 million people do not have clean cooking access, in alignment with the African Union’s Agenda 2063 goal to harness all African energy resources to ensure modern, efficient, reliable, cost effective, renewable and environmentally friendly energy to all African households.”
https://www.iea.org/sdg/cooking/
Climate change deniers such as yourself are working to ensure that the most vulnerable and dispossessed will suffer the worst impacts in coming decades.
Everybody else is working to avoid the worst. You are either a monstrous hypocrite or a complete and utter fucking idiot. Or both.
* * *
When are you going to answer the question about the ‘MWP’ and climate sensitivity?
Waiting….
Swallow cites crap from a right wing think tank that has a history of publishing anti-environmental garabage: https://www.desmogblog.com/institute-economic-affairs
It promotes neoliberal capitalist policies which have had profoundly negative effect on the environment. George Monbiot wrote a great piece about this yesterday (see also Lionel’s link):
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/11/brexit-ultras-triumph-neoliberalism
Trump, Johnson, Farage et al. all are far right populist neoliberal capitalists. Their aim is to further the neoliberal corporate agenda: tax cuts for the rich, wage cuts for everybody else, austerity programs, deregulation, privatisation, and eviscerating any public constraints in the pursuit of private profit.
Yesterday Swallow gave us a bucketload of his crocodile tears in which he quite amazingly linked the destruction of rainforests in Borneo to the production of biofuel (which is an outright lie; most of the land is cleared for oil palms for other uses and for agriculture and mining and development that enriches the wealthy elites). Yet Swallow inevitably ‘supports’ right wing parties that see environmental regulation and conservation as an impediment to profit maximization. Look at the Trump regime (which he no doubt supports). To Trump, a golf course is ‘wild nature’. This wretched POTUS is filling one cabinet post after another with corporate lobbyists. He has gutted the endangered species act, delisting one species and population after another not because of their recovery, but because their protection hinders the sell-off of public lands to developers. He wants to open all of the Tongass National Forest to miners, loggers and developers. He simply does not care one iota about nature. To Trump, a grizzly bear is better as a rug than as a living, breathing mammal. A bald eagle looks better stuffed on the mantlepiece than seen flying low over a lake, swooping a fish out of the water. A Dall’s sheep looks better as a head on a wall mount, replete with a rack of horns, than seen through binoculars making its way up a mountainside.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/31/opinion/trump-nature-minnesota-alaska.html
This is the political system people like Swallow support: one hell-bent on obliterating nature for profit. So whatever he writes up here is a facade. He supports a political system that is quite literally strangling the planet.
The information that I post now has to do with what was mentioned in my previous post on September 12, 2019 at 3:43 am
“In sub-Saharan Africa, the switch to clean cooking turns a corner around 2030, so that by 2040 fewer than 820 million people do not have clean cooking access, in alignment with the African Union’s Agenda 2063 goal to harness all African energy resources to ensure modern, efficient, reliable, cost effective, renewable and environmentally friendly energy to all African households.”
I went to Tanzania in Sept, 2011 and I have seen the elephants on the Serengeti as well at Lake Manyara Park, Tarangire Park & in Ngorongoro Crater, as well as the other animals that Tanzania is famous for. I hope that are protected and thrive in their natural habitats. I also climbed Mt. Kilimanjaro. “Global warming” has nothing to do with the decline of the glaciers on the mountain. It is the destruction of the native forest at its base being replaced by nonnative forest that has changed the ecosystem of the mountain and not CO? and anthropogenic climate change like some would want you to believe. One can wonder what the climate was like in this area when the volcanic eruptions that produced Kilimanjaro & its sister mountains were taking place. The people who live in Tanzania and also on Zanzibar, where we also went, do not have it as luxurious as the average frothing at the mouth alarmist who has nothing better to do than to run around like Chicken Little crying that the sky is falling because of CO2 and the world will end in a few years due to the earth being incinerated, have a hard life with few comforts. We contracted with Zara Adventures that is head quartered in Moshi and stayed at their Springlands Hotel when first arriving in Moshi where the electricity was off more than it was on; but, unlike much of Africa, they did have electricity, some of the time.
Maybe Greta Thunberg’s fellow alarmist would be happy with this kind of lifestyle that I present below; but, I sure don’t think that I should have to contend with something like what follows for the idiotic notions of a few ill-informed, ideologically crippled individuals whose only aim is for more control by government and more revenues for that out of control body to squander on more “green new deals” debacles.
“Congo Gorilla Killings Fueled by Illegal Charcoal Trade
Stefan Lovgren in Virunga National Park, Democratic Republic of the Congo
for National Geographic News
August 16, 2007
In a steady trickle teenage boys push their way down a dusty road to the bustling city of Goma, their bicycles buckling under the weight of 100-pound (45-kilogram) sacks of charcoal, or makala as it’s known here.
The boys are part of an illegal trade that may pose the biggest threat to one of the most pristine places on the planet, the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Virunga National Park.
The park’s dense forest is rapidly being depleted of its trees to satisfy the almost insatiable demand here for charcoal, which is used for cooking and heating by the millions of people living in this troubled region.
The lucrative charcoal trade is not only wreaking havoc on the park but also on its most famous inhabitants, the rare mountain gorillas.”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/08/070816-gorillas-congo.html
We all know what cows are good for, milk and beef steaks; but, can anyone tell me what alarmist are good for? What do they produce? This is what the petroleum industry produces that alarmist use, daily, while constantly bitching about the fossil fuels industries.
“A partial list of products made from Petroleum (144 of 6000 items)
One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The rest (over half) is used to make things like:
Americans consume petroleum products at a rate of three-and-a-half gallons of oil and more than
250 cubic feet of natural gas per day each! But, as shown here petroleum is not just used for fuel.”
https://www.ranken-energy.com/index.php/products-made-from-petroleum/
JS
Not remotely interested in any more of your bollocks.
Climate change deniers such as yourself are working to ensure that the most vulnerable and dispossessed will suffer the worst impacts in coming decades.
Everybody else is working to avoid the worst. You are either a monstrous hypocrite or a complete and utter fucking idiot. Or both.
* * *
When are you going to answer the question about the ‘MWP’ and climate sensitivity?
Waiting….
On July 2, 2018 we flew to Inchon, South Korea. While in Seoul for several days, I went out to the DMZ and even went down into a decline to one of the many tunnels that the commies in the North have dug under the DMZ to try to invade the prosperous, due to capitalism, South Korea. We took the slow train down to Andang because I wanted to see the 600 year old village, Hahoe Folk Village, that is worth seeing. We then went to Busan for several days and we left South Korea on July 11. Everywhere we went in S. Korea there was a massive amount of building in progress and there for sure is no shortage of food with people wondering; as the 16 year old Swedish girl, Greta Thunberg, has been told to be concerned about. “Am I going to have access to food or water when I’m 30?” That is a question that those unfortunate millions of North Koreans worry about now due to many of them starving to death in the present tense. They don’t worry about 30 years from now but just today and what horrors their communist socialist state will visit upon them. This seems to be the conditions that the alarmist would gladly curse the United States with to “combat” something that is not a problem, anthropogenic climate change. It is only natural that those who are so illogical to actually believe that CO2 is a devil in the sky are also so far to the left that they think that, in spite of millions having died due to socialism, such as in Stalin’s USSR, (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) or in Mao’s Communist China or even due to Hitler’s Nazi (National Socialist German Workers’ Party) form of this deadly economic system that in almost all case develops into a totalitarian system of government. Under most totalitarian socialist systems that the alarmist would love to see take place in the West would require a centralized government that would not tolerate any differing opinions, much like the ones who are alarmist on this blog site. The alarmist would love to be able to exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life & be able to exercise control over the freedom, will, or thought of all who were unfortunate to come under their insane ideas about a trace gas, carbon dioxide.
There has never been a better experiment conducted that proves how great capitalism is and how horrible socialism/communism can be than the differences between North and South Korea. This International Space Station night image of the Korean Peninsula shows it in a way that even the most ignorant far left alarmist should be able to see the difference in conditions in the two Koreas. “The goal of socialism is communism” Vladimir Lenin
This is a view of what the alarmist “utopia” looks like.
“Coastlines are often very apparent in night imagery, as shown by South Korea’s eastern shoreline. But the coast of North Korea is difficult to detect. These differences are illustrated in per capita power consumption in the two countries, with South Korea at 10,162 kilowatt hours and North Korea at 739 kilowatt hours.”
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/83182/the-koreas-at-night
Climate change deniers such as yourself are working to ensure that the most vulnerable and dispossessed will suffer the worst impacts in coming decades.
Everybody else is working to avoid the worst. You are either a monstrous hypocrite or a complete and utter fucking idiot. Or both.
* * *
When are you going to answer the question about the ‘MWP’ and climate sensitivity?
Waiting…
I hope that all of the true believers will be interested to know that maybe the Arctic sea ice will not be gone this year, either. “Nearly 9 years ago, on December 14, 2009, at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, Al Gore predicted that the North Pole would be completely ice-free in 5 to 7 years, i.e., by 2014 to 2016.” This is the same Al Gore who paid no attention to; “The U’wa have been campaigning for years to stop the drilling, but Gore’s connections to Occidental sprang to the headlines this week when the Financial Times carried a story about environmentalists’ request to the Vice President that he call for Occidental to abandon their drilling plans in Colombia. Gore owns up to half a million dollars of the company’s stock.”
http://www.democracynow.org/2000/1/21/gore_attacked_over_ties_to_occidental
“Ship with Climate Change Warriors caught in ice, Warriors evacuated September 4, 2019 4:09 am
Arctic tours ship MS MALMO with 16 passengers on board got stuck in ice on Sep 3 off Longyearbyen, Svalbard Archipelago, halfway between Norway and North Pole. The ship is on Arctic tour with Climate Change documentary film team, and tourists, concerned with Climate Change and melting Arctic ice. All 16 Climate Change warriors were evacuated by helicopter in challenging conditions, all are safe. 7 crew remains on board, waiting for Coast Guard ship assistance.
Something is very wrong with Arctic ice, instead of melting as ordered by UN/IPCC, it captured the ship with Climate Change Warriors.
Arctic Tours ship MS MALMO, IMO 8667579, dwt 466, built 1943, refurbished in 2014, flag Sweden.”
https://maritimebulletin.net/2019/09/04/ship-with-climate-change-warriors-caught-in-ice-warriors-evacuated/?via=
We know from your posts that you are massively dishonest and are intellectually stunted, so just a clue to you and others as bankrupt as you: Al Gore is not a scientist. He is someone losers like you try to represent as one, but as with every single one of your “insights” — you’re wrong.
This that is happening on the planet, in the Arctic, that is about to be incinerated due to CO2 reminds me of what took place in Antarctica in 2013.
“A Russian vessel is stranded in ice off the coast of Antarctica with 74 people onboard, including the scientific team recreating explorer Douglas Mawson’s Australasian Antarctic Expedition from a century ago.”
“[…]Had the ship carrying the trio of explorers in 1912, the Aurora, gotten icebound the same way the M.V. Akademik Shokalskiy did, there would have been no rescue option and certain death.”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131226-russian-ship-stuck-ice-mawson-trek-antarctica/?rptregcta=reg_free_np&rptregcampaign=20131016_rw_membership_r1p_intl_ot_w#
Eighty three years ago today, Mawson was sailing along the Antarctic coast. In 2013, global warming nutcases trying to retrace Mawson’s route are hoping an icebreaker comes and saves them.
Sir DOUGLAS MAWSON’S second expedition on SCOTT’S Discovery to Antarctic waters south of the Indian Ocean and Australia is by this time already near the coast which he skirted and explored in the Summer of 1929-30. He identified Enderby and Kemp Lands, first seen by British explorers a hundred years before.
https://www.nytimes.com/1930/12/28/archives/mawsons-expedition.html
Swallow makes up more bullshit. The guy is an inveterate liar. According to the IPCC, in the most extreme scenario (8.5 C), the Arctic would be ice-free in late summer by the middle of the century at the earliest; at 4.5 C it is projected to ice-free around 2080.
This is still very, very fast in terms of geological time. Indeed, the current rate of ice loss in the Arctic is on the 8.5 trajectory. It is an emerging disaster of epic proportions.
How much more drivel will this charlatan post up here?
There is potential for an unlimited amount, since liars like swallow have an unlimited number of lies.
Well, we’ve established that the troll bullshit artist ‘J Doug Swallow’ is too cowardly to answer a simple question about what his claimed hot ‘MWP’ implies for climate sensitivity.
This study uses 578 different trees in its study. Michael Mann based his “hockey stick” graph on only one tree in Yamal that is part of the Polar Urals in Russia.
“McIntyre therefore prepared a revised dataset, replacing Briffa’s selected 12 cores with the 34 from Khadyta River. The revised chronology was simply staggering. The sharp uptick in the series at the end of the twentieth century had vanished, leaving a twentieth century apparently without a significant trend. The blade of the Yamal hockey stick, used in so many of those temperature reconstructions that the IPCC said validated Michael Mann’s work, was gone.”
http://simplesustainable.com/topic/101-the-global-warming-hockey-stick-is-debunked/
“Variability and extremes of northern Scandinavian summer temperatures over the past two millennia
We here present a 2000-year summer temperature reconstruction from northern Scandinavia and compare this timeseries with existing proxy records to assess the range of reconstructed temperatures at a regional scale. The new reconstruction is based on 578 maximum latewood density profiles from living and sub-fossil Pinus sylvestris samples from northern Sweden and Finland. The record provides evidence for substantial warmth during Roman and Medieval times, larger in extent and longer in duration than 20th century warmth.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112000070
The question of climate sensitivity has nothing to do with science but with deceit and dishonesty and that describes Michael Mann & Keith Briffa and the majority of the intellectually challenged people on this blog. It was imperative that the Medieval Warm Period had to be erased because how could this documented period of Earth’s climate history been warmer than at present when the level of CO2 was so much lower than what it is now?
“There has been a considerable amount of speculation over the past few years about which “leading” climate scientist told David Deming that we have to “get rid of” the Medieval Warm Period, including speculation (e.g. ukweatherworld) that it was Jonathan Overpeck (recently one of two Coordinating Lead Authors of AR4 chapter 6).
While the identity of Deming’s correspondent remains uncertain, a Climategate letter from January 13. 2005, written as an instruction from Overpeck as Coordinating Lead Author to IPCC Lead Authors Briffa and Osborn (cc Jansen, Masson-Delmotte), states that Overpeck wants to “deal a mortal blow” to the MWP (and Holocene Optimum) “myths” (480. 1105670738.txt).
No, it’s a central issue in climatology.
Radiative forcing isn’t only from CO2 and climate sensitivity depends only on the change in forcing, not the specific forcing component.
Instead of trolling, why won’t you just answer the simple question about what a hot MWP implies for climate sensitivity?
Are you afraid to discuss this?
🙂
And I keep trying to explain to you that there was no global and synchronous ‘MWP.
So wtf are you waving Esper et al. 2012 at me? June, July and August temperatures in Norther Scandinavia are not a proxy for global average annual temperature.
D’oh.
On April 18, 2016 we flew into Tokyo Narita Airport and after riding the train we left out of Chitose Airport on May 2. This year we few into Chitose, that is the airport that serves Sapporo, on July 26. After going to the most northern part of Japan near the small city of Wakkanai on the Northern part of Hokkaido, where it was cold, we returned by train travel to Sapporo and then left Japan out of Chitose on July 6. The air in Japan is clean, as is everything else in Japan. The Japanese use scrubbers and modern methods, such as the United States uses. It is a fact that in the U.S. 99% of the particulate materials are removed from the stacks of coal plants by scrubbers and precipitators which also remove the majority of the SO2 & Nox emissions. In keeping with their general dishonesty, the alarmist who hate coal while discounting that it supplies them with electricity, like to show pictures of coal fired plants when it is cold. Ignorant and stupid people believe that the steam that they are seeing from the water condensate is harmful pollution when educated people know that it is just steam and steam is water.
“EPA also confessed that U.S. power plants actually contribute a mere 3 percent of the total mercury deposited in computer-modeled American watersheds and subsequently, in fish tissue. Citizens will justifiably wonder where the other 97 percent comes from, and why we should spend so much money for so little benefit.
Third, the agency’s estimates for mercury exposure risks are solely for “hypothetical female subsistence consumers” who daily eat almost a pound of fish that they catch in U.S. streams, rivers, and lakes over a 70-year lifetime (less than 1 percent of U.S. women). For the rest of American women, who eat mostly ocean fish purchased at a grocery on a far less frequent basis EPA’s rules are irrelevant.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/2/epa-extreme-punishment-authority/print/
“The Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan lists 53 power stations with a capacity of 1,000MW or greater. Of these, 14 are coal-fired and a further two are coal and oil fired stations. Of these, 14 are coal-fired and a further two are coal and oil fired stations.”
Here is more news for the uneducated ones who say that “Truth is, the use of coal is almost finished” regarding what Japan is doing to keep the lights on in Japan. We spent an enjoyable night at Fukushima on April 25 and suffered no ill effects from the nuclear power plant accident. We wanted to see the famous cherry trees blooming in Fukushima at Hanamiyama Park. We went to the park but the trees were not in full bloom like they should have been because it was too damn cold in 2016 when we were there.
“Bucking global trends, Japan again embraces coal power May. 2, 2018 , 5:00 PM
Most of the world is turning its back on burning coal to produce electricity, but not Japan. The nation has fired up at least eight new coal power plants in the past 2 years and has plans for an additional 36 over the next decade—the biggest planned coal power expansion in any developed nation (not including China and India). And last month, the government took a key step toward locking in a national energy plan that would have coal provide 26% of Japan’s electricity in 2030 and abandons a previous goal of slashing coal’s share to 10%.”
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/bucking-global-trends-japan-again-embraces-coal-power
Trolling.
Answer the question.
Given the equivalence of radiative forcing – a watt per square metre is a watt per square metre, irrespective of the source of energy – what does a ‘hot MWP’ imply for climate sensitivity?
Come on. What are you afraid of?
🙂
It’s funny how Mr Swallow is regaling us with tales after tales of humans deforesting, burning none-renewable stuff, and killing animals to the point of extinction, and then in the same breath accuses us of being alarmists for saying that our species’ activities are endangering our ecosystems.
If his point was merely to warn us privileged citizens that the decisions of our 1st-world nations to curtail GHG emission may be done with the aim of keeping 3rd-world countries poor, this would be a reasonable topic. Yes, that is a serious concern. In the last G7, apart from bashing the Brazilian president for his forest fires (not without good reasons), I don’t have the feeling the 1st-world leaders did much. Actually, the US president missed the meeting and was only concerned about having Russia back into the G meetings. No help to be expected here.
Instead, well, I don’t know what Swallow point is. Aside from bleating that climate change is a Chinese hoax.
Excellent point Athaic. I noticed it too. Swallow is Mr. selective crocodile tears. My bet is that he is a big Trump supporter. To Trump, a golf course is wild nature. He has filled his cabinet with corporate lobbyists – Wheeler as EPA head, Skipworth as head of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Bernhardt as Interior Secretary, and Pendleton as head of Bureau of Land Management. All have one function: gut environmental regulations and conservation laws and ransack public lands for the benefit of the corporations that run the US government. Right now, Tongass National Forest is in Trump’s agenda for intensive logging and mining.
As for his risible posts on here, I need a barf bag when reading them. He not only cherry-picks data, he cherry-picks the sources. About half of his links are blogs run by complete fanatics. He clearly scours the internet dredging up whatever bilge he can from sources that solidify his confirmation bias. The empirical literature is full of studies showing that the MWP was a regional anomoly but he simply ignores them. The recent Nature paper that received considerable media attention confirmed that the recent anthropogenic warming has affected 98% of the biosphere and is truly exceptional. Swallow hasn’t even read it.
He doesn’t understand much science so he desperately ignores BBD’s highly relevant question. In front of an audience we would skewer him. On a blog he can Gish-gallop to his heart’s content and seemingly get away with it.
He tried to resuscitate McIntyre’s wretched reconstruction suggesting that there was little or no warming in the late 20th century but the fatal flaw there is that nature wasn’t listening. McIntyre understands ecology about as much as a toddler and ignored the recent biotic responses to the warming climate. By now the pages of scientific journals are filled with studies showing distributional shifts of plants and animals polewards or to higher elevations, changes in life-cycles and voltinism, increased overwintering survival in insects at the polewards edge of their ranges, changes in species phenology and other contemporary proxies. These blow the ‘it isn’t warming’ arguments out of the water.
Swallow ignores all of this too, for obvious reasons. He can’t debate his way out of a soaking wet paper bag and yet miraculously he persists.
As for Trump stacking his administration with corporate lobbyists one of the most egregious examples is that of one William Wehrum to the EPA. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse gave a floor speech on the nomination of Wehrum and Senator Markey put Wherum on the spot.
There is an excellent mini bio of Wehrum at Desmog in their, excellent, Research Database, however I am going to irritate JDS by quoting and citing Wikipedia.
Source
Other names that will live in infamy are
Ryan Zinke
Kathleen Hartnett-White
Betsy DeVos (sister of private army founder Erik Prince) who has further gutted education
to add to the more well known suspects.
BBD, I’m surprised to see you call for developed countries to decarbonize to offset increases in developing countries. Are you including China and India as developed countries?
My reasoning is that Europe + US is about 30% of emissions. Are you saying the goal is to just keep emissions flat for decades?
China somewhat more than India.
You are completely ignoring exported emissions – significant proportion of eg. Chinese emissions comes from manufacturing export goods for the USA, EU etc.
First we’ve got to halt the rise, which means economies best able to cut emissions (us, basically) lead the way. Then the rest of the world tapers fossil fuel energy generation and shifts to renewables.
I am certain that certain uneducated people who seem to not understand that the Medieval Warm Period was indeed global, as hundreds of research papers have demonstrated. A certain individual does not want to recall when I submitted this research for its consideration; “We showed that the Northern European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica,” Lu says. “More importantly, we are extremely happy to figure out how to get a climate signal out of this peculiar mineral. A new proxy is always welcome when studying past climate changes.”
http://asnews.syr.edu/newsevents_2012/releases/ikaite_crystals_climate.html
Late Holocene air temperature variability reconstructed from the sediments of Laguna Escondida, Patagonia, Chile (45°30?S)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018212006517
If certain people are so terribly brainwashed by this hoax about CO2 somehow being a devil in the sky that is going to destroy the planet in a few years that they cannot understand research that has been done, means that they do not have the intellectual capacity to ever understand facts about these global wide warm periods that had nothing to do with their devil in the sky, CO2. One can be amazed that these people are not intelligent enough to understand that if the sun contains 99.86 of the mass of the solar system that it just might have something to do with what the climate on the Earth is experiencing.
Mars is warming due to solar cycles
Mars is currently experiencing a period of warming as NASA scientists recognize that the planet is exiting a series of ice ages. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, has compared sun cycles with climate data from both Mars and Earth. He says that the current global warming on Mars suggests that any documented warming on Earth could also be caused by these solar cycles. “The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars,” he said. His research isn’t always accepted by the climate change scientists who are dead set on correlating carbon dioxide emissions with warming temperatures, but Mr. Abdussamatov has a valid point. Both Earth and Mars experience orbital changes that affect how much sunlight reaches the planets’ surface. These orbital variations are called Milankovitch cycles. This large scale phenomenon makes the slight carbon dioxide emission influxes on Earth seem trivial in the grand scheme of things.
https://www.space.news/2017-07-27-nasa-spacecraft-missions-have-proven-that-mars-saturn-jupiter-and-venus-have-all-suffered-climate-change.html
You are repeating already debunked misrepresentations and not answering my question JS.
What are you so scared of?
Space news.com article written by anti-vaxxer and climate change denier and rightwing nutter Lance D Johnson.
Unsurprisingly, it’s a mix of half-truths and total crap.
Nope. Solar output falling for decades. CO2 rising. GMST rising:
GISTEMP, SIDC sunspot, CO2 Mauna Loa
Stop. Bullshitting.
Mars is also lacking an Earth-like atmosphere, both in quality (GHG) and quantity.
I’m not a climate scientist nor do I play one on the internet, but I would surmise that some differences may exist between Martian and Terran climate kinetics.
BTW, do you still want to drink 20 g of dioxine?
I had not intended to reply to any of the ignorant and meaningless comments made in reference to my comments where I am called a liar because none of the accusers care to take the time to point out what they mistakenly believe that I have lied about. That would take research and intelligence to do that and that is what is lacking in this groups make up. Then I’m constantly asked by BBD about climate sensitivity and that is something that BBD obviously knows nothing about. I wonder what BBD thinks caused the last Ice Age to occurred? Does BDD even believe that these was the last Ice Age? Does BBD think that was not global and synchronous? What does BBD think that CO2 had to do with this last Ice Age? Does BBD believe that it was CO2 that, by some miracle, brought the planet out of this disastrous time for all life on earth? BBD needs to be reminded that if an organism is alive, then warmth is much preferable to cold any day or 85% of all life forms would not be found in the tropics or temperate zones on Earth.
Sun’s Activity and Climate
Table (2) demonstrates that Stei [21] as the record mirroring the Sun’s activity shows the same periods of ~1000, ~500, and ~200 years as found for the temperature record G7, suggesting the Sun as the main climate driver. This hypothesis is often emphasized in the literature (see references under “Introduction/Overview”). However, comparable periods alone would not to be sufficient for excluding autogenous climate mechanisms.
To get more insight on a solar link with climate cycles we compared by wavelet analysis the temperatures of Pet [2] with the production rate of the cosmogenic nuclides 14C and 10Be of Stei [21] over 9000 years (see Table 1. and Fig. 2). The upper and middle panel of Fig. (4) show already by eyesight similarities in the power of the ~190 – year period over 9000 years, thus confirming earlier findings of Knudsen et al. [13].
https://benthamopen.com/FULLTEXT/TOASCJ-11-44
“Even small variations in heating in the outer layers of the Sun can change the amount of light and heat the Earth receives by enough to change our climate.”
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1998/ast05oct98_1/
The Younger Dryas
”We find that major temperature changes in the past 4,500 y occurred abruptly (within decades), and were coeval in timing with the archaeological records of settlement and abandonment of the Saqqaq, Dorset, and Norse cultures, which suggests that abrupt temperature changes profoundly impacted human civilization in the region.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/23/1101708108.abstract
Quaternary glaciations are very strong evidence for high climate sensitivity as a result of net positive feedbacks amplifying relatively small changes in seasonal and spatial insolation into very significant climate shifts. This synergy between positive feedbacks is very bad news for climate change deniers.
The changes in orbital dynamics (obliquity, eccentricity) that trigger glacial / deglacial climate shifts engage positive feedbacks in the form of albedo change, AMOC slowdown and CO2 and CH4. All are components of the climate shift from glacial to interglacial and back again.
You haven’t got the foggiest idea what you are talking about.
The YD seems to have been triggered by the catastrophic drainage of proglacial Lake Agassiz into the N Atlantic, which halted the AMOC and caused a cooling centred on the N Atlantic and antiphased warming in the SH. This ‘bipolar seesaw’ muted the effect on global average temperature to about 0.6C (Shakun & Carlson 2010).
Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Bullshitting me about palaeoclimate is a bad idea.
Swallow, you are a Gish-gallop liar, meaning that just about everything you write is either cherry-picked or distorted to suit your narrative. Dr. Lu at Syracuse University would be the first to acknowledge the link between CO2 and temperature. Why don’t you ask him, instead of manipulating the conclusions of his research to suggest otherwise?
That the recent warming is due to increased atmospheric concentrations is acknowledged by every relevant scientific organization on Earth. You can simply ignore this or claim that it is a part of some vast conspiracy but nobody is listening.
Get lost.
“‘Earth Hour?!’ Celebrate Coal not Candles: ‘It was coal that produced clean electric power which cleared the smog produced by dirty combustion & open fires in big cities like London and Pittsburgh’
‘It was coal that saved the forests being felled to fuel the first steam engines and produce charcoal for the first iron smelters. It was coal that powered the light bulbs and saved the whales being slaughtered for whale oil lamps. Without coal, we would be back in the dark days of candles, wood stoves, chip heaters, open fires, smoky cities, hills bare of trees and streets knee deep in horse manure’
The ignorant alarmist among us, who have no clue about basically anything, believe that it is best to allow the coal to just burn up in the ground than to put it to good use to produce a cheap and steady supply of electricity for citizens and industries to use to produce a better and more productive civilization. If one watched the liberal’s progressives town hall about climate change, which I did not waste my time on, nor did very many other intelligent people if one can go by the record of who was watching the channel it was telecast on, CNN. The fact that CNN averaged 1.1 million viewers from 5 p.m. to midnight, the hours devoted to back-to-back town halls by 10 Democratic contenders with MSNBC finished second with 1.7 million total viewers during the time period & with Fox News winning the time period with an average of 2.5 million demonstrated that not too many people care what the liberals think will be the best way to destroy the nation using the climate as a tool.
“Coal fires continue to be a problem throughout the Powder River Basin, said Ed Heffern, a geologist with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. He has studied coal fires in the Powder River Basin extensively.
“I know of about 80 active or historic coal fires in the Powder River Basin, both in Wyoming and Montana,” Heffern said.
Underground coal fires have been burning in the Powder River Basin for more than 4 million years, Heffern said. The burning coal melts the layers just above it into hard rock called “scoria” or “clinker.” The BLM can estimate the amount of coal that has burned from the amount of clinker around.
The BLM has mapped about 1,500 square miles of clinker in the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming. That works out to about 47 billion tons of Powder River Basin coal burned in prehistoric times.
The line of coal mines in southern Campbell County is built on the far eastern edge of the mine-able coal. All of the coal east of the mines already has burned, creating the scoria-rich Rochelle Hills.”
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_a6388b30-495e-11df-a060-001cc4c002e0.html
Thousands of coal fires are reported to be burning in at least 22 countries on every continent except Antarctica. In the U.S., more than 100 underground fires are burning in at least nine states, including Colorado, Kentucky, Maryland, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wyoming.
Since the first reported fire in Jharia started in 1916, at least 37 million tons of coal have been consumed in the inferno, reaching temperatures as high as 731 degrees Celsius. It is estimated that close to 1.5 billion tons of coal are inaccessible due to burning. Jharia will continue to burn until effective fire prevention and extinguishment procedures are developed and emplaced or the coal burns itself out. Considering how much coal has burned since 1916, if all of the remaining inaccessible amount were to burn at the same average rate, the fires could last for another 3,800 years.
http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/rising-global-interest-coal-fires
I hope that the north-western coastal Syria is far enough to satisfy BBD that it is not about Sweden. I know nothing will ever diminish the effects of the brainwashing that he has received about how the Mann’s bogus hockey stick just has to be true because it got rid of or the MWP.
The medieval climate anomaly and the little Ice Age in coastal Syria inferred from pollen-derived palaeoclimatic patterns
Abstract
The alluvial deposits of a small spring valley near Jableh, in north-western coastal Syria, provides a unique record of environmental history covering the last 1000 years
The core also recorded a shift towards drier conditions starting during the late 12th century AD, which represents the Eastern Mediterranean expression of the European “Great Famine” climatic event. The main dry and cool interval recorded in coastal Syria occurred from ca. 1520 to 1870 cal yr AD, a time frame encompassing the Little Ice Age. In Mediterranean Syria, the Little Ice Age is not only cooler, but also much drier than the Medieval Climate Anomaly and the present-day climate. Despite a strong human presence in coastal Syria throughout the last millennia, climate rather than anthropogenic activity seems to be the driving force behind the natural vegetation dynamics in this region.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818111001123
Instead of cherry-picking regional studies and misrepresenting them as evidence of global and synchronous climate states, you need to look at the global picture as presented by PAGES 2K. Just because you won’t doesn’t mean PAGES 2K is wrong. It means that you are deliberately refusing to use the best evidence, something which destroys both your argument and your credibility.
* * *
Now, what does your claim of a hot MWP imply for climate sensitivity to radiative perturbation of any kind, including that from increased levels of atmospheric CO2?
Come on, I’m getting fed up with your evasiveness. Man up and answer the question please.
Neukom et al. (2019) No evidence for globally coherent warm and clod periods over the preindustrial Common Era
Why didn’t any of this information below show up in Michael Mann’s nonexistent proof for his phony hockey stick graph?
The Great Famine:
“Famine in those days meant that people died of starvation on a massive scale and as brutal as they were, famines and hunger were familiar occurrences in Medieval England; the main years of famine include 1315 to 1317, 1321, 1351 and 1369; though hunger was nothing new either; for most people, the poor, there never seemed enough to eat and life expectancy was relatively short and many children died.
According to records of the Royal family, amongst the best cared for in society, the average life expectancy in 1276 was 35.28 years; between 1301 and 1325 during the Great Famine it was 29.84, whilst between 1348 and 1375. during the Black Death and subsequent plagues, it went down to only 17.33.
The Great Famine was mostly restricted to Northern Europe, which included the British Isles, northern France, the Low Countries, Scandinavia, Germany and western Poland.
During the Medieval Warm Period, the period prior to 1300, the population of Europe had exploded, reaching levels that were not matched again in some places until the nineteenth century, parts of France today are less populous than at the beginning of the fourteenth century.
However, the yield ratios of wheat, the number of seeds one could eat per seed planted, had been dropping since 1280 and food prices had been climbing; in good weather the ratio could be as high as 7: l,
whilst during bad years as low as 211, that is, for every” seed planted, two seeds were harvested, one for next year’s seed and one for food; by comparison, modern farming has ratios of around 30: l.
http://www.halinaking.co.uk/Location/Yorkshire/Frames/History/1315%20Great%20Famine/Great%20Famine.htm
This research below runs counter to your claims and also to the alarmist claims that it is CO? that drives the
Earth’s climate.
Influence of Solar Activity on State of Wheat Market in Medieval England
Abstract: “The database of Prof. Rogers (1887), which includes wheat prices in England in the Middle Ages, was used to search for a possible influence of solar activity on the wheat market. We present a conceptual model of possible modes for sensitivity of wheat prices to weather conditions, caused by solar cycle variations, and compare expected price fluctuations with price variations recorded in medieval England.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227290513_Influence_of_solar_activity_on_the_state_of_the_wheat_market_in_medieval_Europe
1480-1500 The Norse population of Greenland disappears.
http://www.greenland-guide.gl/leif2000/history.htm
“Why didn’t any of this information below show up in Michael Mann’s nonexistent proof for his phony hockey stick ”
You mean the research that’s held up to scutiny and been validated through replication?
The fact that you don’t have the mathematical skills to understand something (or the integrity to admit you’re ignorant of the required skills) doesn’t mean the work isn’t valid. It simply means you’re a lying POS.
And again:
Neukom et al. (2019) No evidence for globally coherent warm and clod periods over the preindustrial Common Era
As I said right at the outset of this conversation, you need to do some reading and stop posting bollocks on the internet.
What the bamboozle does this has to do with anything about today’s climate change in general, and Mann graphs in particular?
Swallow lies by omission. He selectively cites a few studies here and there and then tries to make a story out of it. This doesn’t pass muster in science. By now – and he knows it – there are thousands of studies showing a link between CO2 and surface temperature. Peter Sinclair in his video puts up some of them but the IPCC appendices are full of them. Swallow ignores them, as if by doing so they are invalidated.
Then he links here to a few studies showing regional climate shifts during the so called MWP and LIA periods. In none of the papers is it intimated that these were global-scale events. Indeed, one of the Elsevier links actually affirms local warming in Europe in the MWP but adds a disclaimer that this warmth probably did not approach that at the end of the 20th century. And again it is a local study.
Bearing in mind the available empirical evidence, the recent (July, 2019) paper in Nature said that beyond all reasonable doubt the recent anthropogenic warming of the last 3-4 decades is unprecedented compared with other recent warming events over the past 1,000 years in that it is virtually global and not regional like past events were. This was picked up by the media. Again, Swallow simply ignores it.
End of story. Game, set and match.
Lying by omission. This is what Swallow does.
I thank BBD for allowing its self (It is hard to tell if “BBD” is masculine or feminine) to bring humor to the discussion. After searching the internet to try to find something to try to validate the fraudulent hockey stick graph, old BBD zeros in on this that he is so proud of that it has reposted it twice. Copy/pasting must go along with not knowing how bogus the hockey stick graph is because BBD can’t even get that right; it posted this “No evidence for globally coherent warm and clod periods over the preindustrial Common Era” when it should obviously read; “No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era” When you are a brainwashed alarmist, what difference does having something represented right mean and how important is to be correct? Evidently it makes no difference any more than for this site that BBD has so much pride in saying only that for a source of information to be able to make their claim is this; “Here we use global palaeoclimate reconstructions for the past 2,000 years, and find no evidence for preindustrial globally coherent cold and warm epochs” So, what are the palaeoclimate reconstructions?
The site that I use to back up my contentions states at the top of the abstract; “Temperatures for the past 2700 yr are estimated using well-dated pollen data from northwestern lower Michigan”
[…]”A calibration function was developed using a network of modern pollen and climate data covering all of lower Michigan. Based on this calibration function, the 2700-yr reconstruction for Marion Lake indicates an estimated growing-season temperature range of 1.3°C between extreme 30-yr means. Mild conditions persisted prior to ca. A.D. 400, but a cold interval occurred between ca. A.D. 500 and 800. The well-marked warm period evident from ca. A.D. 1000 to 1200 was the last time when temperatures were about equal to the 1931–1960 mean. A prolonged longed cooling occurred after A.D. 1200 and reached 1°C below the 1931–1960 mean by the 1700s. A warming of 0.5°C is indicated from ca. A.D. 1750 to 1850. The estimated temperatures for the 1830s at Marion Lake agree with the instrumental data for that period and this provides some validation of the calibration-function results.”
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/quaternary-research/article/quantitative-estimates-of-temperature-changes-over-the-last-2700-years-in-michigan-based-on-pollen-data/D5E0418E3E46ED8FD65A78107E7EFACC
The PAGES2K Consortium database – read the paper, you lazy muppet.
Christ alive, what is it with deniers and sheer laziness? Never have I met such a bunch of bone idle pub bores so utterly certain of themselves without going to the trouble of turning so much as a single fucking page.
Which is a highly localised proxy that yields a highly localised – NOT GLOBAL – temperature reconstruction.
How stupid are you? Seriously?
It just beggars belief.
This is another study that was done in Russia near where Michael Mann got his tree that he used to construct the hockey stick graph. It will be interesting to see if BBD will be able understand what this scientific study is telling him/her.
“However, conifers have not yet recolonized many areas where trees were present during the Medieval Warm period (ca AD 800–1300) or the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM; ca 10?000–3000 years ago). Reconstruction of tree distributions during the HTM suggests that the future position of the treeline due to global warming may approximate its former Holocene maximum position”
“Climate change and the northern Russian treeline zone
ABSTRACT
The Russian treeline is a dynamic ecotone typified by steep gradients in summer temperature and regionally variable gradients in albedo and heat flux. The location of the treeline is largely controlled by summer temperatures and growing season length. Temperatures have responded strongly to twentieth-century global warming and will display a magnified response to future warming. Dendroecological studies indicate enhanced conifer recruitment during the twentieth century. However, conifers have not yet recolonized many areas where trees were present during the Medieval Warm period (ca AD 800–1300) or the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM; ca 10?000–3000 years ago). Reconstruction of tree distributions during the HTM suggests that the future position of the treeline due to global warming may approximate its former Holocene maximum position. An increased dominance of evergreen tree species in the northern Siberian forests may be an important difference between past and future conditions. Based on the slow rates of treeline expansion observed during the twentieth century, the presence of steep climatic gradients associated with the current Arctic coastline and the prevalence of organic soils, it is possible that rates of treeline expansion will be regionally variable and transient forest communities with species abundances different from today’s may develop.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2606780/
I would like for BBD, or any of the other true believers in Mann’s graph, to explain why this happened after 1991. The graph shown is not a hockey stick, that is for sure, and it depicts the earths past climate accurately. You alarmist can’t have that, can you?
IPCC graph from 1991
Figure 2 Variations in regional surface temperatures for the last 18,000 years, estimated from a variety of sources. Shown are changes in°C, from the value for 1900. Compiled by R. S. Bradley and J. A. Eddy based on J. T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vol 5, no 1, 1991.
http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/article1-fig2.html
I recall a post that an irrelevant person made regarding coal, where they showed how ignorant they remain in this age of easily assessable knowledge. “Agree BBD. JS is wittering on about coal as if it is the answer to all of our social and economic problems. Truth is, the use of coal is almost finished.” In 2019 there are 2,459 coal fired power houses operating around the world. The New York Times 2017 article tells a different story than what someone who post an ancient story in Treehugger where they come up with this earth shattering news; “Finland announces plans to phase out coal by 2030”. The article also asked; “But what about China?” Well, what about China?
As Beijing Joins Climate Fight, Chinese Companies Build Coal Plants
July 1, 2017
When China halted plans for more than 100 new coal-fired power plants this year, even as President Trump vowed to “bring back coal” in America, the contrast seemed to confirm Beijing’s new role as a leader in the fight against climate change.
But new data on the world’s biggest developers of coal-fired power plants paints a very different picture: China’s energy companies will make up nearly half of the new coal generation expected to go online in the next decade.
These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, according to tallies compiled by Urgewald, an environmental group based in Berlin. Many of the plants are in China, but by capacity, roughly a fifth of these new coal power stations are in other countries.
Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/climate/china-energy-companies-coal-plants-climate-change.html?smid=tw-share
This is an interesting site for anyone who doesn’t want to just bluster about a subject that they knowing nothing about, coal. https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants
Isn’t it amazing reading Swallow extolling China’s burning of coal much of which it imports from Indonesia and Australia – and the process of extraction has huge environmental consequences in those countries. He ignores the fact that China’s environmental record is abominable, both domestically and abroad, so their profligate use of coal is hardly news. Their have been huge protests against the use of coal in many Chinese cities because of the associated pollution, but of course in these protests are crushed or ignored by the authorities there.
China imports huge quantities of biological material from threatened or endangered species like black rhinos, African elephants, tigers, pangolins and jaguars for archaic and outdated medicinal purposes. In the 1960s they virtually wiped out many of the countries songbirds when Mao decreed a ‘war against the sparrow’ – some crops were being damaged by seed-eating birds but this proclamation led to the slaughter of any birds including insectivores. Almost 80% of China’s rivers are biologically dead; groundwater from the aquifer underlying the China plain is being extracted for agriculture at rates far exceeding recharge; in many agricultural areas insect pollinators have been wiped out by pesticides meaning the crops must be hand-pollinated, a costly and inefficient process; as said before, air quality in many Chinese cities is amongst the worst in the world.
So using coal is in keeping with China’s abominable environmental record. The country undertakes practices that are highly damaging to biodiversity and the environment despite the clear implications.
The garbage Swallow writes up here makes me think that he is or was a lackey for the coal industry. He defends the indefensible. One thing is for sure: he hasn’t got much of a clue about science.
There is nothing amazing about how Jeffh can come to the conclusion that I’m extolling China’s burning of coal when I post information on China and Coal that was in the July 1, 2017 issue of The New York Times. It occurs because Jeffh just makes up what he thinks will make whatever obscure point he is trying to make as he goes along and the truth matters not.
I have been to China on four separate occasions. The air is so bad that one cannot see the ground from 30,000′ up in an airplane in most places. The air was clean when I went to Lhasa, Tibet on the what was then a new railroad that climbed to 16,627 ft in cars that were equipped with O2 to get there in 2006. When I went down the Yangtze River in 2006 after getting on the boat in Chongqing the Three Gorges Dam was not finished yet. There were many places along the river where they had facilities to load boats with coal that was mined near the Yangtze River. China is responsible for 46% of global production and 51% of global demand of coal and what I want or think about that makes no more difference than what some fool who knows nothing about China & what they may want or think about China and its use of coal does. I saw many industrial firms in China that were burning coal and the smoke was black that was coming out of the stacks, i.e., there was no kind of effort made to clean the emissions at all.
There are irrational people who do not realize that coal can be used and burned cleanly as is done in the United States and most Western countries.
On emissions: “For a typical conventional coal-fired power plant, FGD technology will remove up to 99 percent of the SO2 in the flue gases.”
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Flue_gas_desulfurization
“The removal of particulate matter (referred to as fly ash) from the combustion flue gas is typically accomplished with electrostatic precipitators (ESP) or fabric filters. ESPs or fabric filters are installed on all power plants in the United States that burn pulverized coal. They routinely achieve 99% or greater fly ash removal.[2]”
“In power plants burning pulverized coal, wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) that contacts the flue gases with lime slurries (in what are called wet lime scrubbers) can achieve 95% sulfur dioxide removal without additives and 99+% removal with additives. Wet FGD has the greatest share of the FGD usage in the United States and it is commercially proven, well established technology.[2]”
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Conventional_coal-fired_power_plant
Besides the alarmist quaking in fear over the essential trace gas, CO2, they spout nonsense about another thing that they are totally ignorant about, Mercury.
Mercury is not just coming from coal but from burning of mercury-containing products at municipal waste combustion and medical waste incinerators, burning of sewage sludge that contains mercury from dental uses, some of people’s mercury might be coming from their own amalgam fillings, and releases attributable to broken mercury-containing products.
“EPA also confessed that U.S. power plants actually contribute a mere 3 percent of the total mercury deposited in computer-modeled American watersheds and subsequently, in fish tissue. Citizens will justifiably wonder where the other 97 percent comes from, and why we should spend so much money for so little benefit.
Third, the agency’s estimates for mercury exposure risks are solely for “hypothetical female subsistence consumers” who daily eat almost a pound of fish that they catch in U.S. streams, rivers, and lakes over a 70-year lifetime (less than 1 percent of U.S. women). For the rest of American women, who eat mostly ocean fish purchased at a grocery on a far less frequent basis EPA’s rules are irrelevant.”
Then I get this typical bit of trash from Jeffh; “The garbage Swallow writes up here makes me think that he is or was a lackey for the coal industry” I would rather be a “lackey” for a sector of the economy that actually produces something that is in demand, or the coal industry would not exist, than to be a dime a dozen ecologist, with a doctorate who is also a professor at his institution. I am not associated with the coal industry that provides quality electrical service for millions. Meanwhile, I would like to know just what essential service an ecologist provides that, if totally removed from existence, who would notice there were no ecologist to help the ecologist lights on? It has been correctly said that those that ‘can’, do things, while those that ‘can’t’ do anything are teachers. Patrick Moore, a Canadian ecologist, seems to have been cut from a different bolt of cloth than what Jeffh was because Moore actually knows what the truth is about CO2.
I hope that BBD will, after reading the information that I present, know that Mann’s hockey stick graph is nothing but a fraudulent piece of crap. “The warm period from AD 900 to 1200 corresponds well to the Medieval Warm Period, and the second and third cool phases are related to the Little Ice Age.” & please note BBD that Japan is a long ways from Scandinavia. Also note how the information was arrived at; “….a sediment core taken from the lake center spanning the past 1300 years was analyzed for its organic and inorganic contents”. That is much better than the source that BBD is so proud of that; “Here we use global palaeoclimate reconstructions for the past 2,000 years, and find no evidence for preindustrial globally coherent cold and warm epochs” So, what are the palaeoclimate reconstructions?
“Climatic changes during the past 1300 years as deduced from the sediments of Lake Nakatsuna, central Japan
Abstract
Limnological features and sediment characteristics were studied in Lake Nakatsuna, a mesotrophic lake in central Japan. The lake is dimictic, and is anoxic in the hypolimnion during thermal stratification from May to September. In an attempt to reconstruct paleoclimatic changes around the lake, a sediment core taken from the lake center spanning the past 1300 years was analyzed for its organic and inorganic contents. Climatic influences were examined on the variation of total organic carbon (TOC), total nitrogen (TN), and sand contents. Short- and long-term fluctuations in TOC, TN, and sand contents are evident, and variation in atmospheric temperature appears to be important for their long-term variability. The sediment record from AD 900 to 1200 indicates hot summers and warm winters with less snow accumulation, whereas the record from AD 1200 to 1950 is characterized by high variation of temperature, with three cool phases from AD 1300 to 1470, 1700 to 1760, and 1850 to 1950. The warm period from AD 900 to 1200 corresponds well to the Medieval Warm Period, and the second and third cool phases are related to the Little Ice Age.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10201-001-8031-7
Patrick Moore? Shill for hire? Basically, ever since his fish farm went bust in the mid 1980s, Shill has prostituted his services to any and every corporation that is willing to pay him enough money. This is the kind of ‘honesty’ a twit like Swallow expects from scientists. Sell your soul to the devil if he pays a good fee. Moore has been cashing in on his ancient Greenpeace affiliation for over 30 years. Desperate for legitimization of their environmentally destructive processes, nothing is more important than a ‘fake expert’ who was allegedly once batting for the other team. Moore is a clown. His greenwash is utter garbage. When he was plugging nuclear energy, he was arguing that it was a solution to climate change and CO2. But when the fossil fuel lobby started knocking on his door, CO2 suddenly became ‘plant food’ but insignificant in terms of climate. The clot blows in whichever direction the corporate wind is blowing.
Moore is a laughingstock. In terms of scientific qualifications, he is still in the sandbox. But then again, so are you, Swallow. Your posts are so scientifically anaemic that it is hard to keep from rolling on the floor when I read them.
By the way I checked the official positions of a number of the world’s leading universities with respect to CO2 and climate change. Yale, Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge and several others. All, as expected, strongly affirmed the relationship between the two and went on to say that curbing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating warming were priorities for their research programs and for society as a whole.
And here you are, a nobody with no relevant qualifications whatsoever, trying to suggest that esteemed academic institutions, National Academies and scientific organizations along with the overwhelming majority of scientists have it wrong and you and a few other intellectual wannabes have it right.
You need psychiatric help.
By the way, Swallow, none of the links you supply and then selectively misinterpret claim that it was warmer in the MWP than now. Indeed, several categorically state that late 20th century temperatures are unprecedented over the past 1000 years and likely over the past 20,000. Moreover, one of your links claimed the climate during the MWP was wet and cold over much of the UK and that this led to local famines, in complete contrast with the hollow point you are trying to make.
This suggests that you don’t read the full content of your links. Indeed, you skim the abstracts of papers and don’t read the full texts. Elsevier journals (unless explicitly open access) are behind paywalls, and you clearly don’t have a subscription to them.
You are a lousy debater. Why do you persist? The only reason is your massive ego that bloats what you think you know. Pure Dunning-Kruger. You dismiss thousands of studies that you have never read, and you try to intimate that our understanding of the role of CO2 in driving climate only began yesterday. You also dismiss the weight of academic institutions and organizations around the world and by doing so attempt – and fail miserably – to ‘compartmentalize’ what is known about CO2 and climate as if it is only discussed by simpletons like you on blogs.
Your narcissism will clearly not end here, on this thread. Because you are a legend-in-your-own-mind (telling us of your world travels is a feeble attempt to impart your ‘wisdom’) you will keep coming back, spewing more drivel. Watch this space.
Last, but not least is Swallow’s myth of clean coal. Trump tried to rehabilitate coal use using this bit of greenwash. But even those working in the industry disagree. US coal baron Robert Murray of Murray Energy categorically dismissed that idea. “Impossible” he said. “Carbon capture and sequestration can’t be done. Clean coal is a pseudonym for no coal”.
Well there you go. Smog, greenhouse gases, huge environmental damage from mining practices (look no further than the Appalachians) and black lung disease. No wonder the US has woken up to the reality, even if the Asian economies haven’t.
JDS
The problem for you JDS is that those who here countering your diarrhoea of denial are familiar with the scientific evidence, where to find it and also where the denier bodies are buried. It takes very little searching for we have been covering this for two-three decades and more. Here is another source:
Source
How many hockey stick climate reconstructions do you want JDS?
Besides so familiar with the science is BBD that he has put you on the spot repeatedly with you being unable to answer a straight question.
So desperate have you become JDS that you try to make fun of BBD for a simple irrelevant typo.
This below gives an indication of how Lionel A’s kind of science works where the IPCC uses the musing of some doped up hippies with the WWF when they said that the Glaciers in the Himalayan Mountains would be gone by 2035:
“GLACIERGATE” HIGHLIGHTS IPCC FLAWS
Firstly, the IPCC has a procedure for using documents that are both non-published and non-peer-reviewed but none for material published without peer review. Secondly, no members of the author team for each chapter are responsible for checking the work of other authors.
In theory this checking is left to reviewers but they only comment “according to their own
knowledge and experience” and the IPCC appears to take no steps to ensure that suitably
qualified people check every
word. […]
Chapter 10, section 6.2, of the Working Group II contribution to the IPCC’s 2007 report stated that Himalayan glaciers would likely disappear by 2035. This error was discovered in December 2009 and quickly was given the name “Glaciergate” in an echo of “Climategate”, the title given to the release of controversial computer files from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in November 2009.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/glacier_gate.pdf
I have been to Nepal on three separate occasions & I never saw any glaciers disappearing before my eyes as I froze my ass off in the high mountains. I did notice, because I’m observant, is that the Himalayan glaciers often have many rocks on their surface because of the high mountains that they very slowly flow out of.
Since you seem to never read anything or understand what you pretend to read, this would be something that you could get someone to interpret for you:
“Himalayan Glaciers”
A State-of-Art Review of Glacial Studies,
Glacial Retreat and Climate Change
“It is premature to make a statement that glaciers in the Himalayas are retreating abnormally because of the global warming. A glacier is affected by a range of physical features and a complex interplay of climatic factors. It is therefore unlikely that the snout movement of any glacier can be claimed to be a result of periodic climate variation until many centuries of observations become available. While glacier movements are primarily due to climate and snowfall, snout movements appear to be peculiar to each particular glacier .”
http://gbpihed.gov.in/MoEF%20Dissussion%20Paper%20on%20Himalayan%20Glaciers.pdf
“The MoEF discussion paper on Himalayan glaciers studies the phenomenon of glaciations and glacier dynamics, a phenomenon that has attained significant attention in recent years, on account of the general belief that global warming and climate change is leading to fast degeneration of glaciers in the Himalayas. It is argued that this would, in the long run, have an adverse effect on the environment, climate and the water.
Glacial monitoring suggests that the average annual retreat was around 5m, although a few glaciers were observed to have higher retreat, such as the Pindari glacier in the Central Himalayas which was observed to have an annual retreat of 8-10m. Studies also revealed that fluctuation of the glacier snout is not a simple phenomenon that can be attributed to climate change, but in fact is the result of complex regional and local phenomenon.”
https://www.indiawaterportal.org/articles/himalayan-glaciers-state-art-review-glacial-studies-glacial-retreat-and-climate-change-moef
When I read this typical doom and gloom due to global warming bull crap that the Guardian is famous for, I stopped when I encountered this bit of trash they were making stupid people believe.
“As the third pole’s vast frozen reserves of fresh water make their way down to the oceans, they are contributing to sea-level rise that is already making life difficult in the heavily populated low-lying deltas and bays of Asia, from Bangladesh to Vietnam.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/15/tibetan-plateau-glacier-melt-ipcc-report-third-pole
Don’t these people know that The United Arab Emirates has built sand islands in the Persian Gulf & that China is building sand islands in the South China Sea? I have been to Quinhon, Vietnam many times through the years, beginning in 1966, and several time in recent years and there is NO worry there about sea level rise for the reason that I present below.
Facts are things that the alarmist obviously have NO use for because they are always embarrassed by them and must come up with a new lie to try to cover their asses.
“Mean Sea Level Trends
605-041 Quinhon, Vietnam
The mean sea level trend is -1.25 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 1.60 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1977 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of -0.41 feet in 100 years.”
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?stnid=605-041
Aren’t we being asked to believe that this stupendous sea level rise will come from the Antarctica ice melting?
This sea level trend for Bahia Esperanza, Antarctica really makes one wonder where all of the water is going when the alarmist lie and tell us how the Antarctica ice sheet is melting.
Relative Sea Level Trend
999-001 Bahia Esperanza, Antarctica
EXPORT TO TEXT | EXPORT TO CSV | SAVE IMAGE
The relative sea level trend is -4.82 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 2.58 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1961 to 1993 which is equivalent to a change of -1.58 feet in 100 years.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=999-001
Lionel, Swallow writes as if only you, me, BBD, Dean, Michael Mann and few others believe that CO2 is driving climate change or that the MWP was insignificant globally. This is what climate change deniers do on blogs. They try to intimate that there are only a few of ‘us’ and lots of ‘them’. They use the fact that most people on blogs ignore them, leaving a relative few to counter their piffle.
Swallow has a lot of problems dealing not only with volumes of empirical evidence but with the weight of professional opinion, so he tries to dodge this continually.
It doesn’t work, and he knows it.
It’s becoming clear that swallow’s degrees, if he actually has any, were obtained from a “school” where the only challenge he had to overcome was having checks written and cleared on time.
I have not been often replying to Jeffh’s ad hominem attacks on me. He well defines what the meaning of the word
ad hominem is; “appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect” plus being “marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made” This seems to be the modus operandi of the vast majority of the unscientific alarmist and that is because they are trying to defend the indefensible and have to use lies to do so. It is amusing and indicative of Jeffh’s general character when on September 10, 2019 at 5:13 am he suggested to his faithful followers to; “To fellow loathers of Swallow on here some advice: Dr. Dade. Don’t respond, don’t answer, don’t engage. Starve him of the oxygen he craves. His worships himself, and he deliberately distorts the research of scientists to give the impression that they are on ‘his side’.”
I assume that it was due to Jeffh’s burning hatred of anyone that would dare hold a different view about his hoax regarding anthropogenic climate change, plus several other issues, that Jeffh was so quick to prove what a shallow person he is by not even abiding by his own council and, therefore not replying to me, that on September 11, 2019 at 12:23 am he offers up these sage words directed at me; “Swallow has better things to do at the present time”.
Of course the old, retired guy does. Sitting around on his lazy butt in front of a keyboard all day telling the world that global warming is a myth despite volumes of empirical evidence.
Because I am always searching for the truth I will offer this valid information for Jeffh to come up with some inane and offensive comment about.
“Investigation of peat sediments from Daiyun Mountain in southeast China: late Holocene vegetation, climate and human impact”
“In addition, major climatic events, such as the warm period from ad 670–960, the Medieval Warm Period (ad 1050–1520) and the Little Ice Age (ad 1580–1850), could be identified within the peat sediments in this study, with climatic conditions at these times being characteristically warm and wet, warm and dry, and cold and wet, respectively.”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00334-016-0554-2
JDS, unsurprisingly, is too nutty to let go of his delusions about the MWP but why will he not answer a simple question about what his insistence on being wrong implies for climate sensitivity?
Come on Dougie boy – grow a set and answer the question.
Stop being such an embarrassingly evasive coward. It’s making me feel queasy watching you wriggle and squirm the way you do.
I doubt that this will even be understandable for Lionel A, BBD, Jeffh or Dean, whose contribution to the discussion is about the best that he can do with this example of his deep thought process; “It’s becoming clear that swallow’s degrees, if he actually has any, were obtained from a “school” where the only challenge he had to overcome was having checks written and cleared on time”. Dean, & those others listed above, are not confident enough about what they maintain about the earth and its climate that they have the courage to use their REAL names and go by a stupid alias.
Just remember these facts, all you “so well educated and knowledgeable about the Earth and its climate”, that the SUN constitutes 99.86% of the mass of the solar system and carbon dioxide 0.03% of the Earth’s atmosphere. Logical folks have no problem understanding what drives the Earth’s climate while those not so blessed think that a trace gas that is essential for all life on Earth, CO2, is the control knob for the earth’s temperature and its climate.
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/64-What-is-the-atmosphere-of-Earth-made-of-
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/5-How-large-is-the-Sun-compared-to-Earth-
“Harmonic Analysis of Worldwide Temperature Proxies for 2000 Years
Abstract
The Sun as climate driver is repeatedly discussed in the literature but proofs are often weak. In order to elucidate the solar influence, we have used a large number of temperature proxies worldwide to construct a global temperature mean G7 over the last 2000 years. The Fourier spectrum of G7 shows the strongest components as ~1000-, ~460-, and ~190 – year periods whereas other cycles of the individual proxies are considerably weaker. The G7 temperature extrema coincide with the Roman, medieval, and present optima as well as the well-known minimum of AD 1450 during the Little Ice Age. We have constructed by reverse Fourier transform a representation of G7 using only these three sine functions, which shows a remarkable Pearson correlation of 0.84 with the 31-year running average of G7. The three cycles are also found dominant in the production rates of the solar-induced cosmogenic nuclides 14C and 10Be, most strongly in the ~190 – year period being known as the De Vries/Suess cycle. By wavelet analysis, a new proof has been provided that at least the ~190-year climate cycle has a solar origin.
https://benthamopen.com/FULLTEXT/TOASCJ-11-44
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise & they provide a list of 61 reverences to back up their work.
Swallow, you are a complete hypocrite. You have been ad-homming me from the start, and what you write about one of the world’s leading climate scientists, Michael Mann, is utterly vile. But you are simply avoiding the truth. Deniers, repugnant as they are, do this all the time. It is another one of your strategies.
The latest link is your newest howler. You post up a single study in a bottom-feeding open access journal that probably has an acceptance rate of close to 100%. As I and others have said on here a zillion times already, these are outliers. For every bottom-feeding paper you can dredge up I could link to 1000 is much more rigid journals that have very different conclusions. Don’t you think for a second that the scientific community has not gone through ALL of the evidence and evaluated its significance? Or do you think that a few know-nothing laymen are the only ones who have done it?
I find you so easy to debunk because you essentially vindicate everything I have said about you in previous posts. You are a master cherry-picker of rotten fruit. You distort the conclusions of studies to support your narrative by only copy-pasting selected bits of text. You only read abstracts and not the full papers. You cannot explain why pretty well every university, research institute, National Academy and scientific organization in the world affirms the strong relationship between CO2 and climate. You ignore it constantly because how are you going to look when you refer to them all as ‘liars’, but what else can you say? That you, an old guy who worked in banking for all I know and care, has somehow discovered the unambiguous truth that eludes thousands of climate and Earth scientists?
The more that you write up on here the deeper the hole you are digging for yourself. The Nature study discussed by me and BBD set the record straight. The current warming episode, which covers 98% of the Earth’s surface, is unprecedented in scale and intensity over at least the past 1000 years and quite possibly tens of thousands of years. It is caused by us. They left no doubt whatsoever, and they base their conclusions on volumes of empirical data. Nature is the world’s most prestigious scientific journal and rejects around 93% of submitted manuscripts. It has a very rigorous peer-review system.
If you think that you know more than anyone else about climate then get off your lazy butt and write some rebuttals and send them to peer-reviewed journals and see how far they get. Deniers like you who are afflicted with the Dunning-Kruger syndrome are know-it-alls when it comes to social media but know-nothings when it comes to scientific journals. You are scared, that’s why. You haven’t got the guts to test your supposedly brilliant ideas in the scientific arena.
The reason is obvious, or should be. Your papers would be jettisoned after review. Here, on blogs, all of the crap you write goes online.
You are a troll.
As for your comment about using ‘real names’, so what? At least you know my profession. We here only know your name and nothing else about you. You are clearly unknown aside from your penchant of spewing denier rhetoric on blogs. Otherwise you might as well be anonymous. You are ‘John Doe’. Besides, I couldn’t care less who you are. If you were a qualified scientist, we would know all about it by now. All I know about you us that you travel a lot, hold right wing views, and cherry-pick a few studies to suggest that it isn’t warming or that it is due to the sun. Memes that by now are debunked by the bulk of scientific evidence.
Jeffh; If you were a qualified scientist, we would know all about it by now.
Jeff is a scientist and some of us do indeed know it.
This great cartoon by ‘xkcd’ sums up what climate scientists know about surface temperatures over the past 20,000 years on Earth:
https://xkcd.com/1732/
What can be extrapolated out of this is that around 20,000 years it ago the Earth was around 4 degrees colder than now;
That warming or cooling at the global scale is normally a gradual process that takes many centuries to change;
That the uptick at the end of the 20th century is completely unprecedented over the past 200 centuries. It is warming at an alarming rate. And it is due to us.
These two examples are all that needs to be known about how and why Mann’s hockey stick is bogus.
Figure 2 Variations in regional surface temperatures for the last 18,000 years, estimated from a variety of sources. Shown are changes in°C, from the value for 1900. Compiled by R. S. Bradley and J. A. Eddy based on J. T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vol 5, no 1, 1991.
http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/article1-fig2.html
The truth always prevails because in 2003 two Canadian statisticians, Steve McIntyre & Professor Ross McKitrick, showed how the graph had been fabricated by a computer model that produced “hockey stick” graphs whatever random data were fed into it. Mann would never show his “work” so now a Canadian court has ruled against him and he must pay all court cost to Dr Ball.
“More and more concerned about our statement”
Steve McIntyre, posted on Apr 8, 2010 at 6:56 PM
In a previous post, I reported that Coordinating Lead Author Overpeck wanted to “deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature”. The MWP was one such target; the Holocene Optimum was another.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/08/more-and-more-concerned-about-our-statement
Now Swallow churns out crap by John McClean – the denier who predicted that by 2011 the Earth would be cooling dramatically. He is a crackpot.
As for my credentials, oh believe me, I am well enough known. Certainly a million times more than you.
John McLean’s 2009 prediction for 2011: ‘It will be the coolest year since 1956’.
Hilarious. What a clown.
https://skepticalscience.com/mclean-exaggerating-natural-cycles.html
Here I see always wrong Jeffh carrying on about John McLean’s predictions when none of his have been right because he relies on the web site, skeptical science, that is operated by a cartoonist, John Cook who features himself to be a Nazi.
When someone uses Skeptical Science as a source, I’m very unlikely to pay any attention to them because they are not interested enough ion the subject to try to find actual facts about it.
“The Truth about Skeptical Science
Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook (who apparently pretends to be a Nazi). It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully attempted to engage in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censored, while Dr. Michaels has been dishonestly quoted and smeared. The irony of the site’s oxymoronic name “Skeptical Science” is that the site is not skeptical of even the most extreme alarmist positions.”
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html?fbclid=IwAR3gx9eO77-KCIrJl9Bq_N8QOKbCYiafC6D8rX9a0X_pBZr_xSUbcsBQ8IY
This is what did happen in Europe in 2012
“Tragedy Unfolding In Europe: Is US Media Trying To Ignore It?
February 14, 2012 By Robert W. Felix
“The cold snap in Europe, which began in late January, has killed hundreds and brought deep snow where it hasn’t been seen in decades,” says this article in the Seattle Times.
This should be front page news. Instead, the article doesn’t appear until page eight. And the title, “At least 3 killed in avalanche in Kosovo,” belies the seriousness of the situation. (The print version carries a different headline: “Cold snap, snow lock down Europe.”)
How about a headline that tells it like it is?
140,000 trapped by snow – Death toll rises past 550.”
https://www.eurasiareview.com/14022012-tragedy-unfolding-in-europe-is-us-media-trying-to-ignore-it-oped/
I wonder if Jeffh is aware of these facts that follow or if any of the other true believers in the hoax about carbon dioxide being a devil in the sky that is eventually going to cause the earth to be incinerated have ever looked into the valid statistics about heat versus cold and human deaths attributed to each condition. The one who goes by an alias because of being ashamed to have anyone know the lies that he post on here should tell us more of his trash about John McLean’s predictions. Let Jeffh lie and dance around trying to answer why the The Lancet make this assertion below;
“Cold weather kills far more people than hot weather”
May 20, 2015
The Lancet
Summary: “Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings also reveal that deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150520193831.htm
“Blizzards in Moldavia – Entire villages snowbound JANUARY 21, 2016 Snow exceeds 1 meter high (more than 3 ft) in some places.
18 Jan 2016 – Snow has seized southern Moldova.
The storm swept Cantemir, Taraclia, Stefan Voda and Cahul, where dozens of villages (at least 50) are still isolated.”
http://stiri.tvr.ro/vreme-rea-si-in-republica-moldova–drumuri-blocate-si-sate-intregi-sub-nameti-in-sudul-tarii_69649.html
“Cold wave pushes up power demand to record high 2016/01/19
The spike came as the average temperature for all of South Korea fell to minus 10 degree Celsius. In Seoul, the mercury fell below 15 degrees early in the morning. The country’s weather service said a very cold, high pressure front from northern China is exerting influence on the country, with the cold wave expected to remain in place up till early next week.”
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2016/01/19/0200000000AEN20160119008900320.html
Now Swallow is really scraping the bottom of the barrel citing work by right-wing business economist and long-time denier Ross McKitrick from a link by Marc ‘Swiftboat’ Morano and his abominable blog, Climate Depot.
Swallow, how dumb are you? Have you no shame? You clearly have no common sense.
It really is fun annihilating you, though.
Do you recall how the 2009 Copenhagen get together fell apart after the climate gate emails became public knowledge that showed the dishonesty and deception of these charlatans who want people to believe in the anthropogenic global warming hoax? An example of how your “science” conducts itself.
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,REDACTED, REDACTED
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/0938018124.txt
Definition of trick
(Entry 1 of 3)
1a: a crafty procedure or practice meant to deceive or defraud
b: a mischievous act : PRANK
c: a deceptive, dexterous, or ingenious feat
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trick
“As for my credentials, oh believe me, I am well enough known. Certainly a million times more than you”. John Wilkes Booth is also well known and we know his name. If you are so proud of your imagined accomplishments, supply your name and references. After all I know what Dr. Patrick Moore has done and I have no idea if you have ever done anything worthwhile.
“Dr. Patrick Moore has been a leader in the international environmental field for over 30 years. He is a founding member of Greenpeace and served for nine years as President of Greenpeace Canada and seven years as a Director of Greenpeace International. As the leader of many campaigns Dr. Moore was a driving force shaping policy and direction while Greenpeace became the world’s largest environmental activist organization.
Dr. Moore served for four years as Vice President, Environment for Waterfurnace International, the largest manufacturer of geothermal heat pumps for residential heating and cooling with renewable earth energy.
As Chair of the Sustainable Forestry Committee of the Forest Alliance of BC, he leads the process of developing the “Principles of Sustainable Forestry” which have been adopted by a majority of the industry.
In 1991 Dr. Moore founded Greenspirit, a consultancy focusing on environmental policy and communications in natural resources, biodiversity, energy and climate change
In 2000, Dr. Moore published Green Spirit – Trees are the Answer, a photo-book that provides a new insight into how forests work and how they can play a powerful role in solving many of our current environmental problems.
Ford Foundation Fellowship, 1969-1972
Ph.D. in Ecology, Institute of Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia, 1972
Honours B.Sc. in Forest Biology, University of British Columbia”
Do you recall how the 2009 Copenhagen get together fell apart after the climate gate emails became public knowledge that showed the dishonesty and deception of these charlatans who want people to believe in the anthropogenic global warming hoax? An example of how your “science” conducts itself.
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,REDACTED, REDACTED
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/0938018124.txt
Definition of trick
(Entry 1 of 3)
1a: a crafty procedure or practice meant to deceive or defraud
b: a mischievous act : PRANK
c: a deceptive, dexterous, or ingenious feat
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trick
“As for my credentials, oh believe me, I am well enough known. Certainly a million times more than you”. John Wilkes Booth is also well known and we know his name. If you are so proud of your imagined accomplishments, supply your name and references. After all, I know what Dr. Patrick Moore has done and I have no idea if you have ever done anything worthwhile.
JDS hits his foot again, even though it is no longer attached.
Except that both authors are connected to European Institute for Climate and Energy
which as noted at Sorcewatch (look it up yourself JDS as I could run out of links):
Note also the list of ‘luminaries’ (cough) listed at Sorcewatch:
Each of the above are so well know to us I need not say more.
The home journal of that paper is under Bentham Open which is known as one home of Predatory Publishing, which is described by Wikipedia as, once again because of link limit you can look that up yourself:
The paper cited has been described as, in the hope I have one more link:
Flaws of Lüdecke & Weiss
That is another foot destroyed JDS (by now you must have a mould for producing clay prosthetics to order).
Thanks for killing that one off, Lionel.
It seems that JDS doesn’t have the remotest clue, doesn’t it?
Although his dogged refusal to engage in conversation about the implications for a ‘hot MWP’ on climate sensitivity is indicative of profound dishonesty underpinning the ignorance. One of those people for whom the truth and facts are an irrelevance compared to pushing their personal political peanut.
I know that you do not look anything up to substantiate your false claims about the earth’s climate; but, I do and you can try to explain how and why, if CO2 causes climate change this below has happened.
Quantifying the likelihood of a continued hiatus in global warming 07 January 2015 Published online
Since the end of the twentieth century, global mean surface temperature has not risen as rapidly as predicted by global climate models1, 2, 3 (GCMs). This discrepancy has become known as the global warming ‘hiatus’ and a variety of mechanisms1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 have been proposed to explain the observed slowdown in warming. Focusing on internally generated variability, we use pre-industrial control simulations from an observationally constrained ensemble of GCMs and a statistical approach to evaluate the expected frequency and characteristics of variability-driven hiatus periods and their likelihood of future continuation. Given an expected forced warming trend of ~0.2 K per decade, our constrained ensemble of GCMs implies that the probability of a variability-driven 10-year hiatus is ~10%, but less than 1% for a 20-year hiatus. Although the absolute probability of a 20-year hiatus is small, the probability that an existing 15-year hiatus will continue another five years is much higher (up to 25%). Therefore, given the recognized contribution of internal climate variability to the reduced rate of global warming during the past 15 years, we should not be surprised if the current hiatus continues until the end of the decade. Following the termination of a variability-driven hiatus, we also show that there is an increased likelihood of accelerated global warming associated with release of heat from the sub-surface ocean and a reversal of the phase of decadal variability in the Pacific Ocean. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n4/full/nclimate2531.html
“Nature is the world’s most prestigious scientific journal and rejects around 93% of submitted manuscripts. It has a very rigorous peer-review system.” So stated old no name, Jeffh, on September 16, 2019 at 2:33 am.
I will interject a concept that Jeffh, and the other alarmist who will not present their names on here, that they have never heard about and that it is that the SUN that constitutes 99.86% of the total mass of the solar system that drives the Earth’s climate. Just how illogical would a person have to be to believe that the trace gas, carbon dioxide, that is .03% of the earth’s atmosphere, is what drives the Earth’s climate?
Astronomical Theory of Climate Change
What is The Milankovitch Theory? The Milankovitch or astronomical theory of climate change is an explanation for changes in the seasons which result from changes in the earth’s orbit around the sun.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html
JDS
This is now spam for this has been thrashed out with you on another thread here.
Now your out and out deception is demonstrated again with:
where from the same source you didn’t include:
”
2a(1) : a quick or artful way of getting a result : knack the trick is to make it look natural
(2) : an instance of getting a desired result one small adjustment will do the trick
b : a technical device (as of an art or craft) ”
viz
Worth reading the whole article:
Clearing up misconceptions regarding ‘hide the decline’
Now JDS you have broken through the bottom of your barrel and knocked off another foot.
– I’m shocked, shocked I tell you to find out JDS left a few definitions.
– Your dictionary, Sir.
– Thank you.
The worse part is, JDS revealed his hand:
“where from the same source you didn’t include: ”2a(1) : a quick or artful way of getting a result : knack the trick is to make it look natural”, as per Lionel A.
“Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in
Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We
had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a
record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies
baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global
energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosustREDACTED[1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained
from the author.)
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate.
That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a
monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the
change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with
the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since
Sept 2007. see
[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_c
urrent.ppt
Kevin
http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/0938018124.txt
I realize that none of you fanatical alarmist, who can produce NO repeatable empirical (Relying on or derived from observation or experiment) experiment that demonstrates the amount of carbon dioxide now in the Earth’s atmosphere can possibly produce the incinerating temperatures on Earth that alarmist fools believe it does. It is like when Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth, who is a Distinguished Senior Scientist in the Climate Analysis Section (CAS) at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Trenberth obtained his Sc. D. in meteorology in 1972 from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was a lead author of the 1995, 2001 and 2007 Scientific Assessment of Climate Change reports from the IPCC, and shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize which went to the IPCC must ask in the above email; “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.” to which logical people rely; Well, no shit it is wrong! Why else would this high temperature record still stand?
World Meteorological Organization Assessment of the Purported World Record 58°C Temperature Extreme at El Azizia, Libya (13 September 1922)
“On 13 September 1922, a temperature of 58°C (136.4°F) was purportedly recorded at El Azizia (approximately 40 kilometers south-southwest of Tripoli) in what is now modern-day Libya…………. The WMO assessment is that the highest recorded surface temperature of 56.7°C (134°F) was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley) CA USA.”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00093.1?af=R&
This is a record that still holds after 106 years & isn’t it the same WMO that said that this is the warmest time in earth’s history, or some other such nonsense?
No, wait.
Because the temperature record in a specific location in Lybia hasn’t been beat, then temperature records having been beat in multiple other countries in the past few years, repeatedly, don’t count?
That’s beyond dishonesty.
More blatant lies from JDS:
Total boswelox,
and
and
Greenpeace Statement On Patrick Moore
I don’t know who is feeding you this guff JDS but they are making you look very foolish.
Thanks for the information, Lionel. Moore has shilled himself to whatever anti-environmental group or corporation will pay him. One week it is the logging industry paying him to defend rapacious clear-cut logging, the next it is the agro-biotech industry getting him to defend the profligate use of pesticides, the next it is the nuclear industry getting him to say that nuclear energy is a safe alternative to fossil fuels, and the next he says that fossil fuels are the answer to everything. The man is an embarrassment, and his lies and deceit have long been exposed.
That Moore deliberately distorts science to bend to the agendas of the industries that pay him has been proven time and time again. Below is one example when Moore was shilling for the logging industry. He was at the time defending the annihilation of coniferous forests in the Pacific Northwest. Moore made himself a laughingstock when he declared, “A clear-cut is a temporary meadow”. Then he was recruited by Marc Morano to downplay the threat of logging in the Amazon. This led to me exposing his garbage in an exchange with a British journalist (Anthony Brown) for the Sunday Observer (not difficult since my scientific qualifications are light years ahead of Moore’s).
In 2000 the UK Sunday Observer ran a story by Brown entitled, “Judas of the eco-warriors spreads his gospel of doubt”, which was about Moore downplaying the ecological effects of logging and habitat destruction. I read the article, which was of course full of typical Moore gibberish. But one quote stood out and I demolished it in my reply to Brown.
Moore said, “No family of birds, beetles or mammals has gone extinct because of human actions” or something very similar. Moore was, as is his style, deliberately targeting his audience of sycophants (like Swallow) with this piece of nonsense. As a qualified ecologist, I picked up on it right away. Extinction is not measured at the level of families which taxonomically is far too broad. Extinction is measured at no higher a level than species but more often genetically distinct populations. Moore’s comment is like saying that every species in the large beetle family Carabidae (several thousand worldwide) is extinct except for some obscure species in the genus Harpalus and that there is no problem. Or, that every species of cat on Earth (around 35) is extinct except the domestic tabby and that does not constitute a disaster because the family is technically still extant. So the lion, the tiger, the jaguar, the leopard, the cheetah, the lynx, the bobcat, the caracal, the jaguarundi, the ocelot, the snow leopard etc. etc. could all technically be extinct in Moore’s lexicon but all is OK because the family is not extinct – domestic cats survive.
Moore was aiming this ludicrous remark at a general audience that cannot separate a tribe from a family from an order from a genus from a species. It actually undermines what an ignoramus he is, and a dishonest one. When I pointed this out to the journalist he was clearly embarrassed, but claimed that such lurid headlines are necessary to sell papers.
That Swallow adores a clot like Moore is just more evidence of how out of his depth he is here.
Found that article Jeff.
Judas of the eco-warriors spreads his gospel of doubt
Lionel A September 16, 2019 at 11:21 am
“More blatant lies from JDS: Dr. Patrick Moore has been a leader in the international environmental field for over 30 years. He is a founding member of Greenpeace and served for nine years as President of Greenpeace…”
It appears that Lionel A either did not read anything in the link that he provided; or, more than likely, he could not understand what he was being told.
“Dr Patrick Moore
“He helped found Greenpeace, and was a director of it for 15 years. He took part in direct action against whaling and nuclear testing, was arrested for protecting a seal pup from being clubbed to death, and was on board the Rainbow Warrior the day it was blown up by French spies in Auckland harbour.
But now Dr Patrick Moore is seen by environmentalists as a traitor to the cause.
[…]
Indeed, he cannot. Moore, 52, regularly takes to the airwaves and publishes essays in North America to denounce environmental ‘extremism’.
And the greens do not like it one bit. ‘He gets far more press than is scientifically justifiable. It’s one individual who is trading on his past credentials to try and discredit everything that everyone else is working for,’ said Tamara Stark of Greenpeace Canada. ‘There is a sense of betrayal. There is great frustration and some level of anger.’
[…]
But according to Moore, most eco-activists just wanted continued confrontation. ‘When society adopted the more reasonable items, the only way to maintain a confrontation was to adopt a more extreme stance that most people just don’t agree with,’ Moore said. ‘Greenpeace isn’t interest in solutions – only conflicts and bad guys.’
Today’s environmentalists, he insists, are against science, business, civilisation and even humans; and the net result is that they are anti-environment. ‘It comes to the point of dogma. There is no longer any room for intelligent discourse.’
Nuclear testing in the Pacific has finished, nuclear waste is no longer dumped at sea, whales are no longer in danger of extinction, and elephants are being culled because their numbers are too high.
‘It’s almost as though the movement has to invent doom-and-gloom scenarios,’ Moore says. Mass extinctions are repeatedly predicted but do not happen, he says, adding that the Amazon rainforest would have been destroyed 50 times over if more outlandish claims had been believed.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2000/may/21/activists.uknews
Watching Swallow splutter on about Climategate, which is long dead, buried and ignored, is just further evidence that he is a raving lunatic. Like all bombastic blow-hards, he insists on having the final word on here. Who reads his garbage and believes him? Raise your hands! Um… nobody. So why is he still here then?
To preach to himself. To glory in his own ego. That’s why.
Thanks Lionel for the link. I add amphibians to the ‘families’ of organisms that Moore said have not gone extinct. It is a deliberately misleading quote, in keeping with the man. He gets away with it because the journalist, Brown, was incapable of calling him out. If Moore made such an outrageous claim at a conference he would be ridiculed instantly. Brown certainly was embarrassed when I pointed it out to him.
Moore is essentially scum. A narcissist who craves attention and has found it in his shilling. Just the kind of ‘scientist’ that simpletons like Swallow adore.
By the way, note how he steers well clear of my point regarding universities, National Academies and scientific organizations and their affirmation of the link between CO2 and temperature? This overwhelming consensus is the Achilles heel of deniers. It drives them into fits of rage and frustration. They can’t call all of these esteemed bodies ‘liars’ because they look like fools. But they can’t acknowledge it either. So, like Swallow, they quietly dismiss it.
I’m sure that Jeffh will come up with the favorite for alarmist when they are in their normal position, up against the wall after being placed there by having the truth explained to them, will say that I don’t know the difference between weather and climate and this will be after Jeffh became so excited when the high temp record for Pairs was 2°C over the previous record set in Paris 72 years ago. Jeffh was desperate to try to blame his devil in the sky, CO2, for this event happening recently.
“What did the researchers do and find?
• We used a case-crossover method and distributed-lag nonlinear models (DLNM) to assess the nonlinear and delayed associations between temperature and mortality risk.
• We found substantial numbers of cause-specific deaths attributable to moderately cold temperature, which were approximately 12 times greater than deaths due to extremely cold temperature and 42 times greater than deaths due to extremely hot temperature.
• Our results also showed that moderately cold temperature was associated with the highest number of deaths from stroke at ages 30–69 years and from respiratory diseases at ages 70 years and above.”
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002619
“Bomdila and Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh witness heavy snowfall 21 January, 2016
Bomdila and Tawang have witnessed snowfall in Arunachal Pradesh with temperatures dipping to subzero level, informed a Facebook friend of mine from Arunachal Pradesh with a photograph of snow covered new settlements in Bomdila – the headquarters of West Kameng Districts. It is said that the Bomdila-Tawang road was covered with more than one feet of snow for the last few days. The road goes up to China border and considered as a lifeline of the Indian Army. The road has been blocked completely and it would take a few days to clear the snow.”
http://www.merinews.com/article/bomdila-and-tawang-in-arunachal-pradesh-witness-heavy-snowfall/15912941.shtml
“Orange Weather Alert as Moscow Prepares for More Snowfall Jan. 19 2016 13:50
Russia’s weather center issued an orange weather warning on Tuesday as heavy snowfall threatened to disrupt traffic in Moscow. Warning of rising wind speeds as a weather front moved into central Russia from the south, the Hydrometeorological Center of Russia said 12-15 centimeters of snow was expected to fall on Tuesday, the TASS news agency reported. The new alert follows a week of heavy snowfall in Moscow. Since the start of the month 77 centimeters of snow has fallen in the capital — more than twice the average for January, TASS said.”
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/orange-weather-alert-as-moscow-prepares-for-more-snowfall/556279.html
It is difficult for alarmist such as Jeffh to convince anyone beside his little band of equally confused folks who are convinced that the planet is soon going to be incinerated because of the trace gas that is .03% of the Earth’s atmosphere, CO2. It is a real had thing to convince anyone that they will die from heat when they are freezing their ass off.
“Temperatures drop to -30C in China as 90 percent of country is gripped by extreme ‘cold wave’ weather 21 JAN 2016
An extreme ‘cold wave’ has hit most of north and east China, with low temperatures and frost expected to last for around a week”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/temperatures-drop-30c-china-90-7220733
“Around 80 settlements in south Ukraine remain without power after heavy snowfall World January 21, 11:17 UTC+3 Seventy-two settlements in the Kherson Region, five in the Mykolaiv Region and one settlement in the Odessa Region currently remain without electricity”
http://tass.ru/en/world/851113
I have stayed in Mongolia in the summer and it would be difficult to live in the Gers when it gets down to, on average, of below -13°F during daytime and -36°F during night for weeks.
“Mongolia experiencing very low temperatures, heavy snowfall
Bishkek (AKIpress) –
Mongolia is experiencing very low temperatures and heavy snowfall since early-November 2015, locally named dzud (or jute, mass deaths of livestock in winter). According to the National Emergency Management Authority, snow has covered 90 percent of the total territory with conditions getting more severe,ReliefWeb reports.
Based on the latest assessment report released from the Mongolian government in early-January 2016, 50 districts in 16 provinces are currently categorized as experiencing dzud, while 120 districts in 20 provinces are on the edge of entering dzud condition.”
http://akipress.com/news:571502/
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth
I am hoping that the ever alert Jeffh will notice that all of these bone chilling cold events occurred in 2016 and that is not all that long ago.
“The impact of temperature on mortality in a subtropical city: effects of cold, heat, and heat waves in São Paulo, Brazil
Stratified analyses were performed by cause of death and individual characteristics (sex, age, education, marital status, and place of death). Cold effects on mortality appeared higher than heat effects in this subtropical city with moderate climatic conditions”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00484-015-1009-7
“Heavy snow clobbers central, western Japan JAN 24, 2016 Two people died and more than 100 were injured Sunday
as a cold air mass gripped Japan, with record-breaking heavy snowfall in western and central areas of the country.
With a bitterly cold air mass in place above the Japanese archipelago, heavy snow fell and strong winds blew in Sea of Japan coastal areas from the central to southwestern regions on Sunday, disrupting air and land traffic.”
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/01/24/national/heavy-snow-hits-western-central-japan/#.VqT2GlKrHnl
“Cold weather sparks warnings Sun, Jan 24, 2016 LET IT SNOW:As the nation is embraced by 10-year-low temperatures, people have flocked to the highest mountains in the expectation of seeing snow”
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2016/01/24/2003637947
Funny, all these record of cold and snow were during wintertime.
Climate scientists never said there will be no more winter.
Now, if you were to measure the amount of fallen snow during the whole of wintertime… I know that in my country, it has been a long, long time since we had a real white Xmas.
I also know we had an unusual decade of droughts and heatwaves. I was to say “during summertime”, but these past two years the dry season started end of Spring and is continuing well into Fall.
For someone who claim to travel a lot, you seem to have no grasp of the difference between a temperate climate and sub-tropical/tropical ones.
You may have moved plenty, but never actually stopped and looked.
I can hardly wait for the fresh wave of attacks on me over reflecting on the fact that the planet seems to be staying somewhat on the cold side in spite of the corrupted records that the alarmist like to manufacture to propagate their hoax about the planet burning up.
“Summer no sweat for Aussies but winter freeze fatal
Date:
January 12, 2015
Australians are more likely to die during unseasonably cold winters than hotter than average summers, QUT research has found. Across the country severe winters that are colder and drier than normal are a far bigger risk to health than sweltering summers that are hotter than average.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150112110820.htm
“Blizzard to unload 2 feet of snow from DC to Philadelphia, NYC January 23, 2016; 6:03 PM ET
The Blizzard of 2016 will continue to evolve and shut down travel through Saturday from Washington, D.C., to Philadelphia and New York City, with some areas of the mid-Atlantic receiving 1-3 feet of snow and strong winds.”
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/snow-storm-travel-disruptions-aim-for-nyc-dc-boston-philadelphia-friday-saturday/54870622
MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 2016 – 9:44:04
THANG LONG – HANOI
Lao Cai province protects cattle from snowfall VNA FRIDAY, JANUARY 22, 2016 Lao Cai (VNA) – The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development of the northern mountainous province of Lao Cai is taking all necessary measures to cope with coming snowfall. The move follows the local hydro-meteorological station’s forecast that a severe cold spell will hit the northern region from January 22’s night, according to Department Deputy Director Nguyen Van Tuyen. http://en.vietnamplus.vn/lao-cai-province-protects-cattle-from-snowfall/88038.vnp
All of these are WEATHER EVENTS you fool. Several of them occurred during the warmest year on record – 2016. Whoever said that there would not be any cold weather again? The important point is what longer-term trends tell us, and they show unambiguously that the planet is warming. How much does it take to get this through your Pachycephalosaurian skull? Stop conflating weather and climate. Just stop! I am sick of your crap.
@ Jeffh
I saw a few of these on display in a museum, once. It’s an apt description.
JDS
You sir, are a liar, nowhere in the Greenpeace article to which your post is a response can you find that statement.
Indeed in a bold subhead we read:
“Patrick Moore Did Not Found Greenpeace”
Now I note the contemptible bate and switch here for you have extracted that statement from a later article which I linked to in response to Jeffh. That statement in itself remains a lie.
Jeffh was critical of the points made by Moore and repeated in the rather strange article that Anthony Brown penned.
Go re-read Jeffh’s response here.
More total deception on your part.
He also seems to think that isolated incidents are enough to negate the validity of patterns predicted from long term time series. That’s his low-level stat engineering “knowledge” feeding his dishonesty.
Let’s face it, JDS has not grasped the relationship between global warming and climate change. Does this invite the usual denier canard?
Here you are JDS a useful book that will explain most related phenomena, even an old copy going back to 1982 (fourth edition) as mine is would be adequate:
Atmosphere, Weather and Climate by Roger G. Barry, Richard J. Chorley.
Indeed Arthaic I have had similar thoughts.
It is little wonder why Lionel A’s comments lack integrity when he uses ‘The Guardian’ for his sources of “scientific” information. I’m sure that Lionel A is comfortable using this rag as a source for his information when his mentor, Jeffh, relies so much on a cartoonist’s site, John Cook’s Skeptical Science, and Peter Sinclair, who graduated from the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor years ago with a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree & in the 90’s he worked as a graphic artist and now runs one of Jeffh’s favorite sites, Climate Crocks. Because I have been to Nepal on three different occasions to be taken on treks to Poon Hill, Everest Base Camp and on the wonderful Annapurna Circuit by my friend, who is a Gurkha, Thakur Pandey, I do know much about the Himalayan region. I’m sure that if you were to email Thakur and mention my name, which is actually my real name, he would tell you that what I am mentioning to you is true because I do not prevaricate like a common alarmist is want to do. His address is “Thakur pandey thakurpandey197@gmail.com” and if any of you people who are so worried about the earth and its wonders ever are able to get off of your hind ends and get out to see some of it, I highly recommend Thakur to help you see Nepal’s wonderers, if any of you are inclined to go to many of the places in Nepal that he could take you to.
I went on the Annapurna Circuit in March of 2010 with Thakur and over Thorung La Pass (17,765′) with him. The cold mountains anywhere can turn deadly, in a hurry, due to the cold and blizzards that come out of nowhere.
“Nepal disaster a ‘wake-up call’ for trekkers and agencies
October 21, 2014 “KATHMANDU: A snowstorm that killed dozens of people in Nepal is a “wake-up call” for the trekking industry and tourists alike, experts say, with some heading to the world’s highest mountains unprepared for conditions that can easily turn deadly.
Forty people are dead or still missing after heavy snow and avalanches struck the Annapurna circuit in the Himalayas last Tuesday in one of the worst trekking disasters ever to hit the country.
The victims include at least 26 hikers, guides and porters who had headed to the popular trail at the height of the trekking season.
Hundreds more have had to be airlifted to safety, some suffering from frostbite after days in freezing conditions without adequate clothing or shelter.
But unlike a deadly avalanche that hit Mount Everest earlier this year, experts say the latest disaster could have been alleviated had warnings of bad weather in the area been heeded.”
https://www.dawn.com/news/1139324
Swallow, why on Earth are you simply rehashing that humiliating interview with Moore – did you not read a word I said? Reading is clearly not one of your strengths. You are a skimmer, You don’t get the gist of articles. Moore deliberately mislead the readers of that interview on extinction rates. In a scientific conference he would have been tarred and feathered for it. He relied on the journalist not understanding how biodiversity is classified and how demographics are measured. Extinctions are not measured at the taxonomic level of families. Period. It is light years too broad. No ecologist would get away with it if they attempted to downplay extinction rates in a scientific journal using families as a benchmark.
I cited examples yesterday. Let’s look at the family Canidae: the foxes, wolves and jackals. There are 34 species in the world. One of them is Canus lupus familiaris, the domestic dog. According to Moore’s insidious logic, every wild canid species could be extinct except for C. lupus familiaris and then no problem. Because the family is still extant. Gone would be jackals, African wild dogs, every species of fox, the gray wolf etc. But because dogs were still around then the family would not be extinct. Therefore, according to Moore’s logic, everything is fine. When it clearly isn’t.
Moore is a shill, a liar and a creep. He uses his original Greenpeace affiliation to provide cover for his anti-environmental views. It is a bit like saying that a guy who worked as a fireman decades ago becomes a serial arsonist but defends himself after every fire he sets by saying how he fought fires once upon a time. He would be completely ignored were it not for this and he knows it. He is no longer anything remotely like an environmentalist. If he had his way the planet would be completely logged, paved over, slashed and burned and soaked in pesticides. He certainly has limited scientific expertise – my qualifications put his way, way back in the shade. We are not even close.
Yes, and when teamed up with Marc ‘motormouth’ Morano you know that you are going to be lied to even if it is during a Congressional Hearing.
First, Climate Change, Now the Global Extinction Crisis: Industry-Paid Hacks Deny Science to Congress
Video of the hearing can be found at:
Oversight: WOW Oversight Hearing
Another professor Watson succinctly described Morano at the end of a televised interview, which after the performance Morano put in with his usual raised voice talking Watson down whilst frequently interrupting one would have to agree.
One really must wonder how someone who only provides this for a name, Lionel A, because he is not proud enough of his stand on this subject that he knows nothing about, anthropogenic climate change, (remember when it use to be referred to as global warming, until the warming stopped?) will not provide his real name; as I have done, because I know that my stance on this issue is valid and correct and that is that the trace gas carbon dioxide does not determine what the Earth’s climate does.
JDS “He helped found Greenpeace, and was a director of it for 15 years.. Then I receive this treatment from this reprehensible lying fool; “You sir, are a liar, nowhere in the Greenpeace article to which your post is a response can you find that statement. Indeed in a bold subhead we read: “Patrick Moore Did Not Found Greenpeace”
Then you try to cover your sorry lying ass with this bull shit comment; “Now I note the contemptible bate and switch here for you have extracted that statement from a later article which I linked to in response to Jeffh. That statement in itself remains a lie.” If the statement was a lie then why where you so stupid to post it if you did not believe it?
The majority of alarmist would not know the truth if slapped up alongside the face by it because you have lived with lies since you stupidly allowed yourself to become brainwashed regarding this despicable hoax about how an essential for all life on earth trace gas, CO2, has been turned into a devil in the sky that certain fools imagine will cause the Earth to be incinerated in a few years’ time. For the uninformed, far left alarmist, the truth is like Dracula being struck by sunlight. A Vampire’s skin just sparkle like diamonds when struck by sunlight & the lies begin to come faster than a flooding river’s water under a bridge. You can provide NO valid empirical proof that the nonsense that you peddle has any facts to it because none exist. A slight rise in Earth’s temperature since the end of the Little Ice Age, that you do not want to admit occurred, is what sane, logical and mentally stable people believe will happen until the climate changes back to devastating cold conditions. Your mentor, who exist on these pages under the alias, Jeffh, because he realizes that the inane crap that he posts on here could not emanate from the mind of anyone that had any kind of a scientific background, will not supply his name. He had bemoaned that the tree lines where moving north and that the warm seasons were getting longer. A sane person would ask, what is wrong with any of that? Is your mentor so out of touch with reality that he does not know that if an organism is alive that warmth is preferable to cold or 85% of all life forms on earth would not live in the tropics or temperate zones. You delusional alarmist are going to have to explain why warmth is bad.
“Climate change and the northern Russian treeline zone
Dendroecological studies indicate enhanced conifer recruitment during the twentieth century. However, conifers have not yet recolonized many areas where trees were present during the Medieval Warm period (ca AD 800–1300) or the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM; ca 10?000–3000 years ago). Reconstruction of tree distributions during the HTM suggests that the future position of the treeline due to global warming may approximate its former Holocene maximum position. An increased dominance of evergreen tree species in the northern Siberian forests may be an important difference between past and future conditions. Based on the slow rates of treeline expansion observed during the twentieth century, the presence of steep climatic gradients associated with the current Arctic coastline and the prevalence of organic soils, it is possible that rates of treeline expansion will be regionally variable and transient forest communities with species abundances different from today’s may develop.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2606780/
Quantifying the likelihood of a continued hiatus in global warming 07 January 2015 http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n4/full/nclimate2531.html
And STILL no answer to a simple question about the implications for climate sensitivity of a supposedly hot and global MWP at a time of only modest forcing change.
This has gone on long enough to be dispositive of actual dishonesty.
JDS knows that there’s a horrible problem with his nonsense and he therefore refuses to engage.
Considering the seriousness of the matter that is completely inexcusable.
Any question from BBD just has to be “simple”. I have provided BBD with numerous examples of how the RWP as well as the MWP were global in scope and if BBD is not fortunate enough to be able to understand the evidence, then that is BBD’s fault and for sure not mine. BBD does not seem to be able to understand what this link and graph is telling him/her;
“Figure 2 Variations in regional surface temperatures for the last 18,000 years, estimated from a variety of sources. Shown are changes in °C, from the value for 1900. Compiled by R. S. Bradley and J. A. Eddy based on J. T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vol 5, no 1, 1991.”
http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/article1-fig2.html
The truth always prevails because in 2003 two Canadian statisticians, Steve McIntyre & Professor Ross McKitrick, showed how Mann’s graph had been fabricated by a computer model that produced “hockey stick” graphs whatever random data were fed into it. Mann would never show his “work” so now a Canadian court has ruled against him and he must pay all court cost to Dr Ball because Mann is a fake and a fraud.
“Dealing a Mortal Blow” to the MWP
There has been a considerable amount of speculation over the past few years about which “leading” climate scientist told David Deming that we have to “get rid of” the Medieval Warm Period, including speculation (e.g. ukweatherworld) that it was Jonathan Overpeck (recently one of two Coordinating Lead Authors of AR4 chapter 6).
https://climateaudit.org/2010/04/08/dealing-a-mortal-blow-to-the-mwp/
If you don’t like what Steve McIntyre & Ross McKitrick have discovered to be the truth, I guess that is just the way the cookie crumbles for people that like to use skeptical science, Climate Crocks and the rag “newspaper” The Guardian for their scientific information.
Is Japan far enough away from Scandinavia to suit you?
Climatic changes during the past 1300 years as deduced from the sediments of Lake Nakatsuna, central Japan
The warm period from AD 900 to 1200 corresponds well to the Medieval Warm Period, and the second and third cool phases are related to the Little Ice Age.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10201-001-8031-7
If you are so dense that you cannot understand the significance of the IPCC’s 1991 graph and that the Lead Author, Overpeck, wanted to, “deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature”, then I have nothing more to add for someone that never will be able to see or understand the truth about this issue.
Either you are too stupid to understand the question or you have – once again – deliberately dodged it.
This over dramatized account has some photos and it is amazing that the young wimpy fellow, who is probably much like the ones who comment on here, such as Lionel A, BBD, Dean, Jeffh or Athaic who are afraid to get out of their mother’s basement and actually see something for themselves instead of just criticizing those that do go and explore and seek the truth, for themselves, instead of just going with the mindless consensus.
Will Hatton, the author of this drama, made it over the Thorung La Pass (17,765′). Having been raised in Wyoming and having been an elk hunting guide in the Teton Wilderness using remote hunting camps and horses and mules for many years made me better prepared than perhaps some others to do this trek, that is not a real piece of cake; but, it is doable.
“IT’S one of the most incredible places on the planet but it quickly turns into a graveyard. Now, a traveller reveals his struggle for life here, with his lungs “crushed”.”
https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-advice/travellers-stories/it-was-unimaginable-the-beautiful-place-that-turns-into-a-graveyard/news-story/246787574d21b390cd78d2ebf17f5071
This site has some better photos of the trek on the Annapurna Circuit
Read this before hiking the Annapurna Circuit: 21 essential things to know
https://www.thecommonwanderer.com/blog/things-to-know-annapurna-circuit-trek
Another person too cowardly to use their real name, Athaic, produces this typical for an alarmist pointless nonsense;
“Because the temperature record in a specific location in Lybia hasn’t been beat, then temperature records having been beat in multiple other countries in the past few years, repeatedly, don’t count? That’s beyond dishonesty” What is dishonest, you charlatan, is to make such a comment and not show where and when the Death Valley record has been exceeded. I have been to the Park Services headquarters in Death Valley to see this place and all you can do is make inane comments about things that you do not know anything about.
This is ,most likely, how Athaic arrived at its stupid alias.
“The term cerebellar ataxia is used to indicate ataxia that is due to dysfunction of the cerebellum. The cerebellum is responsible for integrating a significant amount of neural information that is used to coordinate smoothly ongoing movements and to participate in motor planning.
“Carry and drink plenty of water in the summer months.
NPS/Kurt Moses
Death Valley is the hottest place on Earth. In the summer months (May-September) temperatures average over 100°F (38°C), and often exceed 120°F (49°C).
Death Valley National Park, however, is perfectly safe to visit in the summer with some caution.”
https://www.nps.gov/deva/planyourvisit/summer-visit.htm
It’s a Gallic name, you clueless twit. So much for being well-traveled.
Dear readers, please note: nowhere did I make fun of JDS name. Draw your own conclusion about his character.
Still waiting for JDS to drink 20g of dioxine in one go, since he claimed way upthread that would be harmless.
Swallow, why are you so obsessed with us all revealing our real names? I can probably find out who you are on social media, but I couldn’t care less. You are probably an old, retired businessman of some sort. What matters is what you write, and since most of it is utter nonsense, we call you out for it. What your posts do reveal clearly is that you certainly do not have a scientific background. That was patently obvious from the beginning. You cherry-pick your sources; you only read abstracts; you dismiss thousands of studies by omission; you ad hom bodies like the IPCC by calling them ‘liars’ while providing no evidence for it; you dismiss the stated positions of leading universities, National Academies and scientific organizations around the world as well as the views more than 97% of climate scientists as if they do not exist; you try to shrink the discussion of climate forcing to individual blogs as if this represents the whole debate; you ignore tons of other inconvenient facts in your diatribes like biotic responses to warming, trends in relevant data like record temperatures and the incidence and duration of extreme climatic events like heat waves and droughts that are attendant with warming. Instead, you select single data points or outliers and then attempt to inflate their significance out of all proportion. You are like a person who denies that heavy smoking reduces lifespan despite being presented with volumes of research showing that the life expectancy of smokers is less than that of non-smokers. What you do is find one or two examples of individuals who lived over 100 years of age who smoked a pack a day for 75 years and who never contacted lung cancer or emphysema, and then examples of people who died of lung cancer at a relatively young age but who never smoked. You think that these outliers undermine data based on tens of thousands of people using linear regression.
The analogy perfectly describes your approach to climate change. You clearly have no grasp of statistics. You only persist on here because you want to have the last word. You are blatantly wrong in your conclusions. You have clearly heavily-biased political views that contaminate your views on science. That is obvious to anyone reading your posts.
You can pick and choose what you respond to and what you ignore on blogs. In a face-to-face debate you would not be able to do this. Any neutral person reading this can easily see that we are hammering you.
By now, everything Swallow writes has been so categorically debunked that I think it is time to move on. Clearly science isn’t his strong point. I don’t know what is, but it ain’t science. I am sure he will lick his wounds and retreat back to the safe confines of discussions on Breitbart and the Daily Caller, which are both full of bots like him with similar intellectual impediments.
You poor sniveling horrible excuse for a scientist, that you fictitiously claim to be, now say this with NO proof that; “I am sure he will lick his wounds and retreat back to the safe confines of discussions on Breitbart and the Daily Caller, which are both full of bots like him with similar intellectual impediments” Show me where or when I have ever linked anything I posted to Breitbart or the Daily Caller. Don’t you ever get tired of lying? Why don’t you post something that is more easily understood by you, such as this cartoon, https://xkcd.com/1732/, that perhaps your main source of scientific knowledge about the Earth’s climate is derived from the cartoonist, John Cook’s, sceptical “science”, site that was the beginning of the 97% bull crap that some jerks still buy into. ‘The Guardian’, of all publications, even knows the “97% of scientist” is all manufactured nonsense that people like you believe. You wouldn’t make a pimple on a real climate scientist ass, such as Willie Soon, who is an astrophysicist and a geoscientist based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Patrick Moore knows more about what causes the Earth’s climate to change than some poor fool that is convinced that it is the trace gas, CO2, that is a devil in the sky; therefore, Moore is hatred by you clowns who are about as hateful and ignorant as one would ever hope to meet in a civilized setting. This cult of AGW is more like a religion that anything else because if someone dares to point out how flawed the cult’s believes are, then they are branded a heretic who has to be maligned, cursed, berated and if these alarmist goons had their way, crucified.
“Failing to convince the public that global warming is an urgent cause for concern, hysterical fear-mongers are turning to the armory of tyrants, and demanding punishment for those they call “deniers,” consciously inking Holocaust denial. The recent rebranding of their cause as “climate change” creates a certain awkwardness, as nobody denies that climate has and always will change. Glaciers, after all, covered a good part of the northern tier of the United States, carving out the Great Lakes, for example.
Nonetheless, the hysterics demand that “climate change deniers” be punished, even killed, and the call extends from the spittle-flecked fanatics to the usually sober New York Times (see below).”
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/04/punishing_climate_change_deniers.html
“The abstracts of the 12,000 papers were rated, twice, by 24 volunteers. Twelve rapidly dropped out, leaving an enormous task for the rest. This shows. There are patterns in the data that suggest that raters may have fallen asleep with their nose on the keyboard. In July 2013, Mr Cook claimed to have data that showed this is not the case. In May 2014, he claimed that data never existed.
The data is also ridden with error. By Cook’s own calculations, 7% of the ratings are wrong. Spot checks suggest a much larger number of errors, up to one-third.
Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong. Cook’s consensus is also irrelevant in policy. They try to show that climate change is real and human-made. It is does not follow whether and by how much greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced.”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming
Now JDS is thrashing about in desperation when he alleges:
I linked to one article at the Guardian in courtesy to Jeffh, and other readers here, who had criticised the article in an earlier post. Heck JDS you even linked to it yourself at the foot of this,
bout of diarrhoea.
Whatever, calling the Guardian a rag is simply a case of shooting the messenger rather that criticising the content, source of the information or slant of the article where in this case Jeffh did the latter.
JDS, ever the comedian, continued with:
The first charge there about my lack of knowledge on the subject ignores the fact that I have explained points and cited numerous text books over the two recent threads here into which JDS has been injecting so much bilge.
I had anticipated such a response from him when I pointed out that he appeared not to know the manner in which global warming and climate change are related whilst being distinct concepts. Indeed in an earlier post I wrote this:
As we have just seen, JDS answered that question by obliging.
This demonstrates one of two things, either he is ignorant of the history here (quite possibly) or is being deliberately mendacious (also quite possible).
JDS here is the a rundown on the issue:
Global warming vs climate change
I wonder about your comprehension ability JDS, also your memory – both appear faulty.
@ Lionel A
Another likely possibility: he is both.
Thanks Lionel for debunking Swallow’s lame ‘climate change’ versus ‘global warming’ remark. Utterly puerile and incorrect. I was going to respond to it but you saved me the time. I am working on a major manuscript for Science right now and I hate wasting my time on him. The more he writes, the further he sinks. I would not even call some of his remarks sophomoric. They are utterly basal.
He has no qualms in belitting the Guardian, Wikipedia, Skeptical Science or other sources he doesn’t like like the journal Nature and then wheels out crap from the blogs of Donna Leframboise, Joanne Nova, WUWT or from Daily Caller and Breitbart.
He has no shame or common sense. Sheesh. Talk about delusional.
JDS, you have not followed BBD’s argument on MWP.
BBD, the flip side to that is if there was not a global MWP, but instead there was cooling in the tropics in response to the warming(Mann has suggested the Pacific Thermostat Hypotheses of Mark Cain as a possiblity), then it would mean warming in climate models is vastly overstated. I have heard Mann say this in front of scientists, that he thinks there is a missing negative feedback. Strangely his public pronouncements lack these distinctions.
Let me stop you there. The parsimonious explanation is simple: there was no global and synchronous warming event as warm as or warmer than the present one because there was no forcing change sufficient to produce it.
If there was a mystery missing negative feedback, then why is it not operating now? And why did it not operate in the past, and prevent everything from CO2- forced hothouse climate states and hyperthermals to deglaciations under orbital forcing?
Let’s not drift off into fantasy non-explanations for the imaginary lack of predictive skill of the models.
MikeN, if you think the climate models overestimate warming, then look at actual surface temperatures over time. They are rising in line with predictions of intermediate model projections. The Arctic is melting at the higher warming projections. That is enough to tell us that it is time to act. No mopre procrastination. Using your logic, how long do you think we should wait before acting? Another 10 years? Twenty? Thirty?
I spoke with a colleague today and he told me that he finds it hard to believe that anyone with half a brain denies that it is warming now and that we need to act on it. He was shocked when I told him that despite the fact that deniers are clearly losing the scientific argument, at least some of them persist, driven by their warped right wing political ideologies. You seem to be one of them.
It is frustrating reading some of the drivel your side posts on the internet. It would not be so bad if you stuck to the usual dark places that wallow in ignorance. But you take this stupidity to progressive blogs like this one. I am sure part of the reason is that those who worship scumballs like Marc Morano are sent to troll the blogosphere. It reinforces the perils of social media where everybody suddenly can be heard. It allows Dunning-Kruger afflicted know-nothings to rant and rave with virtual impunity.
MikeN
This looks like an attempt at blowing smoke to me. Where did you hear Mann say that which you claim?
Now if you had carried out due diligence you would have discovered that Mann had discussed this in a section ‘It’s the Anomalies, Stupid’, in his book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines from page 84 through to87, on which latter page we find:
which makes sense if you read the whole passage from page 84.
Note the use of medieval climate anomaly instead of medieval warm period for the latter is now deprecated from being inaccurate in concept.
N28 takes one to a paper Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly.
So, I ask again, where did you hear Mann say what you allege he says? Of course, why should we expect you to back up any assertions that you make with, you know, evidence?
Lionel, yes the same argument does appear in some of his written work, though not explicitly as I heard it at the talk.
It was at MIT in a small room in the Earth and Planetary Sciences Department.
Someone asked afterwards that based on what he said, wouldn’t it mean that warming in climate models is ‘vastly overstated’? He first joked, ‘You don’t look like Dick'(MIT’s Richard Lindzen), then said, “I agree with that, actually. I have a reputation out there as some sort of climate alarmist, but I think there is a missing negative feedback”.
MikeN
Please try and be more specific.
It’s bullshit.
That would be Building 54, the one with the globe on top.
It would be Feb 2014 at the latest, since I can find comments about this in March by me.
And not a word ever published…
I call bullshit.
MikeN
Please answer the question:
If there is a mystery missing negative feedback, then why is it not operating now? And why did it not operate in the deeper past than the (imaginary) ‘MWP’ and prevent everything from CO2- forced hothouse climate states and hyperthermals to deglaciations under orbital forcing?
Let’s explore this together.
As Lionel points out, Mann has published about it, just not the specific claim of a missing negative feedback.
Are you taking the piss? That’s exactly the point. Mann has NOT published about your specific claim that he believes in a missing feedback.
That settles it. You’re lying.
Agreed BBD. It is bullshit. I know Mann and have collaborated with him and in no way has he said this. Mike has not said that the climate models are vastly exaggerated. It is made up.
Next thing MikeN will tell us that Richard Dawkins claimed after a lecture that someone asked him if evolutionary theory is vastly overstated and that he responded, “Are you from the Bible Science Foundation? I agree with that actually. I have a reputation out there as some sort of dogmatic evolutionist, but there are lots of holes in evolutionary theory”.
This is MikeN having fantasies again. Ignore.
The only thing I’ve ever heard climate scientists say about mystery feedbacks is that they think there may be a missing positive feedback to do with the formation of high altitude cloud. This might explain the difficulty with getting models to reproduce the warmth of hothouse climate states like the Eocene.
Perhaps MikeN misheard.
Down in the basement, just outside the office for MIB. He got out before they could erase his memory like they did the other people there — that’s why only he knows about it.
BBD, how do you know it’s not operating now? The warming in climate models is a pretty large range. I don’t know what level the questioner had in mind, and what level Mann understood when he answered. Plus the Medieval Warm Period lasted for a longer time than current global warming.
The main thing was he mentioned ‘La Nina like effects in the tropics’ and said global warming would lead to more droughts in the Southwest.
My main answer would be the timeframe now is too small and so the warming and the associated negative feedback is too small.
Because we’re already 1C above preindustrial, that’s how. .
And what about previous hothouse climate states? Impossible with any significant negative feedback. What about hyperthermals? Ditto. What about deglaciation? Ditto.
This is nonsense, and mendacious misrepresentative nonsense at that.
Enough with it now.
There was no ‘MWP’. Read the references on the thread.
No MikeN I did not point out that Mann had said what you claimed, stop twisting the story, but then that is what you do.
How strange JDS vanishes and MikeN appears.
Lionel, I didn’t attribute to you that Mann said what I claimed, but that he has published about it, which is as you pointed out. The link you provided has in the abstract:
“This period is marked by a tendency for La Niña–like conditions in the tropical Pacific.”
which is in line with what I described. What Mann generally doesn’t publish is the implications that he agreed with at the end of that talk in response to a question. The question started with something like LaNina is a short term phenomenon, while MWP is long term’.
>How strange JDS vanishes and MikeN appears.
I’m happy about that. While he may be on my side, I find JDS unreadable.
Coincidence only. JDS spouts material almost continually — almost like a bot — without any breaths. MikeN takes breaths between posts.
It appears that anyone that disagrees with the current Greenpeace gets written out of the picture. Note where Captain Paul Watson, Greenpeace Co-Founder, states this: “Other co-founders like Ben Metcalfe, Irving Stowe, Dr. Lyle Thurston, and Captain John Cormack also have died since. But Bobbi Hunter, Rod Marining, David Garrick, Paul Spong, Rex Weyler and even Patrick Moore are alive, and Greenpeace has not quoted one of them as saying I am not a Greenpeace co-founder, nor has it produced a single document to back up its accusation.” This makes Lionel A comments out to be just more of the unsubstantiated trash that is normal for him to try to get folks to believe. Why is it such a big deal with you alarmist what Patrick Moor has done after he realized what the truth is regarding CO2?
Greenpeace Attempts to Make Captain Paul Watson “Disappear”
Greenpeace has become very angry with Sea Shepherd and myself because of Sea Shepherd interventions against illegal Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean and illegal tuna fishing in the Mediterranean and because of criticisms of Greenpeace ineffectiveness. In fact, Greenpeace has become so angry that it has now posted on its website that I am no longer to be regarded as a co-founder of Greenpeace. They now classify me simply “as an early member.”
This means that a bunch of people who were not around at the time, and many of whom had not even been born, have decided to rewrite Greenpeace history. As a result, the Greenpeace website has officially removed me from the list of Greenpeace founders.
Greenpeace has torn a page out of the old Russian Bolshevik manual on media relations and has chosen to simply re-write its own history. I imagine I will be deleted from early photographs next.
Bob Hunter passed away in 2005, so he can’t do anything to counter their revised revisionist statements a second time. Other co-founders like Ben Metcalfe, Irving Stowe, Dr. Lyle Thurston, and Captain John Cormack also have died since. But Bobbi Hunter, Rod Marining, David Garrick, Paul Spong, Rex Weyler and even Patrick Moore are alive, and Greenpeace has not quoted one of them as saying I am not a Greenpeace co-founder, nor has it produced a single document to back up its accusation. The best history of Greenpeace ever written, entitled Greenpeace by Rex Wyler, and of course Bob Hunter’s legendary book Rainbow Warriors both attest to my role as a co-founder.
https://thewrongkindofgreen.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/greenpeace-meets-george-orwell-greenpeace-rewrites-history/
I fail to understand why it is such a huge thing to these alarmist on this blog as to if Patrick Moore was a founding member of what became Greenpeace. It prompts them to even lie more than they do about climate change when Lionel A on September 17, 2019 at 6:18 am comes up with this;
“JDS
“He helped found Greenpeace, and was a director of it for 15 years..
You sir, are a liar, nowhere in the Greenpeace article to which your post is a response can you find that statement.
Indeed in a bold subhead we read:
“Patrick Moore Did Not Found Greenpeace”
If Lionel A lies about Patrick Moore then we can assume that 100% of his other contentions are also lies. Then he makes the absurd request that I reread something that Jeffh had also lied about. The fact is that Jeffh has never done anything that is worthy of noting while it appears that Patrick Moore has done many great things or Jeffh & Lionel A would not feel so threatened by him now.
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”
? George Orwell, 1984
“This photo was taken on Sept. 17, 1971 at the village of Kemptu. From left to right: Robert Hunter, Bob Cummings, Dr. Lyle Thurston, Patrick Moore.” (photo courtesy Robert Keziere)
“An ill-fated, propitious voyage
The crew on that 1971 voyage included Captain John Cormack, Bill Darnell, Patrick Moore, Ben Metcalfe, Jim Bohlen, Terry Simmons, Bob Cummings, Dave Birmingham, Dr. Lyle Thurston, Robert Keziere and Richard Fineberg, whose place was later taken by Rod Marining, and Bob.”
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/greenpeace/article25016568/
Page 6 has a photo of the one Lionel A is saying did not help with the founding of Greenpeace and Patrick Moore is clearly labeled in the picture for you to observe. George Orwell knew how Lionel A’s view of how history should be dealt with, lie about it and erase what you don’t agree with if one of the people involved is Patrick Moore who is intelligent enough to know that life on earth depends on carbon dioxide to exist.
”Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary.” ? George Orwell, 1984
This is on page 10 that you charlatans will never look at.
“Although the Committee had unanimously ratified the idea of sailing to Amchitka to protest the nuclear testing, it had neither a boat nor the money to charter one. Stowe hit upon the idea of organising a concert to raise funds for a boat. The concert would feature Joni Mitchell, James Taylor, Phil Ochs and Chilliwack, and it raised $17.000. The Sierra Club and Quaker groups in the US also contributed towards the fund. In the meantime, the search for a suitable boat was on. Paul Cote met the 60-year old Captain John Cormack on a Fraser River dock, and Cormack agreed to use his fishing boat, the Phyllis Cormack, named after his wife, for the voyage. Hunter, Metcalfe, Bohlen, Darnell and Simmons formed the activist core of the boat crew. Underground journalist Bob Cummings, ecologist Patrick Moore, engineer Dave Birmingham, medical doctor Lyle Thurston, and photographer Robert Keziere joined them. When Marie Bohlen decided to stay ashore, Lou Hogan and Rod Marining stood next on the waiting list. Marining deferred to Hogan, believing that a woman should be on the boat, as did Hunter and Metcalfe. In the end, Richard Fineberg, who had met Bohlen in Alaska, joined the crew instead of Hogan”
Page 12
image 5 View over deck with Patrick Moore looking out of door, boat tilting in heavy weather image 6 The crew image 7 Ben Metcalfe turns to speak as wearer of the ‘Wakefield’s King Crab’ hat. image 8 Lyle Thurston, Pat Moore and Bill Darnell image 9 Bob Hunter image 10 Captain John Cormack image 11 The Phyllis Cormack heads north image 12 Bill Darnell and Bob Cummings image 13 Lyle Thurston image 14 and 15 The Phyllis Cormack returns to Vancouver harbour. All images © Greenpeace / Robert Keziere
https://www.greenpeace.org/archive-international/Global/international/publications/other/Greenpeace-Chronicles.pdf
Jeffh, You poor snivelling excuse for a scientist, that you fictitiously claim to be, now say this with NO proof that; “I am sure he will lick his wounds and retreat back to the safe confines of discussions on Breitbart and the Daily Caller, which are both full of bots like him with similar intellectual impediments” Show me where or when I have ever linked anything I posted to Breitbart or the Daily Caller. Don’t you ever get tired of lying? Why don’t you post something that is more easily understood by you, such as this cartoon, https://xkcd.com/1732/, that perhaps your main source of scientific knowledge about the Earth’s climate is derived from the cartoonist, John Cook’s site, skeptical “science”, site that was the beginning of the 97% bull crap that some jerks still buy into. ‘The Guardian’, of all publications, even knows the “97% of scientist” is all manufactured nonsense that people like you believe. Real scientist, such as Willie Soon, who is an astrophysicist and a geoscientist based in Cambridge, Massachusetts never carry on like you do here. Patrick Moore knows more about what causes the Earth’s climate to change than some poor fool that is convinced that it is the trace gas, CO2, that is a devil in the sky; therefore, Moore is hatred by you clowns who are about as hateful and ignorant as one would ever hope to meet in a civilized setting. This cult of AGW is more like a religion that anything else because if someone dares to point out how flawed the cult’s believes are, then they are branded a heretic who has to be maligned, cursed, berated and if these alarmist goons had their way, crucified.
“Failing to convince the public that global warming is an urgent cause for concern, hysterical fear-mongers are turning to the armory of tyrants, and demanding punishment for those they call “deniers,” consciously inking Holocaust denial. The recent rebranding of their cause as “climate change” creates a certain awkwardness, as nobody denies that climate has and always will change. Glaciers, after all, covered a good part of the northern tier of the United States, carving out the Great Lakes, for example.
Nonetheless, the hysterics demand that “climate change deniers” be punished, even killed, and the call extends from the spittle-flecked fanatics to the usually sober New York Times (see below).”
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/04/punishing_climate_change_deniers.html
“The abstracts of the 12,000 papers were rated, twice, by 24 volunteers. Twelve rapidly dropped out, leaving an enormous task for the rest. This shows. There are patterns in the data that suggest that raters may have fallen asleep with their nose on the keyboard. In July 2013, Mr Cook claimed to have data that showed this is not the case. In May 2014, he claimed that data never existed.
The data is also ridden with error. By Cook’s own calculations, 7% of the ratings are wrong. Spot checks suggest a much larger number of errors, up to one-third.
Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong. Cook’s consensus is also irrelevant in policy. They try to show that climate change is real and human-made. It is does not follow whether and by how much greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced.”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming
Swallow, you are ranting again you sorry, pitiful person… please go back to your sandbox and chill out.
You have no idea what I have done so you are in no position to be able to evaluate my qualifications. Here is a hint: I have more than 3 times the career publications and citations of Shillie (Willie) Soon, and I have not received a penny from Exxon-Mobil to achieve this. Soon received bags of cash from them. I once embarrassed him badly on one of the horrific think tanks where he publishes some of his drek. In this case he was dismissing the effects of climate warming on migratory birds, and of course since he knows nothing about ecology he got all irate when I deconstructed everything he had written. Not at all difficult for me.
You can try to rehabilitate Moore all you like but to the scientific community he is beyond a joke by now. Calling him a laughingstock is a huge understatement. The guy hasn’t published a peer-reviewed paper in decades, and he has even shilled more than Shillie Soon in terms of the breadth of industries that have coughed up money for him to downplay their environmentally destructive practices.
The bottom line here Swallow is that the more you write, the worse the look. By now you are in the deepest mire. Of course, given your bloated ego, you will respond again because we have hurt your feelings. Awww. Too bad.
You mean that not-a-climate-scientist but actually fossil fuel funded shill? Funded to the tune of $1 million USD…
That Willie Soon? 🙂
Gullible, aren’t you? You should check your sources. What you will find is that they are either fake experts (Soon is *not* a climate scientist) or shills or nutters, or some combination of the three.
And by the way Swallow, by citing bilge from the neofascist American thinker [sic] you demonstrate how utterly desperate you are. By now we all know that you have never been near a university lecture in environmental science in your life. For me that was clear on DeSmogblog when you for some reason ventured over there as well to humiliate yourself. You wear your extreme right wing ideologies on your sleeve. It bleeds through in everything you write. That you try and lecture me, a working scientist, on the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change is in keeping with your delusions. Of course it exists; by now it is more like 99%. The reason that most published papers in climate science don’t mention it is because by now it is taken as ‘given’. You don’t read geological studies affirming the shape of the Earth either; it is taken as being round. Using the logic of clots like Monckton, only 3% of geological studies affirm this, so therefore this proves the the planet may indeed be flat. Everyone focuses on Cook et als. excellent study, but there are at least several more that confirm it.
It has taken far too long, but climate change denial is in its death throes. The sheer weight of empirical data is overwhelming it. History has shown that public opinion often lags behind scientific opinion by decades after a new discovery is announced. You, Swallow, are just one of the slow learners.
And by the way, the one who goes by the alias, Jeffh, needs to know that by citing bilge from the web site that is operated by the cartoonist, John Cook, ‘skeptical science’, that you demonstrate how utterly desperate you are and have no valid information to present, or you would do so.
I did enjoy going through your cartoon, https://xkcd.com/1732/, that demonstrates the extent of your scientific knowledge. I really wonder if, due to the extreme brainwashing that you obviously have endured at some far left institute of higher learning, how things could have been so different for you if you had been exposed to such people as William Happer at Princeton? “Happer joined the JASON advisory group in 1976, and he continues to be active there. Happer is credited with a key insight in 1982 that made adaptive optics possible: there is a layer of sodium in the mesosphere, at around 90 to 100 km of elevation, which could be lit by a laser beam to make an artificial guide star. His idea was tested successfully by DARPA but classified for possible military applications. The military-designed technology was partially unclassified in 1991, after the same idea was independently proposed by two French astronomers. In 1994, Happer and co-authors published a declassified version of the JASON reports on adaptive optics. Happer was chairman of the steering committee for JASON, 1987–1990.
Also, he has had numerous other assignments: trustee of the MITRE Corporation, the Richard Lounsbery Foundation and the Marshall Institute.[2] He was also chairman of the last from 2006 until it was disbanded in 2015. He co-founded Magnetic Imaging Technologies Inc. in 1994.”
I did notice in your cartoon the main message was that warm is good. There did not appear to be much going on when approximately 20,000 years ago when the temp was -2 deg C. Did you likewise notice that? It appears that your devil in the sky, CO2, was really working its miracles for the earth around 17,000 to 17,500 when “temperatures have been creeping upward, but around this point, CO2 levels start to climb”. Where did that CO2 come from? It had to have been some natural source because your hated fossil fuels were far off in the future and just look how much the use of them has benefited humanity. Humans can now fly and travel on land faster than what a horse can run. How amazing; but, Jeffh hates them and anyone who has anything to do with producing them. I’m sure Jeffh never uses any of them in his daily life or he would then be a hypocrite.
Your source of your scientific info states that 8,000 years ago “Temperatures start to level out slightly above 1961-1990 levels”. Then 7,500 years ago the planet was blessed with what is known as the Holocene Climate Optimum and things seemed to really take off after that happened. Between 8,500-9,000 years ago temperatures reach modern levels & that appeared to be really great for humanity as is evident by how human kind advanced. Your cartoon even mentions periods that Michael Mann erased with his fraudulent hockey stick graph, such as, the Medieval Warm Period and Leif Eriksson settling on Greenland where the Vikings farmed and carried on an agrarian life style for over 400 years until the Little Ice Age, that is shown on your cartoon, made life impossible for the Vikings and they abandoned their Greenland colonies.
There is one glaring inaccurate claim that is made when your cartoon states that 2,000-1,500 the “last mammoths on a tiny Siberian island go extinct”
“We usually think of woolly mammoths as purely Ice Age creatures. But while most did indeed die out 10,000 years ago, one tiny population endured on isolated Wrangel Island until 1650 BCE. So why did they finally go extinct?
Wrangel Island is an uninhabited scrap of land off the northern coast of far eastern Siberia. It’s 37 miles from the nearest island and 87 miles from the Russian mainland. It’s 2,900 square miles, making it roughly the size of Delaware. And until about 4,000 years ago, it supported the world’s last mammoth population. For 6,000 years, a steady population of 500 to 1,000 mammoths endured while their counterparts on the mainland disappeared.
https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-last-mammoths-died-out-just-3600-years-ago-but-th-5896262
All is great until, according to some fools, “fossil fuels CO2 emissions start rapidly increasing” and that will lead to the planet being incinerated soon, as some zealots are wanting sane people to believe when it did not happen during the long period of time in the past 250 million years ago when the Dinosaurs seemed to do very well on earth when the CO2 levels were 5 times what they are today, until an asteroid stuck in the Yucatan Peninsula and pretty much ruined their day. It was not carbon dioxide that caused their demise; but, a chunk of rock from outer space that got them.
Oh and finally, thanks for another epic ‘own goal’. Citing anything by Tol is problematical when it comes to climate science. But as an addendum, when asked what even he believed what the percentage of scientists who believe in anthropogenic forcing of climate was, he responded, without a hint of irony, “Oh, in the 90s”.
Give it up JDS. You can’t win on here. You just don’t know enough.
I normally seldom rely on Wikipedia for information; but, since I’m dealing with Lionel A, I will present the below about Patrick Moore and this comes after Lionel A, on September 17, 2019 at 6:18 am comes up with this;
JDS
“He helped found Greenpeace, and was a director of it for 15 years.. (“He served for nine years as president of Greenpeace Canada, as well as six years as a director of Greenpeace International.” & that equals 15)
You sir, are a liar, nowhere in the Greenpeace article to which your post is a response can you find that statement.
Indeed in a bold subhead we read:
“Patrick Moore Did Not Found Greenpeace”
Presidency of Greenpeace Foundation in Canada
In January 1977 at the annual general meeting of the Greenpeace Foundation, Moore ran for president against Bob Hunter, eventually losing by a single vote.[31] Soon after, Hunter stepped down and Moore assumed the presidency, inheriting an organization deeply in debt.[31] Greenpeace organizations began to form throughout North America, including cities such as Toronto, Montreal, Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, Boston, and San Francisco. Not all of these offices accepted the authority of the founding organization in Canada. Moore’s presidency and governance style proved controversial. Moore and his chosen board in Vancouver called for two meetings to formalize his governance proposals. During this time David Tussman, together with the rest of the founders, early activists of Greenpeace, and the majority of Greenpeace staff-members announced that the board of the San Francisco group intended to separate Patrick Moore’s Greenpeace Foundation from the rest of the Greenpeace movement. After efforts to settle the matter failed, the Greenpeace Foundation filed a civil lawsuit in San Francisco charging that the San Francisco group was in violation of trademark and copyright by using the Greenpeace name without permission of the Greenpeace Foundation.
The lawsuit was settled at a meeting on 10 October 1979, in the offices of lawyer David Gibbons in Vancouver. Attending were Moore, Hunter, David McTaggart, Rex Weyler, and about six others. At this meeting it was agreed that Greenpeace International would be created. This meant that Greenpeace would remain a single organization rather than an amorphous collection of individual offices. McTaggart who had come to represent all the other Greenpeace groups against the Greenpeace Foundation, was named chairman. Moore became president of Greenpeace Canada (the new name for Greenpeace Foundation) and a director of Greenpeace International. Other directors were appointed from the US, France, the UK, and the Netherlands. He served for nine years as president of Greenpeace Canada, as well as six years as a director of Greenpeace International.
In 1985, Moore was on board the Rainbow Warrior when it was bombed and sunk by the French government.[32] He and other directors of Greenpeace International were greeting the ship off the coast of New Zealand on its way to protest French nuclear testing at Mururoa Atoll. Expedition photographer Fernando Pereira was killed. Greenpeace’s media presence peaked again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(consultant)
Why would I believe anything that Lionel A maintains when he lies about and presents false information about someone that the alarmist now hate because he is well enough educated and uses logic to know that the trace gas, CO2, does not drive the Earth’s climate? It takes an idiot to actually believe that this trace gas does that and not the sun that makes up 99.86% of the mass of the solar system.
Thanks BBD. More on Shillie Soon’s shilling here:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry
By the way Swallow, that cartoon you so disparage was based on the research of several leading climate modelers in the following esteemed publications:
Shakun, J. D., Clark, P. U., He, F., Marcott, S. A., Mix, A. C., Liu, Z., … & Bard, E. (2012). Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation. Nature, 484(7392), 49.
Marcott, S. A., Shakun, J. D., Clark, P. U., & Mix, A. C. (2013). A reconstruction of regional and global temperature for the past 11,300 years. science, 339(6124), 1198-1201.
Annan, J. D., & Hargreaves, J. C. (2013). A new global reconstruction of temperature changes at the Last Glacial Maximum. Climate of the Past, 9(1), 367-376.
One of the authors is James Annan, one of the leading climate modelers:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Annan
So you, a non-scientist with ZERO publications think that you know more than they do? Come on smart boy. Tell us that you do. I dare you. Your bilge is so easy to debunk. It is fun watching you squirm.
“One of the authors is James Annan, one of the leading climate modelers:”
So just how much attention should we pay to climate modeling? From what I present next the answer is, not much.
“Farmers’ Almanac More Reliable Than Warming Climate Models”
“Bad Science: It turns out that a 200-year-old publication for farmers beats climate-change scientists in predicting this year’s harsh winter as the lowly caterpillar beats supercomputers that can’t even predict the past.
Last fall, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center (CPC) predicted above-normal temperatures from November through January across much of the continental U.S. The Farmers’ Almanac, first published in 1818, predicted a bitterly cold, snowy winter.
The Maine-based Farmers’ Almanac’s still-secret methodology includes variables such as planetary positions, sunspots, lunar cycles and tidal action. It claims an 80% accuracy rate, surely better than those who obsess over fossil fuels and CO2.
The winter has stayed cold in 2014, and snowfall and snow cover are way above average. USA Today reported on Feb. 14 that there was snow on the ground in part of every state except Florida. That includes Hawaii. http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/022114-690857-farmers-almanac-more-accurate-than-climate-models.htm
Yawn
Here is well-known model sceptic James Hansen on why you are spouting crap:
Swallow opines, “I normally seldom rely on Wikipedia for information”
This is because you are busy gleaning your crap from risible sources like American Thinker, Donna LeFramboise, Joanne Nova etc.
Since you adore Patrick Moore so much, let’s see you defend his remark: “No families of beetles, birds, amphibians or mammals have become extinct”. You consider yourself a self-taught expert on everything relating to science. Comment on this and let’s see some more of your intellectual brilliance on display.
*“No families of beetles, birds, amphibians or mammals have become extinct”. You consider yourself a self-taught expert on everything relating to science. Comment on this and let’s see some more of your intellectual brilliance on display.* I am far better educated and know more about nature than some poor fool that is so naive as to actually believe that the Earth is soon going to be incinerated because of 410 ppm of CO2. Please be aware that if the number of inches in one million inches were laid out in a straight line it would stretch for 16 miles. Even someone as amazingly intelligent as what you believe yourself to be would have some difficulty finding 410 inches in 16 miles if they were scattered out randomly.
“Luckily, even after 250 years of professionals documenting thousands of new plants and animals every year, the rate at which new species are discovered remains relatively stable. Somewhere between 15,000 and 18,000 new species are identified each year, with about half of those being insects. However, that number is somewhat misleading: it also includes the correction of taxonomic mistakes, movements from one family to another, and decisions that will end up being overruled in years to come.”
http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/new-animal-species
Eight million, seven hundred thousand species (give or take 1.3 million).
That is a new, estimated total number of species on Earth — the most precise calculation ever offered — with 6.5 million species found on land and 2.2 million (about 25 percent of the total) dwelling in the ocean depths.
Announced today by Census of Marine Life scientists, the figure is based on an innovative, validated analytical technique that dramatically narrows the range of previous estimates. Until now, the number of species on Earth was said to fall somewhere between 3 million and 100 million.
Furthermore, the study, published by PLoS Biology, says a staggering 86% of all species on land and 91% of those in the seas have yet to be discovered, described and catalogued.
Dr. Worm notes that the recently-updated Red List issued by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature assessed 59,508 species, of which 19,625 are classified as threatened. This means the IUCN Red List, the most sophisticated ongoing study of its kind, monitors less than 1% of world species.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110823180459.htm
That’s an interesting reading about the number of known species and the rate of discovery of new ones.
It doesn’t say anything about the rate of extinction of the known, monitored species.
I believe this fallacy is called non sequitur.
Repeating endlessly a bad argument doesn’t make it a good one, JDS.
But I noticed you don’t repeat anymore your silly analogy (yes, your) with the human body and the ingestion of 0.03% w/w of dioxine.
Would you, per chance, be able to learn? Wonder never ceases.
Actually, with the instruments in my lab, I can do it everyday.
This Media Matters piece sums up Patrick Moore’s almost 30 year history of shilling for corporate polluters:
https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-friends/who-patrick-moore-look-former-greenpeace-members-industry-ties-and-climate-denial
Essentially, the only ones who listen to him now are right wing media like Fox news, corporate-funded think tanks and astroturf groups, and right wing ideologues like Swallow. The cartoon at the beginning of the article sums up Swallow perfectly. He is the guy sitting on the right, as also shown in this blog post about false balance in the media:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/sciencetoolkit_04
“Sitting on the couch and speculating”. Yup. That is JDS.
I’m sure that the one who will not submit their real name, BBD, has never used any fossil fuels. If he/she has, that would make them out to be a hypocrite of the worst kind. It is interesting just what comes from one fossil fuel, petroleum.
“A partial list of products made from Petroleum (144 of 6000 items)
One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The rest (over half) is used to make things like:
Americans consume petroleum products at a rate of three-and-a-half gallons of oil and more than
250 cubic feet of natural gas per day each! But, as shown here petroleum is not just used for fuel.”
https://www.ranken-energy.com/index.php/products-made-from-petroleum/
I’m sure that BBD, being the honorable person that they believe themselves to be, would never use any of these 6000 items that come from oil. I certainly hope that BBD does not use a vehicle and commutes by walking or on a bike or horseback whenever they go somewhere because these vehicles use fossil fuels to make the wheels go around and round.
“Just 40 years ago, in 1970, the world total was only a quarter of a billion vehicles–a number that took 85 years to achieve.
The 1970 total doubled in just 16 years, to 500,000,000 by 1986. It took 24 more years to double again, to the current 1 billion.
By some projections, the world could house as many as 2.5 billion vehicles by 2050.”
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1065070_its-official-we-now-have-one-billion-vehicles-on-the-planet
I have a pilot’s license and therefore I know what makes an airplane stay aloft and that is fossil fuels. I hope that BBD never uses air travel or any of the commodities that aircraft transport for him/her. These stats are dated; but, even BBD should be able to get the idea about the importance of air transport is and they all rely on fossil fuels to get and stay aloft.
“On average, every day more than 8 million people fly. In 2013 total passenger numbers were 3.1 billion—surpassing the 3 billion mark for the first time ever. That number is expected to grow to 3.3 billion in 2014 (equivalent to 44% of the world’s population).
About 50 million tonnes of cargo is transported by air each year (about 140,000 tonnes daily). The annual value of these goods is some $6.4 trillion—or 35% of the value of goods traded internationally.
Aviation supports over 57 million jobs and generates $2.2 trillion in economic activity. The industry’s direct economic contribution of around $540 billion would, if translated into the GDP ranking of countries, place the industry in 19th position.
Global airline industry turnover is expected to be $743 billion in 2014, with an average industry net profit margin of 2.6%.
“Over the last century, commercial aviation has transformed the world in ways unimaginable in 1914. The first flight provided a short-cut across Tampa Bay. Today the aviation industry re-unites loved ones, connects cultures, expands minds, opens markets, and fosters development. Aviation provides people around the globe with the freedom to make connections that can change their lives and the world,” said Tony Tyler, IATA’s Director General and CEO.
“Aviation is a force for good. And the potential of commercial flight to keep changing the world for the better is almost unlimited. Aviation has always been a team effort. Growing and sustainably spreading the benefits of connectivity will require the industry, governments, regulators and local communities keep true to the ‘all-in-it-together’ ethos that was the bedrock of that pioneering first flight. And we should be guided by the long-term interests of all whose lives are positively transformed by commercial aviation every day.
https://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2013-12-30-01.aspx
I’m sure that since Willie Soon may have received money from the fossil fuels industries, BBD, being the true believer that they are, feels that he should then be executed for doing so.
I can be sure that someone with the limited abilities of the alarmist who comment on here could never accomplice what the fossil fuels industries has accomplished because to do what they do takes knowledge and more abilities than just setting and making inane comments about things that they know nothing about, such as the Earth and its climate.
To build this Troll-A Platform and get it moved and into place takes some very sharp people to get all of this done so that they can have people who know nothing curse them because they produce something the world demands and needs. We were in Norway about one year ago this month and the Norwegians are putting their oil wealth to good use. We started our cruse at Tromsø and this is a tunnel that we went through to get from the airport to the city that has underground round-a-bouts. Tromsø is more than 77 miles above the Arctic circle than where I spent 14 years. Tromsø is 217 miles north of the Arctic Circle while where I was in Alaska was 140 miles north of the Arctic Circle & there were no trees or for sure no farms like there are around Tromsø, Norway. The warm ocean currents really make a difference, don’t they, Jeffh?
Crazy Tromso Tunnel – the Video
http://www.kiwitz.com/tromso-tunnel
“Troll-A Platform: Largest Object Ever Moved by Man March 12, 2013
The Troll A platform is an offshore natural gas platform in the Troll gas field off the west coast of Norway. At 1.2 million ton ballasted under tow, 472 meters high, with underwater concrete structure at 369 meters, and dry weight of 656,000 tons, the Troll A platform is a majestic piece of design and construction. Not only is Troll A among the largest and most complex engineering projects in history, it is the largest object ever to be moved by man across the surface of the Earth. The platform was a televised sensation when it was towed into the North Sea in 1996, where it is now operated by Statoil.”
“Transocean Sets World Record for Deepwater Drilling
Tuesday, July 09, 2013 Transocean Ltd. announced that its ultra-deepwater drillship Dhirubhai Deepwater KG1 has set a new world record for the deepest water depth by an offshore drilling rig.
The Dhirubhai Deepwater KG1 (UDW Drillship) recently drilled a well in 10,411 feet (3,174 meters) of water while working for India’s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) off the east coast of India.
“This accomplishment surpasses Transocean’s prior world record of 10,385 feet of water (3,165 meters) also set by the KG1 while working for ONGC in India in February,” Transocean said in a press release.
ONGC reported that well # 1-D-1 in Exploratory Block KG-DWN-2005/1 was spud June 18. Exploration well # 1-D-1 is the third well to be drilled beyond the 10,000 feet water depth mark.”
http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/127610/Transocean_Sets_World_Record_for_Deepwater_Drilling
Even were you to provide solid evidence that ‘J Doug Swallow’ is actually your real name you would still be no closer to attaining the right to breaching any other commenter’s anonymity.
Accusing people of hypocrisy because we are all structurally dependent on fossil fuels is a non sequitur. The culpability lies with governments and vested interest, not individuals.
Instead of spouting crap, you need to answer a simple question:
What are the implications for climate sensitivity of a ‘hot MWP’ during a period of minimal forcing change?
Even MikeN is telling you to buckle down to this, so let’s have an answer please.
Swallow, put a sock in it. The current rate of extinction exceeds the natural ‘background’ rate by at least 100 and quite probably more than 1000 times. Among taxonomic groups of which demographic data is known, between 20% and 40% are vulnerable, threatened or endangered. For insects and amphibians the picture is especially grim, but many vascular plants and other vertebrate and invertebrate taxa are in serious trouble too. The planet was estimated in 1998 to be losing as many as 30,000 genetically distinct populations per day (Hughes et al., 1998). Half of the world’s tropical wet forests are gone. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out the ramifications on biodiversity. Genetic diversity across the biosphere has decreased by over 60% since 1970 (Ripple et al., 2017). Marine fish like sharks are down by 97% over the past half century. Songbird populations are in freefall across the biosphere. We are well into the sixth mass extinction event in the planet’s history and you can try all you like but there is no way to sugarcoat it. Speciation rates come nowhere close to the genetic library we are losing in the Anthropocene.
Only 3% of cumulative mammalian biomass right now on Earth is made up by wild species. Thirty per cent is human and the other 67% is domestic livestock. Humans control over 40% of net primary productivity and 50% of freshwater flows. We are pushing complex adaptive systems towards a threshold beyond which they will be unable to support life in a manner that we take for granted.
Swallow, you are a moron. You are so far out of your depth here, and when it comes to ecology we are in a different intellectual universe. You didn’t even address Moore’s asinine comment. It is a joke. As I said before, extinction is not measured at the level of families. The shill is deliberately distorting science. He only gets away with it because some of the media let him. And you gobble his crap up.
Pathetic. Just pray that we never debate face-to-face. I would expose your ignorance in front of an audience. People like you illustrate the perils of social media. Before it came along you had little means of spreading your piffle. Now you have a platform. I for one shudder at your ignorance.
Ah, so we are down to childish arguments. Sorry, more childish.
For the sake of arguments, there are those who have a drinking problem, know it, and are working on reducing their intake.
And then, there are alcohol addicts who deny having a problem in the first place.
The latter are running headlong into an early grave. I would pity them, but they have the tragic tendency to ruin other people’s life along theirs.
Moreover:
Well, yes, so what?
A lotsa years ago, I read an opinion by a specialist in petrol-derived chemistry. His summary:
“Petroleum is a wonderful chemical mix, and what do we do with it? We burn it!”
I kinda like his take on this.
Plastic waste is another important ecological issue (we now have, what? 3 “continents” of floating plastic waste cruising around the oceans), but a distinct one from the burning of fossil fuel. I don’t see a contradiction between wanting to burn less petrol and keeping using petrol-made items.
In term of resource management, making – and recycling – things seem more wise than just burning them.
Maybe easier said than done, but, eh. If there is indeed a better use of petroleum than burning it, let’s try.
Let me clear this up now, my contention was to this statement of yours:
which produced a series of coy responses from you when asked to provide evidence that Mann said what you allege, stop going off piste away from this contention. But then your thinking often appears woolly and your statements garbled.
Without confirmatory evidence that Mann said what you allege your post is worthless, worse than that in fact.
JDS opines:
Patrick Moore has done many great things in a similar vein to Vlad the Impaler, anything else is in your distorted world view JDS from either inhabiting an epistemic bubble or being mendacious.
Elsewhere you linked to American Thinker, no surprise there for they are of extreme right wing views as with the Globe and Mail which you also used, this also has history.
To follow on from what Lionel says, I am sure that logging industries that obliterated many of the coastal wet forests of North America feel that Moore did some great things for them by providing cover for their ecocide.
Truth is, Moore is an abomination. Using an old affiliation with Greenpeace to gain credibility for defending polluting and environmentally destructive industrial practices is proof, if any were ever needed, that the man has no soul. And worse, then claiming that he is still an environmentalist is enough to make anyone cringe.
I lived in Sitka, Alaska for many years and, in case you are unaware of this fact, the Tongass National Forest in Southeast Alaska is the largest national forest in the United States & it is a renewable resource. You spend all of your time bad mouthing anyone who does not agree with your insane hypotheses about how your invented devil in the sky, carbon dioxide, is in some unknown manner going to cause the Earth to be incinerated, and soon, if one pays any attention to the equally ignorant spokes people for this hoax, such as a 16 year old girl from Sweden, Greta Thunberg, and a bartender from New York City, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. This ‘green new deal’ is just another way the left’s “progressives” believe that they can gain control over the nation’s energy and in doing so its economy. None of the socialist/communist who parrot the plans of the GND have any background in climatology. It is beyond stupid that these neophytes to the science of a changing climate; such as the old socialist, Bernie Sanders, the bartender, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or the lack luster Democratic Senator from Rhode Island, Sheldon Whitehouse, who is always spouting some nonsense about a subject that he knows nothing about, climate change, while hoping that his training as a lawyer will give him insight into the issue. I will take what people such as Dr. John Christy: “Ph.D., Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, 1987 M.S., Atmospheric Sciences, , University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, 1984; B.A., Mathematics, California State University, Fresno, 1969” and also
“Richard Siegmund Lindzen who is a Harvard-trained atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 books and scientific papers. He has been a critic of some anthropogenic global warming theories and the alleged political pressures on climate scientists”, have to say regarding the subject of AGW. I tend to listen to Dr. Christy, Dr. Spencer and Dr. Lindzen before paying much attention to Bernie Sanders, the bartender, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or the lawyer, Sheldon Whitehouse or some clown who goes by the alias Jeffh because he does not have enough confidence in his beliefs to use his real name.
Patrick Moore has for sure accomplished much more during his life that some person who uses the alias, Jeffh instead of his real name while telling everyone who reads his arrogant trash about how great he believes himself to be. Everyone knows who Patrick Moore is, and what he stands for, while no one even knows your name and therefore nothing about you other than the lies you offer up on that dismal subject of just who Jeffh is, according to Jeffh. At least Patrick Moore, after studying the issue, knows that CO2 does not cause the climate to change and that is something that you will never come to understand due to utter ignorance.
“The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it” H L Mencken
Problem is, Lindzen, Christy and Spencer have failed to make a scientific case. Between them they’ve produced a handful of flawed papers none of which has withstood scrutiny.
It is an indisputable matter of fact that the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence shows that modern warming is predominantly CO2-forced, entirely anthropogenic in origin and potentially extremely dangerous.
You can choose to ignore this indisputable matter of fact and indulge in ad hominem spattered rants about your political enemies, but it won’t change the facts and isn’t the hallmark of rational thinking.
Yes, I did just call you a nutter.
Yes, he’s a prolific industry shill who stands for the very worst that money can buy.
JDS tries again to shore up the reputation of liar Patrick Moore and once again cites those who have made a career out of being wrong.
Heck, JDS I pointed out how reliable John Christy is on another thread here only two weeks ago. You really are tedious and tiresome.
As for Tricky Dickie Lindzen this article demonstrates the odious nature of that creature: If Richard Lindzen Shows up at your door, slam it.
As usual, BBD puts no thought into what they maintain when he/she said that; ” Problem is, Lindzen, Christy and Spencer have failed to make a scientific case. Between them they’ve produced a handful of flawed papers none of which has withstood scrutiny.” That is a total lie. These three scientist have done more actual scientific work on this issue than any of your ignorant alarmist who have no background in climatology.
“Dr. John R. Christy is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville where he began studying global climate issues in 1987. Since November 2000 he has been Alabama’s State Climatologist.”
“In 1989 Dr. Roy W. Spencer (then a NASA/Marshall scientist and now a Principle Research Scientist at UAH) and Christy developed a global temperature data set from microwave data observed from satellites beginning in 1979. For this achievement, the Spencer-Christy team was awarded NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991. In 1996, they were selected to receive a Special Award by the American Meteorological Society “for developing a global, precise record of earth’s temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate.” In January 2002 Christy was inducted as a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.”
“Richard Siegmund Lindzen who is a Harvard-trained atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 books and scientific papers. He has been a critic of some anthropogenic global warming theories and the alleged political pressures on climate scientists”
Now you poor clueless alarmist are down to relying on 16 year old Swedish girls and bartenders from New York City to try to make your flawed and basically untenable case about something that is not happening, the Earth being incinerated by a trace gas that is only between .03 and .04% of the total atmosphere of the Earth. It appears that to believe that one must be a dishonest liar.
Is this what the Earth that has a fever is doing in 2010?
“New Record for Coldest Place on Earth, in Antarctica
Scientists measure lowest temperature on Earth via satellites
[…]Using new satellite data, scientists have measured the most frigid temperature ever recorded on the continent’s eastern highlands: about -136°F (-93°C)—colder than dry ice.
The temperature breaks the 30-year-old record of about -128.6°F (-89.2°C), measured by the Vostok weather station in a nearby location. (Related: “South Pole Expeditions Then and Now: How Does Their Food and Gear Compare?”)
Although they announced the new record this week, the temperature record was set on August 10, 2010.”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131210-coldest-place-on-earth-antarctica-science/
I know from experience in dealing with your dishonesty and lack of education that you will not understand what this research is telling you, Give it a try and report back. BTW, South Africa is a long way from Scandinavia. People are lucky that the temp is not as cold as it was during the Maunder Minimum when it was 1.4°C colder than today.
Evidence of a large cooling between 1690 and 1740 AD in southern Africa
Published: 03 May 2013
Abstract
A 350-year-long, well-dated ?18O stalagmite record from the summer rainfall region in South Africa is positively correlated with regional air surface temperatures at interannual time scales. The coldest period documented in this record occurred between 1690 and 1740, slightly lagging the Maunder Minimum (1645–1710). A temperature reconstruction, based on the correlation between regional surface temperatures and the stalagmite ?18O variations, indicates that parts of this period could have been as much as 1.4°C colder than today. Significant cycles of 22, 11 and 4.8 years demonstrate that the solar magnetic and the El Niño-Southern Oscillation cycle could be important drivers of multidecadal to interannual climate variability in this region. The observation that the most important driver of stalagmite ?18O on interannual time scales from this subtropical region is regional surface temperature cautions against deterministic interpretations of ?18O variations in low-latitude stalagmites as mainly driven by the amount of precipitation.
Evidence of a large cooling between 1690 and 1740 AD in southern Africa
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep01767
Unlike you, neither Lindzen nor Christy nor Spencer denies the well understood radiative properties of CO2 or other greenhouse gasses. So, why do you endorse their work instead of arguing that they are deluded, ignorant and wrong?
You deny the fact that CO2 is a climate forcing greenhouse gas, eg. here:
As I said, you are operating in an alternative physical universe to Lindzen, Christy and Spencer. So why are you endorsing their work?
I want an answer this time.
And yet *again* you confuse a regional study with GLOBAL AVERAGE temperature…
If you were to combine almost seven hundred proxies from around the entire world as, say, PAGES2K did, and then analyse the results, as eg. Neucom et al. (2019) did (op cit), then you would discover that:
PAGES2K (2013) op cit. Emphasis mine.
Can you not read, I answered this in the post immediately above the one from which I have quoted you.
Richard S Lindzen is a one time scientist since engaged in advocacy on behalf of fossil fuel interests.
From the link I provided I have extracted this, which informs on what sort of creep Lindzen has been.
Source
The more you continue the more your credibility sinks like Lindzen’s.
I well remember the deception he perpetrated on a layman audience, some of whom were aiding and abetting him, is a side room of The House of Commons in the UK.
Lindzen’s behaviour has, and his statements have, been roundly criticized.
“Misrepresentation from Lindzen”
No more Lindzen nonsense from you sir.
Jeffh taking JDS to task wrote:
A must read text that provides some insight into the damage wreaked on the ecosystems of the Northwest Pacific coast by logging and other activities is , ‘Book Two Northwest’, in Carl Safina’s Song for the Blue Ocean. Although this book is now about two decades old I have little reason to hope that things have improved much either along the Pacific Nortwest or other areas around the globe where shocking practices are decimating (or worse) vulnerable habitats. So many seem to have forgotten the lesson of the ‘Goose that Laid the Golden Egg’
The idea that one can cut down trees, disturb their habitat and simply plant new ones ad infinitum is total nonsense and based upon ignorance of what trees are, how they work and the ecosystems they support and which support them.
A useful book on trees is that by Colin Tudge, “The Tree: A Natural History of What Trees Are, How They Live, and Why They Matter” which for some strange reason was published in the US under this title Secret Life of Trees
I have one hell of a reading list at the moment, on many topics not least imperialism [1] but aim to explore this further by more recent publications. I picked up some of interest at Hay-on-Wye (the town of books) recently.
[1] With an accent on British imperialisms in India – patriotic jingoism bah humbug!
“At least Patrick Moore, after studying the issue”…
I had to pick myself up off the floor after that one. Moore, a layman, ”studied the issue”?! Are you frigging serious? Well of course you are because you are stupid.
Moore read a pre-prepared script. He said what his paymasters wanted him to say.
And being known does not equate to being respected. Most people know Stalin. And Hitler. And Mao. They also know what they stood for. Enough said.
On September 17, 2019 I had posted a series of very cold events that occurred in January of 2016 that were all prefaced with scientific studies, complete with links, that had been done that conclude that cold events cause more human fatalities worldwide than what hot events do. These January, 2016 cold events occurred in India, Russia, China, Ukraine, Mongolia, Japan, United States and Vietnam; so, they were widely spread around the globe in the last few days of January, 2016.
Naturally, as expected, I receive this garbage from the spreader of trash himself, Jeffh, who told me this on September 17, 2019 at 9:32 am. “All of these are WEATHER EVENTS you fool. Several of them occurred during the warmest year on record – 2016. Whoever said that there would not be any cold weather again?”
Jeffh had offered up these inane comments regarding the temperature record that had been broken last summer in France. Jeffh was desperate to try to blame his devil in the sky, CO2, for this 2°C over the previous record set in Paris 72 years ago; so, he came up with more weather events; such as, “Belgium, Germany, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom ALL broke their all-time heat records just this summer”
Jeffh sputters out this nonsense; “The important point is what longer-term trends tell us, and they show unambiguously that the planet is warming. How much does it take to get this through your Pachycephalosaurian skull? Stop conflating weather and climate. Just stop! I am sick of your crap.”
These graphs demonstrate that when Jeffh says; “The important point is what longer-term trends tell us, and they show unambiguously that the planet is warming” he is not stating the truth. All of these graphs show a decline in the temperature peaks of the recent past.
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/CM_7_2017_TLT_time_Series_compare_w_v33.png
https://sealevel.info/GISS_vs_UAH_and_HadCRUT_1958-2018_woodfortrees_annot2.png
uah6/nean:12
WoodForTrees.org
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/plot/uah6/mean:12
I am not sick of seeing Jeffh lie and then act like what he said is the truth, when I present Jeffh with evidence, all he does is prevaricate because he does not know what the truth is. It is fun to see what new lies that he will come up with.
Athaic lies and said that; “Climate scientists never said there will be no more winter.”
1.) Scientists predicted in 2000 that kids would grow up without snow. It was 14 years ago now when UK climate scientists argued that global warming would make snowfall a “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” Dr. David Viner, a scientist with the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia, told the UK Independent in 2000.
After the wettest winter in 248 years, the UK was hit with snowstorms last week. Last year, the UK’s climate authority predicted that this winter would be drier than usual, with only a 15 percent chance of being wet. They were very wrong.
https://dailycaller.com/2014/03/04/top-5-failed-snow-free-and-ice-free-predictions/
While Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is no more of a climate scientist than what Jeffh is that did not keep him from offering up this bit of nonsense.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who flies around on private planes so as to tell larger numbers of people how they must live their lives in order to save the planet, wrote a column last year on the lack of winter weather in Washington, D.C.
In Virginia, the weather also has changed dramatically. Recently arrived residents in the northern suburbs, accustomed to today’s anemic winters, might find it astonishing to learn that there were once ski runs on Ballantrae Hill in McLean, with a rope tow and local ski club. Snow is so scarce today that most Virginia children probably don’t own a sled. But neighbors came to our home at Hickory Hill nearly every winter weekend to ride saucers and Flexible Flyers.
In those days, I recall my uncle, President Kennedy, standing erect as he rode a toboggan in his top coat, never faltering until he slid into the boxwood at the bottom of the hill. Once, my father, Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, brought a delegation of visiting Eskimos home from the Justice Department for lunch at our house. They spent the afternoon building a great igloo in the deep snow in our backyard. My brothers and sisters played in the structure for several weeks before it began to melt. On weekend afternoons, we commonly joined hundreds of Georgetown residents for ice skating on Washington’s C&O Canal, which these days rarely freezes enough to safely skate.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rfk-jr-15-months-ago-global-warming-means-no-snow-or-cold-in-dc
Rags like Dailycaller and Washington Examiner as your sources? Try again.
I did say climate scientist. Show me a paper by a climate scientist saying there will be no snow by 2020.
Half-assed interviews, celebrities opinions, quote-mined scientists and sensational movies don’t count.
Also, I’ll agree with you on a point, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is not a climate scientist. Or a scientist. For me, he is a crank antivaxer milking his family’s renown.
Although I’ll agree with RFK jr on a point – like him, I noticed in my country that making igloo and snowmen is not as easy as in my youth. And I’m in a European country, not in the US.
Weird, isn’t it? In two different countries, at a scale larger than local weather patterns, a trend for less snow. Not inexistant, but late-coming, and less of it.
Swallow is lying again. He is an inveterate liar, but we all know that by now.
August has just been announced as the second warmest on record after the warmest ever July. 2018 looks to come in at #2 after 2016.
There you go, Obliterated Swallow in 2 sentences. He needs pages of rant to get his lies across. It is warming. Stick that in your mouth, Swallow.
Again, Swallow cites a single scientist (David Viner) in an attempt to smear tens of thousands of scientists by suggesting they are claiming that winter is a thing of the past. This is beyond despicable of him. It is parody. That is like saying that a single doctor claims that we will cure cancer within 10 years and a dopey idiot like Swallow uses this to smear thousands of other doctors by association. Has this old fool no shame?
Besides, a paper published by American Geophysical Union last year by researchers at Wageningen University shows a dramatic decline in snow cover across northern Europen countries over several decades. The trends are absolutely clear.
A new paper just published in Science by Rosenberg et al. report a loss of almost 3 billion birds since 1970, or 29% of the total numbers of birds at that time. I wonder how a monstrous shill like Patrick Moore will respond to this? By claiming that all is fine because no ‘families went extinct’?
I am a population ecologist Swallow. I am far better-equipped than you to evaluate scientific protocol. I defer to scientists who study climate because my education has taught me where my limitations are. You, a Dunning-Kruger afflicted nobody, has no such self-restraint.
Now go away. You are annoying me.
These graphs demonstrate that when Jeffh says; “August has just been announced as the second warmest on record after the warmest ever July. 2018 looks to come in at #2 after 2016” he is not stating the truth. All of these graphs show a decline in the temperature peaks of the recent past.
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/CM_7_2017_TLT_time_Series_compare_w_v33.png
Can you take the time away from your childish attempt to slander me and explain why the GISS graph shows O.9?C in 60 years while is shows the UAH6 + HadCRUT to be 0.4?C in 60 years.
https://sealevel.info/GISS_vs_UAH_and_HadCRUT_1958-2018_woodfortrees_annot2.png
uah6/nean:12
WoodForTrees.org
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/plot/uah6/mean:12
Jeffh states, without he courtesy of a link, that “A new paper just published in Science by Rosenberg et al. report a loss of almost 3 billion birds since 1970, or 29% of the total numbers of birds at that time” I had no idea that the wind turbines around the world, that produce little electricity, have had this much of a massive effect on the bird population.
“Birds killed by Wind turbines
The most recent number, published by analyst K. Shawn Smallwood in the March 2013 issue of the Wildlife Society Bulletin, is the highest to date.
He estimates that in 2012 turbines across the United States killed 573,000 birds, including 83,000 raptors. The number of bats killed, he reports, was even higher: 888,000.
His research was published just as the U.S. Department of the Interior and its agencies issued or were considering permits for wind-power companies to kill iconic and, in some cases, endangered bird species:
• The Interior Department may allow companies to apply for unprecedented 30-year permits to kill a set number of Bald or Golden Eagles at wind farms. The proposal is said to be under review at the White House.
• The Fish and Wildlife Service may permit a proposed 100-turbine wind farm located in the prairie potholes region of North Dakota to kill endangered Whooping Cranes and threatened Piping Plovers.
• And in late May, the Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife said they would grant, for the first time, a wind farm the ability to kill an endangered California Condor without danger of prosecution.” http://www.birdwatchingdaily.com/blog/2013/07/17/new-study-estimates-573000-birds-died-at-wind-farms-last-year/
“ExtremeTech.com reported on California’s new solar power plant claiming it is “actually a death ray that’s incinerating birds mid-flight.” So noteworthy is the death and destruction that NBC actually ran a report on its “Today Show” highlighting what ground engineers at one such plant call “streamers” – birds catching fire and leaving a stream of smoke behind as they plummet to the ground dead. Websites and news sources reporting similar phenomena of birds being microwaved in midair pepper the internet. Wind farms are no better.”
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/05/new_energy_vs_the_birds.html
If you were to look into what has been reported in this Berkeley study on extinctions, you could possibly come to understand that the Earth has been through many different types of climates during its 4.5 billion years of existence and maybe even understand that carbon dioxide had nothing to do with any of these changes, such as the Earth entering into the last known Ice Age and then recovering from what seems to be the norm for the earth, cold periods. What did CO2 have to do with the last Ice Age? Then you alarmist are so happy when some clown named Michael Mann conjures up a graph using a few tree rings from Siberia and, like magic, gets rid of the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm period and forgets that there was a recent Little Ice Age. Then you claim to be a scientist.
Extinction is ‘normal’ • >99% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct • Extinction rates have varied quite a bit through time • Different groups have different characteristic species durations: Mammals: ~ 2 million years Foraminifera: ~ 20 million years
Conclusions:
• The Late Ordovician glaciation was at least as large, in
terms of ice volumes, as the Pleistocene glaciation
• Tropical seawater temperatures fell by ~5º C during the
Late Ordovician glacial maximum
• Growth of glaciers caused sea levels to fall and drove a
massive reduction in the area of shallow seaways
• Reduction of shallow seaways combined with cooling
temperatures led to large-scale habitat loss and
resulting extinction
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/about/shortcourses/Finnegan_UCMP_2014.pdf
Jeffh states; “Besides, a paper published by American Geophysical Union last year by researchers at Wageningen University shows a dramatic decline in snow cover across northern Europen countries over several decades. The trends are absolutely clear”
Was that report by Wageningen University peer reviewed because no one seems to agree with their findings, other than you, it seems? You really should vet your sources better.
2018 Annual Report
“Annual snow cover extent (SCE) over Northern Hemisphere lands averaged 25.6 million square kilometers in 2018. This is 0.5 million sq. km more than the 49-year average, and ranks 2018 as having the 12th most extensive cover on record…”
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/index.php
“Spectacular satellite view of snow cover across northern Europe, Feb 20th
20 February 2019
Early afternoon analysis of the satellite image across Fennoscandia reveals some impressive features – most of the region is covered in snow, except for far south Sweden. The higher terrain of Norway and Sweden has huge amounts of snow. In addition, the northern parts of the Gulf of Bothnia has quite significant ice thickness. We can also see the sea-effect convective bands towards Estonia and also from the Arctic sea onto the northern Norway.
Here is today’s snow coverage across Europe, revealing a good coverage across N Europe and Iceland, but also some snow across parts of Turkey, Balkan peninsula and indeed the Alps.”
http://www.severe-weather.eu/recent-events/spectacular-satellite-view-of-snow-cover-across-the-northern-europe-feb-20th/
North American Snow Cover Is the Most It’s Been in Mid-October in 13 Years October 15 2018
At a Glance
“Mid-October snow cover across North America is the largest it’s been since 2005.
Canada has the largest amount of snow cover.
The snowpack could help feed early-season cold weather in parts of the United States.
Early fall has already brought plenty of winter weather to parts of North America, pushing the continent to its largest snow cover extent for mid-October in more than a decade.
The area covered by snow in North America as of Sunday was 7.77 million square kilometers (3 million square miles), according to an analysis from NOAA. No other Oct. 14 has had a snow cover extent that large in records dating to 2005.”
https://weather.com/storms/winter/news/2018-10-15-largest-middle-october-snow-cover-13-years-north-america
Could this be the report that Jeffh is wanting folks to believe because it mentions his devil in the sky, CO2?
Snow Cover Changes
Chapter · March 2017
Greenhouse gas-induced warming and moistening of mid- to high latitudes, increased incoming longwave radiation, and Arctic green-up are all drivers of a changing snow cover, and there is growing evidence from surface and satellite observations of significant changes in seasonal snow cover: significant declines in spring snow cover duration are observed across the NH, and significant decreases in winter snowpack are observed over mid-latitudes, particularly coastal mountains.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315397739_Snow_Cover_Changes
I do not know where Athaic lives; but, I wonder if he has heard about the winter of 2015 in the US? I’m sure that I’m inline to get a lecture from the professor about the difference between weather and climate, I know, the same Jeffh that was telling me about the recent hot spell in Europe when France broke a 72 year old record by 2 ?C.
Record snowfall blankets New England as ‘relentless’ winter drags on: ‘It’s ridiculous’ FEB 10, 2015
BOSTON — Snow-choked New England braced for more winter grief later in the week as people dug out from another 2 feet of snow Tuesday amid below-freezing temperatures and stranded Boston commuters scrambled to find other ways to get to work.
Officials considered dumping the latest snow by the truckload into the ocean, and forecasters warned that more snow is possible Thursday and again over the weekend.
More than 2 feet of fresh snow piled up in parts of New England on Monday, breaking records set during the Blizzard of 1978 and testing the patience of officials and commuters as forecasters warned of more winter misery later in the week.
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ridiculous-record-snowfall-blankets-new-england-article-1.2109366
I’m sure that Jeffh can conjure up a way to link these people dying from severe cold off the Italian coast to his devil in the sky, CO2, that is causing the planet to incinerate, at least according to Jeffh.
29 African migrants die of severe cold off Italian coast By AFP Updated Tuesday, February 10th 2015 Share this story: ROME: Twenty-nine African migrants intercepted by Italian authorities while trying to reach Europe by boat in rough and icy conditions have died of hypothermia, most after being rescued, sources told AFP Monday.
https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2000151262/29-african-migrants-die-of-severe-cold-off-italian-coast/
JDS repeated:
channelling Dr David Viner via the Daily Caller, cough!
It is no surprise that the likes of Delingpole, notalotyofpeopleknowthat, climatism, whatsupwiththat and realclimate science have pushed this meme. That tells one all one needs to know about the nature of that story, context lacking baffle gab.
JDS then offers a kludged Wood for trees using simplistic parameters.
Try one like this JDS which does not relying on the infamous UAH data to try to make a point. You do know about the issues surrounding UAH do you not, I have alluded to these in a reply to you previously.
Here try this, one I created previously but have extended the dates on. Previously it was based on the time period the infamous Monkton and the GWPF had used to baffle laymen so as to demonstrated the deception those entities perpetrated, which was some time ago now – about 2012.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/every/plot/rss/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/every/plot/gistemp/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/trend/plot/uah6/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/trend
It is the trend — stupid. Note how UAH tracks below all the others!
Better class of troll required.
JDS
Now here for this plot I have added another UAH series plot to make the point absolutely clear.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/every/plot/rss/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/every/plot/gistemp/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/trend/plot/uah6/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/trend/plot/uah6/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/every
Lionel A needs to go to his optometrist if he can’t see what this graph is pointing out to his unseeing eyes and non-believing mind that is so fogged by the brainwashing about this hoax of AGW that he continues to be submitted to. It is amazing that he is so dense that he cannot see that ALL but one of the organisations reporting is going DOWN in the last part of the report on Sept 2019. He also cannot see that 2016 was the high for the different reports nor can he cope with the fact that the temperatures are differentiated in tenths of degrees. I’m sure, being the true believing alarmist that he is, he can tell if the temperature of his cave goes up or down by 0.2 degrees.
Hadcrut3vsh/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/trend
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vsh/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/trend/plot/uah6/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/trend/plot/uah6/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/every
What the fuck are you blithering about now?
Here are the temperature data, correctly presented on a common 1981 – 2010 baseline as used by UAH.
– Note that the full extent of the satellite record is shown from its inception in 1979, not a cherry pick start from the peak of 1997/8 super El Nino event.
– Note that the obsolete HadCRUT3 southern hemisphere data are not used (why, in a comparison of GLOBAL temperatures?).
– Note that the obsolete HadCRUT3SH data *ends* at 2014.33 *NOT* 2019.67 as misleadingly entered into the end field. This curve is therefore triply misleading: cherry-picked start and end points and SH only, not global.
You are either completely incapable of using WfT to present temp data or you are being dishonest.
JDS take note:
Source
Try harvesting some manganese nodules whilst scouring the ocean depths for your integrity.
Thanks Lionel. I am by now sick to death of this brainless, arrogant vile excuse of a human being. He has been taken to task over his cherry-picked lies and now he thinks he can lecture me of all people about biodiversity. He does not understand regression analysis and its significance i extrapolating trends. I stead, he selects single outlying data points and blows them out of all proportion. He dismisses inconvenient truths i.e. the ratio of warm: cold records globally (currently at 4:1 and rising) and he ignores piles of research showing an increase in extreme climatic events such as heat waves and droughts.
He ignores by now thousands of studies showing biotic responses to recent warming. The empirical literature is full of them in terrestrial above and belowground ecosystems as well as freshwater and marine systems. They show polewards and elevational shifts in distribution, changes in seasonal and trophic phenology and a suite of other effects. It is warming! I don’t give a rat’s ass what this bombastic, narcissistic oaf believes.
As for his kindergarten-level extinction rant, its hard to know where to begin demolishing it, there are so many fatal flaws in his screed. First of all, the planet has lost over 60% of genetic diversity since 1970. THIS IS NOT NATURAL! It is anthropogenic. Extinction rates exceed natural background rates by 1000 times or more. And wind turbines have only been around a decade or so – birds have been in freefall for decades. Wind turbines are not extirpating fish, amphibians, reptiles, arthropods and vascular plants. To blame them for the loss of almost 3 billion birds in North America is beyond satire. Only a complete ignoramus would focus on this as a causal factor, but Swallow fits the description. Saying that 99% of species that ever existed are extinct is a huge strawman. That is like a genocidal dictator claiming that his mass slaughter of civilians is ‘natural’ because most of the people who ever lived are no longer alive. Such an argument is not even worthy of a polite response.
Biodiversity is threatened by many factors, with habitat loss and fragmentation by far the worst, but it is synergized with climate change, invasive species, chemical and other pollution, overharvesting and others. All are part of the mix.
As I said earlier, Swallow’s views are contaminated by his vile, right wing political ideology. He has been thuggishly swamping blogs with garbage for several years now and he doesn’t like being called out. I wish he would stfu.
He is an engineer, so had only basic (if any) exposure to statistics. His ignorance is a feature, not a bug.
It is almost impossible to believe that this guy, Jeffh, is actually a professor teaching impressionable young people. He whips out this unsubstantiated comment: “First of all, the planet has lost over 60% of genetic diversity since 1970. THIS IS NOT NATURAL! It is anthropogenic. Extinction rates exceed natural background rates by 1000 times or more.”
“Luckily, even after 250 years of professionals documenting thousands of new plants and animals every year, the rate at which new species are discovered remains relatively stable. Somewhere between 15,000 and 18,000 new species are identified each year, with about half of those being insects. However, that number is somewhat misleading: it also includes the correction of taxonomic mistakes, movements from one family to another, and decisions that will end up being overruled in years to come.”
http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/new-animal-species
“Eight million, seven hundred thousand species (give or take 1.3 million). That is a new, estimated total number of species on Earth — the most precise calculation ever offered — with 6.5 million species found on land and 2.2 million (about 25 percent of the total) dwelling in the ocean depths.
Announced today by Census of Marine Life scientists, the figure is based on an innovative, validated analytical technique that dramatically narrows the range of previous estimates. Until now, the number of species on Earth was said to fall somewhere between 3 million and 100 million.
Furthermore, the study, published by PLoS Biology, says a staggering 86% of all species on land and 91% of those in the seas have yet to be discovered, described and catalogued.
Dr. Worm notes that the recently-updated Red List issued by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature assessed 59,508 species, of which 19,625 are classified as threatened. This means the IUCN Red List, the most sophisticated ongoing study of its kind, monitors less than 1% of world species.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110823180459.htm
“NAGOYA, Aichi, Japan, October 26, 2010 (ENS) – At least 1,200 new species have been discovered in the Amazon ecosystem, at an average rate of one every three days during the decade from 1999 through 2009, the global conservation organization WWF revealed today in a new report.
This is a greater number of species than the combined total of new species found over a similar 10-year period in other areas of high biological diversity – including Borneo, the Congo Basin and the Eastern Himalayas, WWF said in the report, “Amazon Alive!: A Decade of Discoveries 1999-2009.”
Presented to delegates from 193 countries at the UN Convention on Biodiversity in Nagoya, the WWF report details the discoveries of 39 mammals, 16 birds, 55 reptiles, 216 amphibians, 257 fish and 637 plants – all new to science.”
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2010/2010-10-26-01.html
It appears that the professor is not with it enough to understand how stupid this comment is; “Saying that 99% of species that ever existed are extinct is a huge strawman”, means that he is not able to use deductive reasoning to trace down the source of the observation: a pdf put together by “The University of California at Berkeley that is a public research university in Berkeley, California. Founded in 1868, Berkeley is the flagship institution of the ten research universities affiliated with the University of California system”. If you have a problem with what they found and reported, then by all means take your concerns up with The University of California at Berkeley.
Lionel, BBD, Athaic. Swallow is a textbook example of the worst kind of internet troll. It is certainly my fault for feeding his trough but the only way to shut him up is not to give him oxygen. He feasts off of it. He has an abominable record of contaminating progressive blogs with his vile bluster for at least several years now. As I have said before, one of the perils of social media is that it has given these bombastic idiots a platform to spread their disinformation, and they are taking advantage of it. They have been let out of the cage, so to speak. Everything Swallow blathers on about here is wrong and violates the scientific method. He can set the rules for discussion and there is no way to deal with that. Anyone can see that we are wiping the floor with him except himself because he lives within a bubble.
I am working on two major manuscripts right now and I am sick of his outright ignorance. I will not give him any more attention. He can take his stupidity elsewhere.
He’s boring. Not a worse social crime than being a voluble denier online by any stretch, but I prefer deniers that have a clue and engage.
Is it possible that Jeffh is into some kind of mind altering drug? On September 10, 2019 at 5:13 am, Jeffh offered up this counsel to his valiant followers; “To fellow loathers of Swallow on here some advice: Dr. Dade. Don’t respond, don’t answer, don’t engage. Starve him of the oxygen he craves”. It appears that from all of his diatribes since that was posted by him where he did submit the interesting cartoon, https://xkcd.com/1732/, and a few links to the cartoonist, John Cook’s site, ‘skeptical science’, and to Peter Sinclair’s site, ‘Climate Crocks’ that Jeffh is too shallow to even abide by his own commands regarding someone that dares to present he and his followers with the truth about his hoax of AGW.
This is his current plea and I imagine that soon he will try to get me banned by Greg Laden, like he has done before; “Lionel, BBD, Athaic. Swallow is a textbook example of the worst kind of internet troll. It is certainly my fault for feeding his trough but the only way to shut him up is not to give him oxygen. He feasts off of it. He has an abominable record of contaminating progressive blogs with his vile bluster for at least several years now”.
These select few brilliant people had a far different view of having a debate than what you will ever have.
“The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement” — Karl Popper
“Skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the unpardonable sin.” Huxley
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of the truth“ Albert Einstein
“Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths.”
Karl Popper
“Those who promise us paradise on earth never produced anything but a hell.”
Karl Popper
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”
Galileo Galile
“The important thing is not to stop questioning”.
Albert Einstein
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
Albert Einstein
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.” Mark Twain
“Scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the unpardonable sin.” Huxley
As Bertrand Russell said: “The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” Bertrand Russell
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” Benjamin Franklin
(excuse me Jeffh; but, Benjamin Franklin must have had you in mind when he wrote this one.)
“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.” — Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled “The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere” and he published a paper in August 2009 titled “Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.”
“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” — Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University.
Czech President Vaclav Klaus.
“Global Warming is a way to kill democracy.” I’m afraid that again there will be a society organized, masterminded, regulated, controlled from above by the ‘anointed’, by the people who know better than the rest of us what to do. . I’m afraid this is something we went through it in the past.”
“It is a new ideology a new ‘ism’. . Communism is over but they think ‘global alarmism’ is a very good idea.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people
come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and
scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning
PhD environmental physical chemist.
Don’t feed the troll. Starve him of the attention he craves. BBD is right. He is clueless when it comes to methodology. His speciation comment, when put in a proper scientific context, comes straight out of a comic book. He doesn’t have a basic understanding of population genetics or grasp the meaning of genotype. He doesn’t know anything the link between adaptive radiation and genetic variability. Extinction is not absolute. The loss of genetic variability is the road to extinction and it is happening. Essentially, we are not witnessing only the 6th great extinction event in the planet’s history, but the first great extermination event, caused by us.
Swallow is a great example of how a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. He gleans tidbits here and there from online sources and, combined with his enormous ego, this has created a toxic cocktail.
I have no more intention of descending to his no higher than junior high school level understanding of population ecology or genetics. I know a million times more than he does because I have worked in these fields for 25 years. If he could come down off of his Mount Olympus-sized, Dunning-Kruger-infused cloud of stupidity, and for once in his damned life admit that there are monstrous gaps in his knowledge, I would engage with him. But he is a pompous a** and I am sick of him.
I recently watched this debate and Dr. Patrick Moore and Dr. Judith Curry made Michael Mann look like the clueless fool that he is.
Climate Debate – Mann vs Curry & Moore June 2018
Charleston, West Virginia, June 12, 2018.
Dr. Michael Mann, Dr. David Titley, Dr. Patrick Moore and Dr. Judith Curry met in to discuss climate change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVXHaSqpsVg
The fact that Dr. Judith Curry made the transition from somehow believing that the trace gas CO2 could possibly cause the climate to change to knowing that this concept is a hoax began with her seeing the deception and lying that was associated with the climate gate emails as posted on Greg Laden’s site where he quotes her saying this;
In her most recent post, Judith Curry says:
In hindsight, the way the Climategate emails was rolled out, after very careful scrutiny by the targeted bloggers, was handled pretty responsibly. Lets face it – “Mike’s Nature trick” to “hide the decline” means . . . “Mike’s Nature trick” to “hide the decline.”
Then to have David Titley stand up and lie about the Navy Base at Norfolk, VA being in trouble from sea level rise shows just how dishonest and what a lying bunch of charlatans these alarmist are.
Relative Sea Level Trend
8638660 Portsmouth, Virginia
• EXPORT TO TEXT | EXPORT TO CSV | SAVE IMAGE
The relative sea level trend is 3.76 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 0.45 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1935 to 1987 which is equivalent to a change of 1.23 feet in 100 years.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8638660
I know that the US Navy will be able to deal with a rise in sea level of 1.23 feet in 100 years.
There was no sign of the one who will not use his real name, Jeffh, who by his estimation states; “I know a million times more than he does because I have worked in these fields for 25 years.” and for 25 years the poor fool has been wrong and too ignorant to ever realize just how mistaken that he is due to the unscientific remark above. This reminds me of how terribly wrong the Church was when they put Galileo under house arrest for maintaining that the sun was the center of the solar system.
Jeffh needs to refresh himself on how things turned out for the church when Pope Paul V weighed in on what were really matters of science and not theological concerns. The church never really lived that down and now Jeffh seems to be intent on making a mistake every bit as serious regarding something that he evidently knows nothing about; climate change, by trying to tell all who will listen that it is carbon dioxide that causes the climate to change.
“The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both psychologically and theologically false, and at the least an error of faith.”
Formal Church declaration in its indictment of Galileo
To which Galileo replied:
“The doctrine of the movements of the earth and the fixity of the sun is condemned on the ground that the Scriptures speak in many places of the sun moving and the earth standing still… I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments and demonstrations.”
“To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin.”
Cardinal Bellarmine, during the trial of Galileo, 1615
“One Galileo in two thousand years is enough.”
Pope Pius XII
“Because I have been enjoined, by this Holy Office, to abandon the false opinion that the Sun is the center and immovable, …I abjure, curse, and detest the said errors and heresies…contrary to the said Holy Church.”
Galileo Galilei, recanting his beliefs under threat of torture and death by the Holy Church, June 22, 1633
http://www.freethought.mbdojo.com/galileo.html
The Galileo gambit, really?
Sir, I knew Galileo.
Galileo was my friend.
You, Sir, are no Galileo.
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers.
But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Carl Sagan.
Which compares apples to oranges using cherry picking, using Hadcrut 3 for Southern Hemisphere only. Why do you think the plot stops at 2015?
You are paying no attention to what you are being told.
Here is the goods:
HadCRUT4: A detailed look
and
HadCRUT3: Cool or Uncool?
Now your version of woodfortrees with plots for HadCrut4 added:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/trend/plot/uah6/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/trend/plot/uah6/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/every/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/every
JDS you are an absolute mendacious tosser.
Just seen your response BBD, it was up thread so I missed it. Now JDS has had a correction from both of us.
I was not going to bother with another post but his last was such easily seen stupidity it had to be knocked on the head. JDS probably needs a new mould for those clay feet by now as he has worn out the old.
🙂 My thoughts exactly.
It is not amazing that Lionel A, who was so dishonest to keep lying about whether or not Patrick Moore was a founder of
Green Piece or not, when, if the typical dishonest alarmist really was interested in the truth, he could have taken five minutes to find all the evidence necessary to tell his lying self that Patrick Moore was a founder of the organization. Now Lionel A is too dense to understand that the graph and commentary that I presented regarding it is 100% correct and honest. Lionel A cannot see that ALL but one of the organizations reporting is going DOWN in the last part of the report on Sept 2019. Lionel A also cannot see that 2016 was the high for the different reports nor can Lionel A cope with the fact that the temperatures are differentiated in tenths of degrees.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vsh/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/trend/plot/uah6/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/trend/plot/uah6/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/every
Then, just to prove that he has no interest in the truth, Lionel A bothers me with crap that John Cook’s skeptical science has cobbled together to make fools like the ones on here believe, and believe they do. “It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted.” I must thank Greg Laden for demonstrating that he is much more open minded than most of the alarmist sites and allows for descending views to be presented, as he has done in the past when I made honest and true comments to his blog, such as this one, “How do you explain Judith Curry?” https://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/08/20/how-do-you-explain-judith-curry#comment-623768
“The Truth about Skeptical Science
Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook (who apparently pretends to be a Nazi). It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully attempted to engage in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censored, while Dr. Michaels has been dishonestly quoted and smeared. The irony of the site’s oxymoronic name “Skeptical Science” is that the site is not skeptical of even the most extreme alarmist positions.”
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html?fbclid=IwAR3gx9eO77-KCIrJl9Bq_N8QOKbCYiafC6D8rX9a0X_pBZr_xSUbcsBQ8IY
Sarahwitch said…
As someone who spent about 10 years on John Cook’s website writing most of his punchlines for him under the name “Riff,” I have to say that I watched his downfall with relative bemused horror, as he descended into insanity like Don Quixote or Blanche Dubois. The fact is that AGW-proponents are NOT “theorists,” or scientists of any kind, since they ignore the basic scientific method regarding proof or BURDEN OF proof.
He claims to be debunking climate myths spread by climate science doubters or “skeptics,” not realizing that this presumes validation of a hypothesis, while blindly ignoring the established theory that humans do NOT significantly AND HARMFULLY contribute to increased global temperatures.
Indeed, Christian Scientists and the Church of Scientology is more credible than AGW.
1/09/2018 11:05 PM
Still bullshitting shamelessly about the temperature record? Despite detailed correction?
Bellend.
This information is what Michael Mann does not want to hear nor do the brainwashed folks who support him and his hickey stick graph based on a tree from Siberia. I’m sure that the professor, Jeffh, will have no interest in what it contains due to there not being any cartoons included and Lionel A will be unimpressed because it has no reference to John Cook’s site, skeptical science that he depends on for all of his information on the subject of the climate.
“The preceding four interglacials are seen at about 125,000, 280,000, 325,000 and 415,000 years before now, with much longer glacial periods in between. All four previous interglacials are seen to be warmer (1-3oC) than the present. The typical length of a glacial period is about 100,000 years, while an interglacial period typical lasts for about 10-15,000 years. The present interglacial period has now lasted about 11,600 years.”
“According to ice core analysis, the atmospheric CO2 concentrations during all four prior interglacials never rose above approximately 290 ppm; whereas the atmospheric CO2 concentration today stands above 400 ppm (by volume or molecular fraction, as of 2018). The present interglacial is about 2oC colder than the previous interglacial, even though the atmospheric CO2 concentration now is about 100 ppm higher.”
“Fig.3. The upper panel shows the air temperature at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, reconstructed by Alley (2000) from GISP2 ice core data. The time scale shows years before modern time. The rapid temperature rise to the left indicate the final part of the even more pronounced temperature increase following the last ice age. The temperature scale at the right hand side of the upper panel suggests a very approximate comparison with the global average temperature (see comment below). The GISP2 record ends around 1854, and the two graphs therefore ends here. There has since been an temperature increase to about the same level as during the Medieval Warm Period and to about 395 ppm for CO2. The small reddish bar in the lower right indicate the extension of the longest global temperature record (since 1850), based on meteorological observations (HadCRUT3). The lower panel shows the past atmospheric CO2 content, as found from the EPICA Dome C Ice Core in the Antarctic (Monnin et al. 2004). The Dome C atmospheric CO2 record ends in the year 1777.”
http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Recent%20global%20satellite%20temperature
Yawn, again.
Nobody is arguing that interglacials are forced by CO2 nor that the their average temperature was determined by CO2 alone. You are attempting to construct a strawman.
The different temperatures are predominantly a function of the orbital dynamics that triggered the interglacial: specifically the interplay between the Earth’s varying obliquity, precession and the eccentricity of its orbit. This is, for example, why the Eemian was 1 – 2C warmer than the Holocene.
So, a strawman. The use of a logical fallacy automatically invalidates your argument.
You might do better if you had the faintest idea what you were talking about. Try doing some reading.
Nope, that’s a rehash of Easterbrook’s fakery. The correctly scaled relationship between GISP2 and GMST looks like this.
The mechanics of the deception are detailed here.
Not just wrong, not just lying bullshit, but old, tired, long-debunked BORING lying bullshit.
Up your game or go and be tedious somewhere else.
I seem to have got up JDS’s nose (not a pretty sight or site even) such that he has to fall back on accusing me of lying about Patrick Moore again and also repeating a link to a deprecated Woodfortrees plot. Note I am not criticising Woodfortrees which is an excellent resource but the manner in which JDS abuses it.
JDS not able to handle the information at Skeptical Science resorts to second hand bilious slander channelling a demented soul that supports Poptech apologetics. Really, I fear JDS is as demented, also demented enough to post a link to a video posted by 1000frolly (PhD) where Curry’s ‘Uncertainty Monster’ is on full display as is Moore’s dissembling, not least about founding Greenpeace.
As for Curry’s motivations I know that this blog has carried accurate critiques from which I will pick just one with a jump to some Curry venom.
Judith Curry Is In With The Koch Brothers, nuff said about that for all sane and sensible people understand the implications of that.
Unfortunately the link after ‘How do we know this? Because she has filed an…’, on that page fails but never fear here the pdf of that document can be found.
That JDS persists in accusing me of dishonesty I take as a compliment. I suggest that is a case of projection.
Now the bombastic old buffoon has the audacity to slander Galileo by suggesting he would have supported the corporate-funded liars like those whose rhetoric Swallow supports on here.
Galileo WAS the scientific consensus because he overturned the religious orthodoxy of the Catholic Church. There is absolutely no comparison between that and the corporate orthodoxy trying to overturn the scientific consensus.
Nice try, dopey. Doesn’t work.
Looking forward to your next abominable rant. NOT. You really are a dipstick, Swallow.
I have a feeling that our resident denier is from the antipodes, probably NZ, where the Galileo meme was strong, had its own following publishing crazy books of fake science.
Not even close sunshine.
References of value Part 1
Raymond S Bradley
1 Paleoclimatology: Reconstructing Climates of the Quaternary
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Paleoclimatology.html?id=eK47AgAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y
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=lhzK1-woaiQC
2 The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth’s Climate
TBC
Not even close sunshine.
References of value Part 2
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
Richard B Alley
1 The Two-Mile Time Machine: Ice Cores, Abrupt Climate Change, and Our Future
See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g
Wally Broecker
1 The Great Ocean Conveyor:Discovering the Trigger for Abrupt Climate Change
see also: http://www-pord.ucsd.edu/~ltalley/sio210/readings/broecker_1991_ocean_conveyor.pdf
TBC
Not even close sunshine.
References of value Part 3
Do look at the work of James Balog and http://extremeicesurvey.org/
find and watch a copy of ‘Chasing Ice’: https://chasingice.com/
Who to believe – Balog and his painfully obtained photographs or Jim Inhofe and his snowball?
That isn’t, for it is plus a boxfile or two full of key scientific papers. Most are listed in, you know, the latest IPCC reports and/or in other reports.
I see this clueless individual, BBD, who asks such inane questions as this; “What are the implications for climate sensitivity of a ‘hot MWP’ during a period of minimal forcing change?” when there are thousands of scientific research papers that he/she is either too stupid to look into or too dense to know what he/she is seeing. These two things are meaningless to some one that is this stupid.
Yamal, and a few flawed bristlecones…
McIntyre therefore prepared a revised dataset, replacing Briffa’s selected 12 cores with the 34 from Khadyta River. The revised chronology was simply staggering. The sharp uptick in the series at the end of the twentieth century had vanished, leaving a twentieth century apparently without a significant trend. The blade of the Yamal hockey stick, used in so many of those temperature reconstructions that the IPCC said validated Michael Mann’s work, was gone.
http://simplesustainable.com/topic/101-the-global-warming-hockey-stick-is-debunked/
“There has been a considerable amount of speculation over the past few years about which “leading” climate scientist told David Deming that we have to “get rid of” the Medieval Warm Period, including speculation (e.g. ukweatherworld) that it was Jonathan Overpeck (recently one of two Coordinating Lead Authors of AR4 chapter 6).
While the identity of Deming’s correspondent remains uncertain, a Climategate letter from January 13. 2005, written as an instruction from Overpeck as Coordinating Lead Author to IPCC Lead Authors Briffa and Osborn (cc Jansen, Masson-Delmotte), states that Overpeck wants to “deal a mortal blow” to the MWP (and Holocene Optimum) “myths” (480. 1105670738.txt).
BBD does not seem to be able to understand what this link and graph is telling him/her;
“Figure 2 Variations in regional surface temperatures for the last 18,000 years, estimated from a variety of sources. Shown are changes in °C, from the value for 1900. Compiled by R. S. Bradley and J. A. Eddy based on J. T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vol 5, no 1, 1991.”
http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/article1-fig2.html
Instead of calling me stupid, just answer the question.
Then we can move on to a discussion of your endorsement of Lindzen, Christy and Spencer, who all believe in – although have not been able to demonstrate – low climate sensitivity.
Just engage – it would be much less boring for me. Although I don’t think you are going to enjoy this.
1991 you clown. 1991. Obsolete and then some.
For an up to date, comprehensive global archive of proxies and rigorous analysis thereof, see PAGES2K Consortium (2013) and Neukom et al. (2019) ops cit.
Could it actually be that BBD is not as box of rocks stupid as what they appear to be when they seem to actually understand the basic questions about the earth and its climate; but, due to being so brainwashed, they keep those facts well hidden from their fellow jerks that think that CO2 drives the earth’s climate. While this fool vehemently blames CO2 for bad hair days and a hot day in July, he/she now says; “Nobody is arguing that interglacials are forced by CO2 nor that the their average temperature was determined by CO2 alone. You are attempting to construct a strawman.” What straw man am I constructing? For once, explain yourself.
“The different temperatures are predominantly a function of the orbital dynamics that triggered the interglacial: specifically the interplay between the Earth’s varying obliquity, precession and the eccentricity of its orbit. This is, for example, why the Eemian was 1 – 2C warmer than the Holocene.” Could it be that this poor fool is now coming to understand the significance of these FACTS? I am a realistic skeptic and therefore I know that what you alarmist ignore is these truths. The sun makes up 99.86% of the mass of the solar system. Do you agree with that summation? Carbon dioxide is .03% of the earth’s atmosphere. Do you agree with that summation? Of the two, the sun or CO?, which do you believe has the most influence on the earth’s climate? The people associated with the essential for the survival of modern civilization, the fossil fuel industries, also know the correct answer and will continue to supply the resources that are in demand while ignorant goons who share your views supply nothing of value to anyone, not even yourselves.
The Maunder Minimum
Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715 (38 kb JPEG image). Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the “Little Ice Age” when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past. The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
“Even small variations in heating in the outer layers of the Sun can change the amount of light and heat the Earth receives by enough to change our climate.”
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1998/ast05oct98_1/
This record, that has not been exceeded in 106 years makes a mockery out of the hoax that you are trying to make people believe because 106 years ago the CO2 level was for sure not at 410ppm.
World Meteorological Organization Assessment of the Purported World Record 58°C Temperature Extreme at El Azizia, Libya (13 September 1922)
“On 13 September 1922, a temperature of 58°C (136.4°F) was purportedly recorded at El Azizia (approximately 40 kilometers south-southwest of Tripoli) in what is now modern-day Libya…………. The WMO assessment is that the highest recorded surface temperature of 56.7°C (134°F) was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley) CA USA.”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00093.1
The brainless bot once again takes single data points and tries to infer conclusions based on them. He does not understand frequency-dependent processes or regression analyses. These show with absolute certainty that the frequency, duration and intensity of extreme-climatic events is increasing and is doing so rapidly. BANG! Swallow’s meme demolished again. But we have done that at least a dozen times on this blog and the brainless bot just keeps coming back with the same, discredited argument.
Besides, as I have also shown a gazillion times, hot temperature records are breaking cold temperature records in countries across the world at a ratio of around 4.5:1 since 2000 and 8:1 since 2014. BANG! Swallow’s meme demolished again. Trends, not single data points, are the focus of scientists. But I forgot – Swalllow is a retired businessman who is scientifically illiterate. I forgot that.
And of course, observed responses among plants and animals across the biosphere also prove that it is warming. I described these at least half a dozen times on here and the brainless bot ignored them. Message to brainless bot: wishing them away does not make it so.
The worst thing is that the brainless bot writes lengthy screeds over and over again. This is proof, if any were needed, that we have soundly thrashed him. The longer the rants, the more desperate he gets.
It’s over, bot. You lose.
Most of what I post is explanatory. If you can’t understand it, you should say so instead of lying.
It’s very simple and I have already said it once: nobody is arguing that interglacials were forced solely by CO2. Everybody (bar a few nutters) agrees that modern warming is predominantly forced by CO2. The two facts are compatible but trying to argue from the former that the latter is false is a strawman.
* * *
As I have already shown you, it’s not the sun:
GISTEMP, SIDC monthly sunspot, CO2
Repeating the same debunked shite over and over again doesn’t make it true it just bores the hell out of everybody else here.
Now I witness this known prevaricator making this unsubstantiated claim; “….and also repeating a link to a deprecated Woodfortrees plot. Note I am not criticising Woodfortrees which is an excellent resource but the manner in which JDS abuses it.” You are not only dishonest but you are implying because I can use the features of the Woodfortrees site to single out the available features that I wanted to show to a dunce such as yourself & the equally dishonest Jeffh why you two are lying & that now you say that I am abusing it, of all things. He also cannot see that 2016 was the high for the different reports nor can he cope with the fact that the temperatures are differentiated in tenths of degrees. I’m sure, being the true believing alarmist that he is, he can tell if the temperature of his cave goes up or down by 0.2 degrees.
Hadcrut3vsh/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/trend
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vsh/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/trend/plot/uah6/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/trend/plot/uah6/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/every
Then I’m treated to this display Lionel A’s distorted and irrational way of “thinking”; “Really, I fear JDS is as demented, also demented enough to post a link to a video posted by 1000frolly (PhD) where Curry’s ‘Uncertainty Monster’ is on full display as is Moore’s dissembling, not least about founding Greenpeace.” Are you so stupid and dishonest that you cannot figure out that this video, where now you bring up something that is totally irrelevant, such as; “….a video posted by 1000frolly (PhD)” instead of being honest and intelligent enough to mention that the video was about this:
“Climate Debate – Mann vs Curry & Moore June 2018
Charleston, West Virginia, June 12, 2018.
Dr. Michael Mann, Dr. David Titley, Dr. Patrick Moore and Dr. Judith Curry met in to discuss climate change.”
Those facts are not important to an ignorant, lying alarmist, when, I assume, they did not watch the video to understand that nowhere in it was there any mention of a “1000frolly (PhD)”.
BTW; I sure didn’t see any mention of any of you ignorant alarmist, such as, Jeffh, being on stage debating Dr. Patrick Moore and Dr. Judith Curry. Instead they had Dr. Patrick Moore and Dr. Judith Curry plus there was Michael Mann, who came off being very confused, and the lying about sea levels ex admiral, David Titley, who also gets paid by the same discredited school that Mann does, Penn State.
Brainless bot, I couldn’t care less if Patrick Moore had founded the Red Cross once upon a time. It is ancient history. He is judged on what he has been doing the past 3 decades which is to act as a paid shill for polluting industries. His screeds are vomit-inducing rants (much like yours). His ‘no extinction of families’ comment was pure bullshit. It would be shot down if it was written in a high school essay.
You sound deranged. I can see you now: sitting at a desk somewhere, reading us demolishing your screeds, going all red in the face, pounding the table with your fists in rage and then spitting vitriol online. You seriously expect everyone here to succumb to your perceived ‘wisdom’. Wrong place, bot. If you want adulation, go to the Daily Caller or one of the denier blogs. I sure they will all swoon at your every word over there.
Either you or whoever created the WfT plot made a complete pig’s breakfast of it.
Done right, it looks like this (fourth time repeat on this thread, I think):
HADCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH. 1979 – present; common 1981 – 2010 baseline; annual mean; trend
Why are you still posting deceptive garbage after multiple corrections?
As for ‘debating’ Curry and Moore, I wouldn’t go even if I was invited, or I would make a condition that the actual ratio of scientists opposing those two reflected the consensus on climate change, making the two of them look puny and isolated.
Besides, one of the (Curry) hardly publishes anything anymore, whereas the other (Moore) is a bottom-feeding minion who never did much science anyway. The only reason he gets media attention is because back in the Silurian he was affiliated with Greenpeace, and he has been cashing in on that ever since. Given his risible publication record, if he hadn’t once been with Greenpeace he would be completely ignored.
Now this out of touch with reality fool, who will not issue his real full name, Lionel A, brings this up; “Judith Curry Is In With The Koch Brothers, nuff said about that for all sane and sensible people understand the implications of that.” Yea, right, nuff said, if one considers what the Koch Brothers have done for humanity and society in general when compared to a bunch of sniveling alarmist running around like Chicken Littles crying that the sky is falling due to the trace gas, CO2, that makes up between .03 & .04% of the total atmosphere of the Earth’s atmosphere. Please name what of value to humanity or to anyone other than themselves because of collecting huge government pay outs for their “climate research” have any of the Michael Mann’s or the paid by the government James Hansen, who rigged the testimony before the Sensate; “Believe it or not, we called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6 or June 9 or whatever it was, so we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo: It was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it. It was stiflingly hot that summer. And did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?
… What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot. …
So Hansen’s giving this testimony, you’ve got these television cameras back there heating up the room, and the air conditioning in the room didn’t appear to work. So it was sort of a perfect collection of events that happened that day, with the wonderful Jim Hansen, who was wiping his brow at the witness table and giving this remarkable testimony. …
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html
This deceptive action, plus the Climategate emails, proves what a deceitful and dishonest bunch of charlatans you alarmist are.
“Loopy liberals freak over Koch brother’s $100M hospital gift”
[…]No, the only thing the liberal interest groups didn’t like about the new hospital wing was its funding source: the philanthropist known as David H. Koch. The new wing was gratefully to be named after Koch, who along with his brother Charles stands as one of today’s great philanthropists.
Among the many David Koch gifts to this city alone are a previous $15 million to New York-Presbyterian’s Weill Cornell Medical Center, $30 million to Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, $25 million to the Hospital for Special Surgery, $20 million to a dinosaur exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History, $65 million to the Metropolitan Museum of Art and $100 million to the Lincoln Center theater that is home to the New York City Ballet and the New York City Opera.
http://nypost.com/2014/03/16/loopy-liberals-freak-over-koch-brothers-100m-hospital-gift/
Lionel A: give me a list of the hospitals that Tom Steyer has donated to. I assume that Tom Steyer is the kind of contributor that Lionel A admires.
“Aims of Donor Are Shadowed by Past in Coal JULY 4, 2014
To environmentalists across Australia, it is a baffling anachronism in an era of climate change: the construction of a 4,000-acre mine in New South Wales that will churn out carbon-laden coal for the next 30 years.
The mine’s groundbreaking, in a state forest this year, inspired a veteran to stand in front of a bulldozer and a music teacher to chain himself to a piece of excavation equipment.
But the project had an unlikely financial backer in the United States, whose infusion of cash helped set it in motion: Tom Steyer, the most influential environmentalist in American politics, who has vowed to spend $100 million this year to defeat candidates who oppose policies to combat climate change.
But an examination of those investments shows that even after his highly public divestment, the coal-related projects his firm bankrolled will generate tens of millions of tons of carbon pollution for years, if not decades, to come.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/05/us/politics/prominent-environmentalist-helped-fund-coal-projects.html
Even if you offered proof that ‘J Dough Swallow’ is actually your real name – which you haven’t – you *still* would have no right to breach the pseudonymity of other commenters.
It’s a tedious, trollish and specious attack on the integrity of others.
So cease and fucking desist.
BBD, or what ever, my real name is John Douglas Swallow. You are not even competent enough to copy and paste it properly because you demonstrated your incompetence in this and every instance you deal with anything by submitting this as my name. ‘J Dough Swallow’. If you want to post the outlandish, unsubstantiated crap that you do using an alias, it is understandable that, due to the ignorance of your comments, that you would not want anyone to know what your real name is and therefore you cowards go with the aliases to keep anyone that might look at this site to know just how stupid that you are, in print. I had posted this before as a way for dishonest fools like you to check if this is my name with my friend, who is a Gurkha, Thakur Pandey. Because I have been to Nepal on three different occasions to be taken on treks to Poon Hill, Everest Base Camp and on the wonderful Annapurna Circuit by my friend, who is a Gurkha, Thakur Pandey, I do know much about the Himalayan region. I’m sure that if you were to email Thakur and mention my name, which is actually my real name, he would tell you that what I am mentioning to you is true because I do not prevaricate like a common alarmist is want to do. His address is “Thakur pandey thakurpandey197@gmail.com” and if any of you people who are so worried about the earth and its wonders ever are able to get off of your hind ends and get out to see some of it, I highly recommend Thakur to help you see Nepal’s wonderers, if any of you are inclined to go to many of the places in Nepal that he could take you to.
I went on the Annapurna Circuit in March of 2010 with Thakur and over Thorung La Pass (17,765′) with him. The cold mountains anywhere can turn deadly, in a hurry, due to the cold and blizzards that come out of nowhere.
“Nepal disaster a ‘wake-up call’ for trekkers and agencies
October 21, 2014 “KATHMANDU: A snowstorm that killed dozens of people in Nepal is a “wake-up call” for the trekking industry and tourists alike, experts say, with some heading to the world’s highest mountains unprepared for conditions that can easily turn deadly.
Forty people are dead or still missing after heavy snow and avalanches struck the Annapurna circuit in the Himalayas last Tuesday in one of the worst trekking disasters ever to hit the country.
The victims include at least 26 hikers, guides and porters who had headed to the popular trail at the height of the trekking season.
Hundreds more have had to be airlifted to safety, some suffering from frostbite after days in freezing conditions without adequate clothing or shelter.
But unlike a deadly avalanche that hit Mount Everest earlier this year, experts say the latest disaster could have been alleviated had warnings of bad weather in the area been heeded.”
https://www.dawn.com/news/1139324
I can create a gmail account in any name I wish in under five minutes. It proves nothing.
And if you read more closely – as you should – you would note that I said that it makes no difference if you are telling the truth – you *still* have no right to question the pseudonymity of any other commenter here.
It’s a tedious, trollish and specious attack on the integrity of others.
So cease and fucking desist.
As Bernard J often writes, (with deniers) it is always projection. As the spiral of decline of JDS into farce tightens as his foam flecked lips vibrate with increasing frequency.
You are a circus act often introduced by this music
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B0CyOAO8y0
or sometimes this, especially a few bars from 0:34 on:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LNLJQgNPbA
Lionel A needs to understand that of the 50 states in the union that he would like to destroy by not allowing them to use fossil fuels, 25 states have record high temperatures from the period 1930-1937.
Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi,
Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia & Wisconsin adds up to 25 states whose record HIGH have all occurred between 1930 & 1936.
OK, Lionel A, here are the states who set records & he cannot answer why the records set for High temperatures in these 25 states occurred between 1930 & 1936; but, he will not be able to answer why and how these 13 states listed below had their record highs occur BEFORE 1930 & 1936, such as; Alaska, California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia & Washington.
The above in formation came from this source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records
A total of fourteen states set record highs in 1936 that obviously still stand. They occurred from July 5th to August 10th although July 10th has four of the records for high temperature in include Maryland which tied the record set in July 3, 1898 of 109°F, the rest that set records that year are New Jersey, Penn. & Virginia. Explain, when not worrying about stupid videos with circus music what CO2 had to do with the above valid facts.
Or these records. The alarmist will have to dig deep into their repertoire of prevarications to explain what CO2 could have had to do with these two states having both the record HIGH Temperature for the state, as well as the record LOW Temperature for the state in the same year, 1936.
South Dakota Maximum Temperature 120°F July 5, 1936 GANN VALLEY
South Dakota Minimum Temperature -58°F February 17, 1936 MC INTOSH
In Steele, North Dakota on July 6, 1936 the record HIGH Temperature for the state was 121?F.
In Parshall, N. Dakota on Feb. 15, 1936 the record LOW Temperature for the state was -60? F.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records
“Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, “global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius.” That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.
“The 2016-2018 Big Chill,” he writes, “was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average.”
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-global-warming-earth-cooling-media-bias/?fbclid=IwAR3-hvNLBItHu9C7mD9ILh_xFDExHoiNrE4VGVe1ro7_WXJI-LR1NbbMeEg
Meanwhile Lionel A is involved in finding circus music, Entry Of The Gladiators – Julius Fucik, when the poor fool should be trying to educate himself about how and why carbon dioxide doesn’t cause the Earth’s climate to be what it is. To do that would take intelligence and a will to learn something important.
What is your main problem, besides not being smart enough to change the graphs on the Woodfortrees site? Can’t you get your mind around the fact that the hadcrut3vsh/from: 1997.92/ to 2019.67/trend is DOWN?
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vsh/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/trend/plot/uah6/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/trend/plot/uah6/from:1997.92/to:2019.67/every
I assume that in this one your do like to see that the Red wti/from:1979/offset:-0.43/mean:12 is down.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1979/offset:-0.43/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/offset:-0.29/mean:12/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.43/mean:12/trend/plot/uah6/mean:12/trend
In this series of graphs I’m sure that you are not with it enough to understand that the green, the red and the blue are all well below the peak in 2016.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/offset:-0.29/mean:12/plot/gistemp-dts/from:1979/offset:-0.43/mean:12/plot/uah6/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/offset:-0.29/mean:12/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.43/mean:12/trend/plot/uah6/mean:12/trend
Why don’t you read what I post?
Here it is, again:
– Note that the full extent of the satellite record is shown from its inception in 1979, not a cherry pick start from the peak of 1997/8 super El Nino event.
– Note that the obsolete HadCRUT3 southern hemisphere data are not used (why, in a comparison of GLOBAL temperatures?).
– Note that the obsolete HadCRUT3SH data *end* at 2014.33 *NOT* 2019.67 as misleadingly entered into the end field. This curve is therefore triply misleading: cherry-picked start and end points and SH only, not global.
Aaaand it’s obsolete as well. You should be using HADCRUT4.
I repeat:
This curve is therefore triply [quadruply] misleading: [obsolete dataset] cherry-picked start and end points and SH only, not global.
WTI isn’t on a common baseline with the rest, so it displays lower down the vertical axis. That doesn’t mean it’s ‘down’ because it represents lower temperatures – it means you don’t have a fucking clue about baselines.
WTF? Your comment makes no sense unless you meant to write that the red and blue curves are ‘below’ the green…? Assuming that you did, that’s because the green curve represents higher temps because GISTEMPdTs is the land surface only data *not* the combined land-ocean dataset of GISTEMP LOTI. Land surface temperatures are rising faster than global (land + ocean) temperatures. You’ve also got GISTEMP dTs on the wrong baseline for a comparative presentation.
Here – I’ve fixed it for you and added the linear trend for GISTEMPdTs.
And the 2016 peak is El Nino – a massive ocean to atmosphere heat exchange which spikes GMST and after which global temperatures fall. I’ve already explained this to you at least twice.
I’m getting a little tired of your stupid, Dougie.
Corrected graph here.
Since I’ve got ten minutes free and I’m nearly done cleaning up Swallow’s mess of fucked-up and misleading graphs, let’s finish the job and have done with this once and for all.
Back to JDS’s fave, the one featuring the obsolete southern hemisphere HadCRUT data that ends in May 2014. It also starts all samples at the top of the 1997/8 super El Nino event, so I’ve removed that cherry-pick and begun everything at the beginning of the satellite data period in 1979. For clarity, least squares linear fits only are shown.
So, what do we see?
– The GMST records are nearly identical (GISTEMP – green; HadCRUT – purple)
– UAH6 is running cool because there are serious issues with the methodology (UAH6 – blue)
– And yes folks! The southern hemisphere is indeed warming less rapidly than the northern hemisphere (as everybody except, apparently, JDS knows: HadCRUT3sh – red; HadCRUT4sh – light blue)
Not exactly the final nail in the coffin for the AGW hoax, is it?
🙂
I will repeat for the trillionth time: the ratio of warm to cold records set around the world is over 4:1 and increasing. Biotic proxies also prove it is warming. The scientific literature is full of examples. Trends, trends, trends, that the brainless bot just does not understand when he cherry picks single data points.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2010.0021
https://www.nature.com/articles/416389a
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.110100
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-012-0659-2
https://www.pnas.org/content/106/37/15555.short
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018GL079799
Wiping the floor with this clown is so easy. He is not very smart….
I will repeat for the trillionth time: the ratio of warm to cold records set around the world is over 4:1 and increasing. Trends in extreme climatic events are increasing (see below). Biotic proxies also prove it is warming (see below). The scientific literature is full of examples. Trends, trends, trends, that the brainless bot just does not understand when he all he does is cherry pick single data points.
Wiping the floor with this clown is so easy. He is not very smart….
Trends in extreme climatic events:
Fontrodona Bach, A., van der Schrier, G., Melsen, L. A., Klein Tank, A. M. G., & Teuling, A. J. (2018). Widespread and accelerated decrease of observed mean and extreme snow depth over Europe. Geophysical Research Letters, 45(22), 12-312.
Della?Marta, P. M., Haylock, M. R., Luterbacher, J., & Wanner, H. (2007). Doubled length of western European summer heat waves since 1880. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 112(D15).
Brooks, H. E. (2013). Severe thunderstorms and climate change. Atmospheric Research, 123, 129-138.
Rahmstorf, S., & Coumou, D. (2011). Increase of extreme events in a warming world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(44), 17905-17909.
Biotic responses to climate change:
Bellard, C., Bertelsmeier, C., Leadley, P., Thuiller, W., & Courchamp, F. (2012). Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecology letters, 15(4), 365-377.
Walther, G. R. (2010). Community and ecosystem responses to recent climate change. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1549), 2019-2024.
Walther, G. R., Berger, S., & Sykes, M. T. (2005). An ecological ‘footprint’of climate change. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 272(1571), 1427-1432.
Parmesan, C. (2006). Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 37, 637-669.
Parmesan, C., & Yohe, G. (2003). A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature, 421(6918), 37.
Poloczanska, E. S., Brown, C. J., Sydeman, W. J., Kiessling, W., Schoeman, D. S., Moore, P. J., … & Duarte, C. M. (2013). Global imprint of climate change on marine life. Nature Climate Change, 3(10), 919.
Enough. These references utterly demolish Swallow’s assertions. He won’t read these papers (there are many more of course) and he won’t understand them anyway. The scientific community does not respond to the rants of an old retired businessman on climate and ecology. He is stuck as a nobody on blogs and he knows it.
This poor narcissistic fool, Jeffh, who makes sure that everything is about his sorry self, said that; “As for ‘debating’ Curry and Moore, I wouldn’t go even if I was invited…..” and for sure Jeffh was NOT invited to this debate, or any other like event, where Dr. Patrick Moore and Dr. Judith Curry met to discuss climate change. Why would someone that is not confident enough in their assertions about the topic of the Earth’s climate, that is too chicken shit to present his own name, be invited to anything other than a poorly operated dog fight in a back alley in the Philippines?
In case that Jeffh should ever desire to learn something about a subject that he appears to know nothing about, climate change and CO2, he should watch this ‘You Tube’ linked below.
Global warming
Global warming is the long-term rise in the average temperature of the Earth’s climate system. It is a major aspect of current climate change, and has been demonstrated by direct temperature measurements and by measurements of various effects of the warming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6sKPSKkvVs&t=157s
This ‘You Tube’ about how the afflicted polar bear was used to lie about the imagined climate change well demonstrates just how dishonest and agenda driven that these alarmist charlatans, such as Jeffh, are. The truth, generally speaking, is not in them. For Paul Nicklen to attempt to use this sick polar bear to try to further his hoax about anthropogenic climate change and allowing it to suffer when, if the proper authorities in Canada been notified, it would have be euthanized and an autopsy performed to find out what had caused this animal to get into this condition. Alarmist have no interest in science and their actions well demonstrate that fact.
Dr Susan Crockford — White Lie: The Cruel Abuse of a Starving Polar Bear
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7KTfPlCrgY
Latest global polar bear abundance ‘best guess’ estimate is 39,000 (26,000-58,000) March 26, 2019
“Latest global polar bear abundance ‘best guess’ estimate is 39,000 (26,000-58,000)
It’s long past time for polar bear specialists to stop holding out for a scientifically accurate global estimate that will never be achieved and determine a reasonable and credible ‘best guess’. Since they have so far refused to do this, I have done it for them. My extrapolated estimate of 39,000 (range 26,000-58,000) at 2018 is not only plausible but scientifically defensible.”
https://polarbearscience.com/2019/03/26/latest-global-polar-bear-abundance-best-guess-estimate-is-39000-26000-58000/
Looks pretty clear to me and about 99.9999999999999999999 % of people…
https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/nasa1y.jpg
“Looks pretty clear to me and about 99.9999999999999999999 % of people…” & the graph shows that the temperature is trending down like what Dr. John R. Christy & Dr. Roy W. Spencer’s satellite data shows.
August’s globally-averaged, bulk-layer atmospheric temperature anomaly of +0.38°C (+0.68°F) represented no change from the previous month. Since November 2017, global temperature anomalies have remained in a fairly narrow range between +0.13°C and +0.47°C – relatively odd as this period included a modest La Niña and a modest El Niño. This month’s global temperature is the 4th warmest August, but may be considered nearly tied for the 2nd warmest of the last 41 Augusts, since it is only slightly below August of 2016 (+0.44°C) and 2017 (+0.42°C). August of 1998 still holds the top spot at +0.52°C. The lingering effects of the 2019 El Niño appear to be keeping the tropics, and thus the globe, on the warm side of zero.
https://www.newswise.com/articles/global-temperature-report-august-2019
Wrong.
Hottest August was 2016. Second hottest was this year.
Motto: don’t use Spencer’s crappy outlier TLT product. Nobody takes it seriously.
https://www.noaa.gov/news/summer-2019-was-hottest-on-record-for-northern-hemisphere
With his trips to the Himalayas you would think that JDS would research the likely effects on safety from climate change would you not. He seems surprised that sometimes there are larger snowfalls and at others avalanches.
What did his Nepalese friend tell him about how things are changing, which they indubitably are.
Is his Nepalese friend really a Ghurka which is a soldier subset of the race?
It doesn’t matter whether he – or JDS – is the King of Old Siam. Nothing gives JDS the right to breach other commenters’ pseudonymity or to harangue them about it.
It is, as I said, specious, tedious and above all, trollish.
Hopefully GL will ban the stupid fucker if he keeps it up. Needs done, imho.
“With his trips to the Himalayas’
You are assuming that he is telling the truth about those (or other) trips, and there is no evidence he’ s told the truth about anything.
@ Lionel A
To answer your question, that wouldn’t be the first tourist to get a wrong handle on local denominations. Or the local guides may call themselves ‘Ghurka’ because it’s a name the foreigners, especially British/US ones, recognize and trust.
Assuming this man exist, I wonder if he knows he is JDS’ friend.
For all I know, approaching him and telling him “Hi! I’m a friend of JDS, too!” is the surest way to be “guided” in the path of an avalanche.
To the one that can’t even find Nepal on a map, Lionel A, and then he posts this garbage to bother people with this bunch of half-baked lies that Lionel A doesn’t have enough knowledge to even filter out the fact from the mostly fiction in this “report”. You people are so pathetic; but, what would one expect from fools who think that the essential for all life on earth trace gas, CO2, is going to cause the earth to be incinerated?
“Climate change: Scientists to report on ocean ’emergency’ caused by warming
By Matt McGrath Environment correspondent. Monaco
24 September 2019
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49756260?fbclid=IwAR0AfFMZEkYbwEZ2wxkcXqfb9oGPUl8fvz1Zcqy0dh3B7hrbuKBPJHQXuWQ
There is a phony map about Arctic sea Ice that begins in 1980. Can the one that believes this crap put out by BBC explain how this happen in 1922?
Does Lionel A wonder what was happening in the Arctic with the sea ice when this happened? Probably not, because for him the world didn’t begin until 1980.
“Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at “The Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.”
“The source report of the Washington Post article on changes in the arctic has been found in the Monthly Weather Review for November 1922. It is much more detailed than the Washington Post (Associated Press) article. It seems the AP heavily relied on the report from Norway Consulate George Ifft, which is shown below. See the original MWR article below and click the newsprint copy for a complete artic or see the link to the original PDF below:”
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/200389-Flashback-1922-Extra-Extra-Read-all-about-it-Arctic-Ocean-Getting-Warm-Seals-Perish-Glaciers-and-Icebergs-Melt-
Why would you be so stupid and asked the question about the Gurkhas? They are for certain a better group of people than some duds who lay around and post inane crap about climate change. Gurkhas have been part of the British Army for almost 200 years & they proved themselves to be fearsome fighters? “Better to die than be a coward” is the motto of the world-famous Nepalese Gurkha while the motto of the alarmist is; “run hide, the sky is falling because of carbon dioxide” as they scurry under their beds to wait it out.
Then I am forced to look at this crap with distain that BBC put out.
“Glaciers are now melting all over the world”
I wonder what these fools imagine would be happening in their world that began in 1980 if they are not bright enough to consider that since the planet recovered from the death causing Little Ica Age the glaciers have retreated in some areas.
“Glacier Bay was first surveyed in detail in 1794 by a team from the H.M.S. Discovery, captained by George Vancouver. At the time the survey produced showed a mere indentation in the shoreline. That massive glacier was more than 4,000 feet thick in places, up to 20 miles wide, and extended more than 100 miles to the St. Elias mountain range. By 1879, however, naturalist John Muir discovered that the ice had retreated more than 30 miles forming an actual bay. By 1916, the Grand Pacific Glacier – the main glacier credited with carving the bay – had melted back 60 miles to the head of what is now Tarr Inlet.”
I have had my own boat up into Glacier Bay on two different occasions and this is just another place you can’t even find without the help from Google maps.
“In 1794, Glacier Bay was filled with one massive glacier.
Enter Glacier Bay and you cruise along shorelines completely covered by ice just 200 years ago. Explorer Capt. George Vancouver found Icy Strait choked with ice in 1794, and Glacier Bay was a barely indented glacier. That glacier was more than 4,000 feet thick, up to 20 miles or more wide, and extended more than 100 miles to the St. Elias Range of mountains. But by 1879 naturalist John Muir found that the ice had retreated 48 miles up the bay. By 1916 the Grand Pacific Glacier headed Tarr Inlet 65 miles from Glacier Bay’s mouth. Such rapid retreat is known nowhere else. Scientists have documented it, hoping to learn how glacial activity relates to climate changes.
In 1794, as the mother ship H.M.S. Discovery, Captained by George Vancouver, lay at anchor in Pt. Althorp, a survey crew under the command of Lt. Joseph Whidbey painstakingly maneuvered their longboats through the ice-choked waters of Icy Strait. https://www.nps.gov/glba/learn/historyculture/people.htm
Here’s a (partial) list of the
specific glaciers that are growing
(There are many more)
https://iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm
This is some more crap that Lionel A believes, without question, that the BBC feeds him.
“Since 1970, the oceans have absorbed more than 90% of the extra heat that’s come about through global warming. If they hadn’t taken in that warming, the surface of the planet would have been devastated by excess heating.”
One would have thought that the fools at BBC would have knowledge of this below; but, we know that the ‘alarmist’ have never heard of it, the thermohaline circulation.
“As water travels through the water cycle, some water will become part of The Global Conveyer Belt and can take up to 1,000 years to complete this global circuit. It represents in a simple way how ocean currents carry warm surface waters from the equator toward the poles and moderate global climate.” [The Global Conveyer Belt has suddenly stopped for several speculated reason in the past and caused dramatic and rapid climate changes always to the cold side; therefore, warm is preferable to cold any day]
http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-water-cycle/
“All this absorption has come at a price, though. Our seas are now warmer, less salty and more acidic as a result.”
BBC’s base line for their new false alarm, Acidic oceans, is not very long in that the pH scale wasn’t even derived until 1909.
“The concept of p[H] was first introduced by Danish chemist Søren Peder Lauritz Sørensen at the Carlsberg Laboratory in 1909 and revised to the modern pH in 1924 to accommodate definitions and measurements in terms of electrochemical cells. In the first papers, the notation had the “H” as a subscript to the lowercase “p”, as so: pH.”
Ocean Acidification can never occur because of the buffering action of calcium carbonate. Our oceans are solidly basic with a pH of about 8.0 that varies a little depending mostly on ocean temperature. Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide will only decrease alkalinity (pH) a tiny amount, far less than natural variations.
You also seem to be forgetting this in your groundless conjecture & you & BBC do not know that this circulation takes up to 1,000 yrs. to be completed.
“Thermohaline circulation behaves like a conveyor belt. Originating in the Northern Atlantic Ocean, cold, dense water sinks to the deep ocean. These waters travel across ocean basins to the tropics where they warm and upwell to the surface. The warmer, less dense, tropical waters are then drawn to polar latitudes to replace the cold sinking water.”
http://centerforoceansolutions.org/climate/impacts/ocean-circulation/
Here the IPCC and BBC and their Environment correspondent, Matt McGrath have no valid information about their fear mongering nonsense that Lionel A believes, without question.
“The heating of the world is having a profound impact on all things frozen. So the IPCC report will look at the loss of ice from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets as well as from glaciers on mountains around the planet.” BBC
”Increased ice loading in the Antarctic Peninsula since the 1850s and its effect on Glacial Isostatic Adjustment
Key Points
Accumulation increase results in up to 45 m extra ice thickness over 155 years
Model predicts GIA-related subsidence of up to 7 mm/yr which will affect GPS
GRACE-derived rates of ice-mass change are biased low by ignoring this signal
Antarctic Peninsula (AP) ice core records indicate significant accumulation increase since 1855, and any resultant ice mass increase has the potential to contribute substantially to present-day Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL052559/pdf
Greenland ice sheet mass balance reconstruction. Part I: net snow accumulation (1600-2009)
Journal of Climate 2012 ; ”We find a 12% or 86 Gt y-1 increase in ice sheet accumulation rate from the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1840 to the last decade of the reconstruction. This 1840-1996 trend is 30% higher than that of 1600-2009, suggesting an accelerating accumulation rate.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00373.1
Again, why do you people lie so much and so often? Does this information below make it appear that the seas around Antarctica are raising rapidly?
Relative Sea Level Trend
999-001 Bahia Esperanza, Antarctica
• EXPORT TO TEXT | EXPORT TO CSV | SAVE IMAGE
The relative sea level trend is -4.82 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 2.58 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1961 to 1993 which is equivalent to a change of -1.58 feet in 100 years.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=999-001
Any melting could also be caused by the volcanoes; but, we can be sure that the alarmist will blame everything from bad hair days, ingrown toe nails and melting ice on CO2. “The West Antarctic Ice Sheet has many subglacial lakes beneath it; geothermal heating is thought to contribute to the melting of the base of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. However, the extent of this, and the rate, is very poorly known and currently not included in glaciological numerical models. Actual volcanoes may, during eruptions, melt quite large portions of the ice sheet around them”.
It is often well to see what was happening in the past to understand the present, such as this below;
The Queenslander (Brisbane, Qld. : 1866 – 1939) Thu 21 Jul 1932
A Warmer World.
SOME great world change is taking place on the Antarctic Continent. Its glaciers are shrinking. Commander L.A. Bernacchi, who visited the South Polar land 30 years ago, says that the Great Ice Barrier which fronts the continent with a wall of ice for 250 miles has receded at least 30 miles since it was first seen and surveyed.
Sir James Ross, who went out on the earliest Antarctic expedition of the nineteenth century, and those who followed him, left clear descriptions of this tremendous ice frontage and its position. It was a cliff 150ft. high and 1000ft. thick. But now it appears to be continuing its century-long process of shrinking; and that process may have been going on for centuries.[…]
If all the glaciers of the Southern Hemisphere as well as those of the Northern are shrinking, the geologists would have a new problem to examine. It would be whether, instead of areas of cold and ice having shifted on the earth, the whole globe is growing warmer. Even if that could be shown the change might prove to be temporary.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/23150667
Once again, you screw your own pooch though painful ignorance, Dougie. Why do you think the data are described as RELATIVE sea level trends? As opposed to ABSOLUTE trends?
Why is that, hmm?
Shall I explain for you?
Post-glacial (isostatic) rebound means that Bahia Esperanza is rising vertically RELATIVE to the surrounding sea. This is picked up by the observations as a RELATIVE fall in sea level.
As opposed to an ABSOLUTE rise which is what you get when you compensate for isostatic rebound, subsidence, ocean circulation effects, the geoid, etc. and calculate the ABSOLUTE trend in global average sea level.
Which is positive and accelerating as reported and looks like this.
You spew out so much crap here, so many, many words… can’t you get anything right?
dean
To true.
As is the fact that we should treat his personal ID with suspicion as BBD has suggested.
Typical denier behaviour.
Projection
Cherry picking and squared or to any power you care to choose
Using small scale events to back up arguments
Deception
Gish Galloping
Citing dubious internet sources
Flailing about wildly
I have probably missed a few there.
Is it because you are so stupid as to actually believe that a trace gas, CO2, is what drives the Earth’s climate that you are stupid enough to post this; “I can create a gmail account in any name I wish in under five minutes. It proves nothing.”
If you had the ability to Email Thakur Pandey, thakurpandey197@gmail.com, and mention my name, Doug Swallow, to him and maybe even express an interest in going on a trek with him, which being the person that you are, you would never want to do because it would take too much effort to actually get out in the great outdoors and see what is actually going on rather than relying on some out of touch with reality professor, Jeffh, for your information, then you would know that this is my name when the honourable person confirms that FACT.
“you *still* have no right to question the pseudonymity of any other commenter here” Why is it that I have no right to know the identity of fools who feel that they can question my character and believes that differ from theirs? You alarmist are just too cowardly to offer up your real names. If you have another reason, then present it. Are you afraid that someone will come and shoot into your office like happened with Dr. John Christy? Not to worry, it is alarmist goons who pull such cowardly acts using aliases to cover their worthless, lying posteriors while doing so. It is also far left socialist like James T. Hodgkinson who shot republican Rep Steve Scalise while he was on a baseball field.
“Alabama climate change skeptic believes shots ‘targeted’ his office floor Updated Mar 07, 2019; Posted Apr 25, 2017 Dr. John Christy, Alabama state climatologist and atmospheric science professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, points to bullet holes in the side of the building containing his office. Christy believes the floor he works on may have been “targeted” by people objected to his prominence as a climate change skeptic. (Lee Roop/lroop@al.com)
Nationally prominent climate change skeptic Dr. John Christy believes his office floor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville was “targeted” by gunshots over the national March for Science weekend.”
https://www.al.com/news/huntsville/2017/04/shots_fired_at_office_building.html
The very vast majority of mass shooting/mass killing in North America in the last decade were done by either people so lost in navel-gazing that their political opinions are more shallow than a rain’s puddle in the Sahara (Incels, MGTOW and the likes), or by far-right people targeting gays/POCs/Jews.
The remaining were done by religious nuts.
Funny how you have this habit of taking the 3% of something and declaring them to be the only ones counting.
Because you don’t have any right to know anyone’s identity. So deal with it like a grown-up.
Your character gets questioned because you are an ignorant arsehole who spouts garbage but won’t engage on specific questions (always the hallmark of the bullshit artist in a corner). Nobody here cares who you actually are. You are the only one making an issue of identity, which is another indication of how desperate you are to score points. Unfortunately, by pushing on that door, you just draw attention to the desperation. Bad idea.
Engaging on specifics and answering straightforward questions would have done you a lot more good, but it is way too late for that now.
Then I see this from someone who could not even find Nepal on a map because they would be concentrating on one of South America. Then ‘dean’ says; “You are assuming that he is telling the truth about those (or other) trips, and there is no evidence he’ s told the truth about anything.” ‘dean’ could not recognize the truth because he has no idea what the truth actually is because of being so stupid to believe that the trace gas carbon dioxide is what drives the Earth’s climate. It is the truth that the sun, that makes up 99.86% of the mass of the solar system is what causes the Earth’s climate to be what it is. To have some jerk that is too cowardly to even use their real name question my honesty is about on par for the prevaricating alarmist crown.
The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) must have foreseen alarmist like ”dean’. He said: “The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” I’m not sure that “skeptics” are in the minority, but you get my point.
There are some obsessed with the supposed increase from 280 ppm to 410 ppm of CO2 and I hope that this information will help you to sleep better at nights.
This, I hope, will put this into some kind of a perspective that makes one understand just how insignificant this increase is.
A part per million is like 1 drop of ink in a large kitchen sink.
A large kitchen sink is about 13-14 gallons. There are 100 drops in one teaspoon, and 768 teaspoons per gallon.
Some other things that are one part per million are…
One drop in the fuel tank of a mid-sized car
One inch in 16 miles
About one minute in two years
One car in a line of bumper-to-bumper traffic from Cleveland to San Francisco.
One penny in $10,000.
I know that you understand that these 130 additional ppm are spread out over this 16 miles in different one inch segments and wouldn’t it be a task to be told to sort out the 410 pennies from the number that it would take to make up $10,000.
“‘dean’ could not recognize the truth because he has no idea what the truth actually is because of being so stupid to believe that the trace gas carbon dioxide is what drives the Earth’s climate. ”
swallow, you are an enormous asshole in addition to being dumb as a rock. If you are too stupid (uneducated) to understand the physics behind climate change (which your posts repeatedly demonstrate) you shouldn’t get all butt-hurt when your repeated lies about causes and the role of the sun get shot down and you get ridiculed.
The reason I don’t believe any of your stories of travel comes from a very simply analysis of your posts: you post so many lies and stupid things (such as insisting that a single outlier can invalidate the analysis of a large time series, although I have no doubt you don’t understand those terms: I’d say you should sit in my intro stat classes but your dishonesty would get you expelled in short order) that are easy to verify as lies that there is no reason to believe your other stories.
I have to believe that if you really do have any sort of “college degree” the administration of the mail order diploma mill you bought it from is seriously considering refunding your money and taking it back.
Christy and Spencer’s data show satellite temperatures WHICH ARE IRRELEVANT. What matters are temperatures across the biosphere which are rising. The data prove it. The various proxies (biological, ecological, glacial retreat) prove it.
What is wrong with you Swallow? Can you not read or comprehend basic English? You simply ignore tons of inconvenient data.
It is you, along with your unsubstantiated hypotheses about climate change, that ARE IRRELEVANT. One needs to really wonder what is the matter with someone who claims to be a scientist that cannot get beyond the brainwashing that they are receiving and actually crawl out of the box they are stuck in and show that maybe they are able to actually think for themselves about this hoax of anthropogenic climate change.
Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller does not think that your hero, Michael Mann is honest and honesty is of the upmost importance in science that is tasked with finding the truth, or have you never heard that about science?
Climategate ‘hide the decline’ explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk
The second thing was this youtube clip of physicist Richard Muller (Director of the Berkeley Earth Project), where he discusses “hide the decline” and vehemently refers to this as “dishonest,” and says “you are not allowed to do this,” and further states that he intends not to read further papers by these authors (note “hide the decline” appears around minute 31 into the clip). While most of his research is in physics, Muller has also published important papers on paleoclimate, including a controversial paper that supported McIntyre and McKitrick’s analysis.
https://judithcurry.com/2011/02/22/hiding-the-decline/
“What matters are temperatures across the biosphere which are rising. The data prove it. The various proxies (biological, ecological, glacial retreat) prove it.”
Could what follows be why the date is not available? It seems that the data is not available because it is not what some are wanting to use to make their case and that spells fraud.
“Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe.
Now, 75% represents quite a drop in sampling population, particularly considering that these stations provide the readings used to compile both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) datasets.”
“Yet as disturbing as the number of dropped stations was, it is the nature of NOAA’s “selection bias” that Smith found infinitely more troubling.
It seems that stations placed in historically cooler, rural areas of higher latitude and elevation were scrapped from the data series in favor of more urban locales at lower latitudes and elevations. Consequently, post-1990 readings have been biased to the warm side not only by selective geographic location, but also by the anthropogenic heating influence of a phenomenon known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI).
For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers.”
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html
There is nothing to question. You are a congenital liar and woefully ignorant of basic science and statistics.
By the way Swallow, I wasn’t invited to these jokes of ‘debates’ because they were invariably set up by fossil-fool funded Republicans like James Inhofe and others in US government pushing corporate agendas. Heck, they have even stooped so low as to invite know-nothings like Mark Steyn and Christopher Monckton to testify before Congress. The reason they invite a bottom-feeder like Moore is because they simply cannot find qualified scientists who deny anthropogenic climate change and because Moore’s ancient affiliation with Greenpeace is used as cover for his brazenly anti-environmental views. There are a million other much more qualified scientists out there who aren’t invited to these comedy fests because their views do not conform with the right wing political agendas of the current borderline fascist US government.
None of this is remotely surprising, except to an intellectual lightweight such as yourself. By the way I suppose you are referring to the same Susan Crockford who has a grand total of zero peer-reviewed publications in her career on polar bears and climate change? And nowhere in her childish discussions of polar bear demographics is there any mention of vitally important areas like tipping points, critical thresholds, temporal lags and non-linear dynamics. She doesn’t discuss them because she is a zoologist and not an ecologist. You clearly don’t understand them either.
Yesterday I listed a number of papers with meta-analyses showing recent effects of warming on biodiversity across terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems. Your method of dismissal is to ignore them as if they don’t exist. This might work for you on blogs but I am afraid in the real world it means simply that you either have reading comprehension problems or else do not understand relevant fields. Methinks it is both. I am not a climate scientist so I defer to the views of the vast majority of them when it comes to climate change. You are not any kind of scientist but unlike me you exhibit no limits in your arrogance in believing that you know more than climate scientists about climate and me about ecology and environmental science. This simply proves that you are seriously afflicted with the Dunning-Kruger syndrome. You lack the cognitive ability to realize that you know very little about complex scientific fields and as a consequence you vastly overestimate what you think you know. To be honest, the social media is full of people like you. Laymen reinventing science.
“By the way Swallow, I wasn’t invited to these jokes of ‘debates’ because they were invariably set up by fossil-fool funded Republicans like James Inhofe and others in US government pushing corporate agendas.”
This is just another of the beyond stupid comments that Jeffh makes without ever taking the time to think, which is an impossible task for him because he should have wondered at how it was that on the other side of the debate sat the perpetrator of frauds, Dr. Michael Mann and his lying side kick, Dr. David Titley, who lied about the sea level rise in Virginia at the Norfolk Navy Base.
Then you launce into a slanderous onslaught about Susan Crockford, who knows more about polar bears than some kook whose claim to fame is knowledge of “Life-history, foraging and developmental strategies in hyperparasitoids.” which is hardly applicable to polar bears. Then you make the beyond stupid comment that; “She doesn’t discuss them because she is a zoologist and not an ecologist” when, as far as most intelligent people understand that, polar bears are actually animals, and very large ones, and they are doing very well in the world that some idiots believe is going to incinerate in 12 years because of CO2. It is only expected that you would have no idea what the definition of Zoology even is from your inane comment. Why don’t you explain the, “important areas like tipping points, critical thresholds”, which you have no idea about in regards to polar bears?
“Zoology or animal biology is the branch of biology that studies the animal kingdom, including the structure, embryology, evolution, classification, habits, and distribution of all animals, both living and extinct, and how they interact with their ecosystems”
You have proven that this is the only comment that you have made to be true; “I am not a climate scientist so I defer to the views of the vast majority of them when it comes to climate change” You need to defer to the human race also for how little you know about it or how little you respect members of it with your vicious tone you use with anyone that knows the truth about your hoax, AGW. Quit with your unsubstantiated analyses of what I am and figure what you are not and that is a scientist that has any idea about the climate. You ignorantly down grade actual climate scientist even after you admit, as if it was necessary for you to do so, that “I am not a climate scientist…”. You are basically a sour acting nobody who no one has ever heard of, or cares about what your irrational views are about the Earth’s climate and its relationship to carbon dioxide. Most folks who have an interest in this topic, CO2 and if it effects the climate, know who Dr. Patrick Moore and Dr. Judith Curry are and that is why they were invited to debate the issue with Mann & Titley in Charleston, West Virginia on June 12, 2018. You should get the idea regarding why you were NOT invited to participate in this debate because; “Mark Wickens does a superb job of deconstructing how Harvey, like so many other green fanatics, misuses and misquotes scientific data in support of his ideological environmentalism”.
Susan Crockford: No climate emergency for polar bears
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQRle6pgBCY
A highly relevant article by Justin McBrien in Truthout:
https://truthout.org/articles/this-is-not-the-sixth-extinction-its-the-first-extermination-event/
“From the ‘insect apocalypse’ to the ‘biological annihilation’ of 60 percent of all wild animals in the past 50 years, life is careening across every planetary boundary that might stop it from experiencing a ‘Great Dying’ once more.
But the atrocity unfolding in the Amazon, and across the Earth, has no geological analogue — to call it the ‘sixth extinction event’ is to make what is an active, organized eradication sound like some kind of passive accident. This is no asteroid or volcanic eruption or slow accumulation of oxygen in the atmosphere due to cyanobacteria photosynthesis.
We are in the midst of the First Extermination Event, the process by which capital has pushed the Earth to the brink of the Necrocene, the age of the new necrotic death”.
100% accurate. As an ecologist I can say that McBrien’s description sums up what is happening. Climate change is only a part of the mix, but an important component. We are obliterating nature in the blink of a geological eye. This explains Greta Thunberg’s anger and outburst at the UN a few days ago. The political and corporate classes are deaf, dumb and blind. It may take young people to lead us out of this abyss we are creating.
Good one Jeff, now get on with your papers and leave the denial twerp to us, you have done more than enough in exposing the twerp for the empty vessel he is.
Swallow, one of your problems (among many) is that you lack the cognitive tools to realize how much shit you are spewing. People trained in science – like me – know where to draw the line. You don’t. You are like a car without breaks.
On the Web of Science Susan Crockford has published 17 scientific papers in her ‘illustrious’ career with 240 citations. She is 65 years old. None of her publications are on polar bears or climate change and its effects on Arctic ecosystems.
I have published 202 papers in my scientific career (on the Web of Science) with 6930 citations (so far – I get more citations in about 4-5 months than Crockford has in her career). I am younger than Crockford. I am not afraid to say that she doesn’t reach up to my ankles in terms of ecology. A leading polar bear researcher once told me that her understanding of ecology is less than elementary. She is a paleozoologist whose expertise is in taxonomy. You can spout definitions all day but scientists are forced to specialize in certain disciplines. Hers is light years away from population ecology – and it shows. Why is she so scared to try and publish her arguments in a scientific journal? She has run her blog for a long time now but has never published anything in her blog in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. No need to explain why. The answer is obvious.
And while you are continually slandering Mann, he has more publications and citations on his own than Spencer and Christy have in their careers combined – and he started publishing some 8-10 years after them. So do I for that matter. Indeed, climate scientists like Mann, Trenberth, Santer, Hansen, Schmidt, Rahmstorf and others dwarf the scientific output of Lindzen, Spencer and Christy, just like my output dwarfs Crockford’s.
You need to do better Swallow. You are failing here in an epic fashion. Every one of your posts becomes more and more of a table pounding exercise. You will never ever defeat me in a scientific debate. It ain’t gonna happen.
JDS ignoring the realities of warming and climate change makes you look like an ass.
From the Arctic and Greenland, from mountain peaks in Europe, Africa, Asia and South America (Lonnie Thompson et. al) to the Antarctic ice is disappearing.
Here is another example of reality which you will try to ignore:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49820542
Jeffh is absolutely spot on about Susan Crockford.
Now the kicker, as they say.
Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy
Ad to answer why Curry and Moore were invited to debate Mann and Titley: because the organizers wanted to create a ‘false balance’ by giving the impression that the scientific community is divided over the causes and consequences of the induscriminate burning of fossil fuels and the contribution of CO2 to climate. What is shows is that it is virtually impossible to scrape up any so-called experts who disagree with the consensus because they are forced to use the usual suspects every time. There are only a tiny handful of mostly elderly scientists who dispute that the Earth is warming and Curry and Moore are among this group. Moore isn’t even a climate scientist but a fringe ecologist. Indeed, in 1998 a leaked memo from the American Petroleum Institute showed that they were worried about ‘using up their credibility’ by relying on the same ‘small’ number of scientists to downplay warming. Well here they are, 21 years later – relying largely on the same scientists.
I feel compelled to thank Athaic for his September 25, 2019 at 2:04 am comment that had such a wealth of great scientific information in it. It is too bad that while accumulating all of this “valid scientific” information, he could not have taken the time to try to find the correct spelling of this amazing group of Nepalese people that the British have thought so highly of for 200 years, the Gurkhas.
I wondered how long it would take you in resorting to nitpicking on spelling having set a trap. I just knew that your petty nature would respond when you did.
Note I am a British long serving service veteran of the RN, thus the Gurkhas have not eluded me. I was in the FAA branch of the RN thus have qualifications in, amongst others, aerodynamics and meteorology. It was experience of severe weather at sea, with one carrier I was on unzipping from the strain, and also of other climes that sparked an increase in my studying of the subject over the ensuing decades including at university. I have also studied much history and associated geography, service training and expeditions ensured I was most conversant with maps, necessary in life threatening situations which I encountered. Military and naval history continues to be studied as well as the dire consequences of imperialism with deep diving on the history of the British plunder of Asia — in particular India and territories to the north.
I have also studied the effects of human activities on ecosystems which includes the effects of the anthropogenic acceleration of global warming with the resultant climate change.
I find your huffing and puffing about my supposed inability to read maps etc quite amusing, seeing as you know sweet fanny Adams about me, but also revealing. That you have to resort to such petty distractions from the essential scientific underpinning of climate, global warming, climate change is a mark of the dilettante.
Finally, there were just too many spelling errors in your Gish Gallops to even begin mentioning them all, so a word of advice – when in glass houses …..
Remember Lionel, swallow is simply a gigantic dick who (like anti-vaccination folks) wants to believe he’s making contributions despite the fact that
– he’s not smart enough to understand the issue
– he doesn’t like the state of science so he simply lies about it
Unrelated note:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49820542?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_source=facebook&utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark
That’s all the mendacious hot air generated by Brexit wots done that.
Re: using “Ghurka” instead of Gurkhas
Heck, if we want to split hairs, maybe I should have used the ancient spelling of the name, i.e. Gorkhas.
It’s funny. In my country, we have the bad habit to modify/mangle the spelling of foreign names (even close ones, like British names – we don’t say ‘London’ or ‘Thames’). In extreme cases, like Asian names, there are at least three ways of spelling floating around. It’s a tradition at least four century old.
Maybe I should just claim the spelling I used is correct in my language (it’s not)…
I’m just wondering: however we write it using our Roman alphabet, I don’t think the Nepalese used the same alphabet to first write this word.
So it’s a bit unreal to be arguing about the proper spelling of a name we transcribed in our language.
tl;dr: one – I learned to spell the name correctly; two – the troll is petty.
As I said, very good at pouncing on the 3% of something and ignoring all the rest.
dean
I posted that link @ JDS which sparked one of his brainless rants.
And the pompous Geoffrey Cox added a whole lot more acting as if he was in a Gilbert and Sullivan production, the very model of a modern Attorney General.
I will not go into an ad hominem attack directed at ‘dean’ regarding why and how it can be that ‘dean’ appears to be so dishonest and stupid when his every post clears that issue up by him making that case for himself with such comments as this; “he doesn’t like the state of science so he simply lies about it” without having the intelligence to show what he believes that I have lied about.
Then the ever helpful ‘dean’ directs me to a BBC article and this is where “dean’, as well as Lionel A, get most, if not all, of their “scientific” information from due to being too lazy to try to find actual research on various topics to do with climate change and that is why they appear to be so left out in the dark regarding the topic.
“Rising global temperatures are causing the melting of mountain glaciers and the retreat of polar ice sheets.” This is the lie presented by BBC that goons like “dean’ as well as Lionel A lap up and spread around.
I have been to New Zealand three different times and have seen Franz Josef Glacier on two of those trips when I went to the South Island. It was in the Southern Alps that Sir Edmund Hillary trained for his successful assent of Mt Everest. When I took the Everest Base Camp trek with my friend, “Thakur pandey thakurpandey197@gmail.com” who is GURKHAN and he lives in a house with no electricity about 25 miles out of Gorkha that he has invited me to and where I stayed on two occasion with he and his family, it is easy to understand that the people of the Everest area, the Sherpas, love and appreciate what Sir Edmund Hillary did for them. Of course a babbling about the Earth being close to being incinerated due to the trace gas, CO2, alarmist would have no interest in any information of this sort when they can look for lies about how the ice is all melting around the world.
“Contrary to all of the hype about melting glaciers, at least 58 New Zealand glaciers advanced between 1983 and 2008. Indeed, Franz Josef Glacier advanced nearly continuously during those years.”
https://www.iceagenow.info/trying-explain-new-zealands-unusual-growing-glaciers/#more-24710
“Here’s a (partial) list of the
specific glaciers that are growing”
(There are many more)
https://iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm
What is one to believe? I do not think that what the BBC or the Guardian puts out is believable due to them being so agenda driven regarding this hoax about climate change being caused by CO2.
“Climate change making Mont Blanc even higher
CHAMONIX, France: Western Europe’s highest mountain, Mont Blanc, is taller than ever due to snow piled atop its summit, in what experts meeting in France have described as a climate change-related phenomenon. The Alps’ tallest peak was measured at 4810.9 metres on September 15 and 16 – a 2.15-metre increase in two years, surveyors from France’s Haute-Savoie region said on Saturday. “The height as well as the volume of Mont Blanc has increased considerably, because the snow has massed on the summit over the last two years,” Philippe Borel said at a meeting in the Alpine town Chamonix.”
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change-making-mont-blanc-even-higher-20071015-gdrcdr.html
It is amusing to have this uneducated dunce launch a diatribe about sea levels when ‘no name BBD’, and that is for a reason because he/she is worried that someone that they may know would read this junk that BBD says here and then know what an idiot they are, posted this garbage; “Once again, you screw your own pooch though painful ignorance, Dougie. Why do you think the data are described as RELATIVE sea level trends? As opposed to ABSOLUTE trends?”
First off, as usual, ‘no name BBD’, has not the slightest idea what they are babbling on about and I will show the poor fool that, with evidence that is not like the alarmist do and that is offering up some conjured up bull shit that they think people should just believe because they said it, like what the bug doctor, Jeffh, is famous for doing.
I do not need to thank ‘no name BBD’ for linking a unidentified graph about the subject that they are going to get a lesson on, sea levels because the graph is bogus. Nils-Axel Morner has spent a life time studying this issue of sea levels and he, unlike your lying alarmist sources, tells the truth about sea levels.
Coastal Morphology and Sea-Level Changes in Goa, India during the Last 500 Years
“Available key site records in the Indian Ocean indicate an absence of traces of a rise in sea level, and provide firm indications of stable sea-level conditions over the last 50 years. Consequently, the present regional eustatic component in the Indian Ocean can be set at 60.0 mm/yr”.
https://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-16A-00015.1
“The average sea level rise rate for all 157 NOAA tide gauges active this century is just below 0.7 mm/year.”
Linear Relative Mean Sea Level (MSL) trends and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) in mm/year
[Source of data: PSMSL; Analysis: NOAA]
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/MSL_global_trendtable.html
Don’t these people know that The United Arab Emirates has built sand islands in the Persian Gulf & that China is building sand islands in the South China Sea? ‘no name BBD’ will have explain if they believe
Post-glacial (isostatic) rebound means that Quinhon, Vietnam is rising vertically RELATIVE to the surrounding sea. Is this picked up by the observations as a RELATIVE fall in sea level. I have been to Quinhon, Vietnam many times, most recently in 2014, & I have never seen any indication that there were glaciers lately in South East Asia like I imagine ‘no name BBD’ would like me to believe is causing +/- 1.17 mm/y change in sea level there. “You spew out so much crap here, so many, many words… can’t you get anything right?” I ask that question you, ‘no name BBD’?
Relative Sea Level Trend
605-041 Quinhon, Vietnam
• EXPORT TO TEXT | EXPORT TO CSV | SAVE IMAGE
The relative sea level trend is 0.2 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 1.17 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1977 to 2013 which is equivalent to a change of 0.07 feet in 100 years.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=605-041
You’re genuinely nuts. It’s embarrassing.
The word you are looking for is ‘composite’, not ‘bogus’. Sea level change for 1900-1992, based on tide gauge measurements, from J.A. Church and N.J. White “Sea-level rise from the late 19th to the early 21st Century” Surveys in Geophysics (2011), but multiplied by 0.78 to have 1901-1990 trend as 1.2 mm/yr as stated in C.C. Hay, et al. “Probabilistic reanalysis of twentieth-century sea-level rise”, Nature (2015). 1993-2018 data are cnes AVISO.
No, N-AM is an old denier crank who is wrong about everything, just like you. The fact that you cite him is embarrassing. His trick is to use regional instead of global measurements and relative instead of absolute calculations to deceive people about the actual rate of global SLR.
Strawman. I actually wrote this (emphasis added for idiots):
“As opposed to an ABSOLUTE rise which is what you get when you compensate for isostatic rebound, subsidence, ocean circulation effects, the geoid, etc. and calculate the ABSOLUTE trend in global average sea level. ”
Not just isostatic rebound. Read harder. Hint: you might want to look into the influence of Coriolis effect on relative sea level change.
FFS, right after I’ve just explained to you the difference between RELATIVE and ABSOLUTE…
This is a complete and utter waste of time.
Of course we do but it appears that your cognitive framework is behind reality:
Not the end of The World: the return of Dubai’s ultimate folly.
And citing Nils-Axel Mörner on sea level rise is as useful as asking Fido the time.
BTW WRT your cherry picked Vietnamese SL site what is the total of SLR since those records began? Also how certain, now we are at 2019, is the projected centennial SLR — consult the data table?
Really, your spiral of decline continues, you should do ‘stand-up’.
Swallow is wrong again (what else is new for this cherry-picking, single data point exAggerating anti-environmentist?)
New Zealand glaciers temporarily exapnded because of a very small scale regional cooling there, but the trend for glaciers is downwards, reflecting what is happening to glaciers all around the world.
It is warming. The proof is absolute. I have also mentioned biotic proxies over and over and over again and he simply ignores them. I won’t say it again.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/115135746/new-zealand-glaciers-wont-survive-this-century-scientists-say
Now I am blessed with some revelations from Lionel A about himself, other than his actual name, that he, with good cause, is reluctant to inform me of. The information is good to know because it indicates that he may have some firsthand knowledge regarding a few things that he carries on about. I have been to several areas in Asia where the British were, such as Burma, India, Sri Lanka, Singapore and, naturally Hong Kong, several times and they did some good things in spite of being what they are, British. The good thing that they did for India, the most populous democracy in the world, was by having ruled the country for 190 years giving it a common language, English, to have them to be able to have a central government. The much smaller nation of Nepal has more than 100 different languages to deal with. The official language of Nepal is Nepali; but, there more than 100 mother tongues as languages of Nepal so it is easy to understand how many languages are in the much larger India.
Then you for some reason come up with this absurd comment; “I have also studied the effects of human activities on ecosystems which includes the effects of the anthropogenic acceleration of global warming with the resultant climate change.” You have no proof of any “effects of the anthropogenic acceleration of global warming”. The only thing that you alarmist have to somehow validate your hoax of anthropogenic climate change or global warming, is the earth’s temperatures and they are not rising like you claim that they are. If they are, then explain these records that due to being politically correct have been changed to the second set of high temperature records.
North America (U.S.), Death Valley, Calif.; July 10, 1913 (134F);
Asia; Tirat Tsvi, Israel, June 21, 1942, (129F):
Australia ,Cloncurry, Queensland; Jan. 16, 1889 (128F):
Europe, Seville, Spain,Aug. 4, 1881 (122F):
South America, Rivadavia, Argentina; Dec. 11, 1905 (120F):
Canada,Midale and Yellow Grass, Saskatchewan, Canada; July 5, 1937 (113F):
Oceania;Tuguegarao, Philippines, April 29, 1912 (108F):
Persian Gulf (sea-surface): Aug. 5, 1924 (96F):
Antarctica; Vanda Station, Scott Coast, Jan. 5, 1974 (59F):
South Pole, Dec. 27, 1978, (7.5F).
Highest average annual mean temperature (world): Dallol, Ethiopia (Oct. 1960 Dec. 1966), 94° F.
Longest hot spell (world): Marble Bar, W. Australia, 100° F (or above) for 162 consecutive days, Oct. 30, 1923 to Apr. 7, 1924. Notice anything regarding the dates of these records? Anyone heard of the dust bowl & wasn’t that in the 30s
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001375.html
Highest Recorded Temperatures
Below is a table of the highest recorded temperatures for each continent. Death Valley, Calif., tops the list, hitting a stifling 134 degrees in 1913.
Place Date Degrees Degrees
Fahrenheit Celsius
North America Furnace Creek Ranch (Death Valley), Calif., USA July 10, 1913 134.0 56.7
Asia Tirat Tsvi, Israel June 21, 1942 129.2 54.0
Africa1 Kebili, Tunisia July 7, 1931 131.0 55.0
Australia Oodnadatta, South Australia Jan. 2, 1960 123.0 50.7
Europe Athens, Greece (and Elefsina, Greece) July 10, 1977 118.4 48.0
South America Rivadavia, Argentina Dec. 11, 1905 120.0 48.9
Oceania Tuguegarao, Philippines April 20, 1912 108.0 42.2
Antarctica Vanda Station, Scott Coast Jan. 5, 1974 59.0 15.0
https://www.infoplease.com/math-science/weather/highest-recorded-temperatures
This is the one that really makes the alarmist unhappy in the world they want to see burning up and everyone dying in, even though countless research reports show that more people die from cold related occurrences than heat related occurrences.
World Meteorological Organization Assessment of the Purported World Record 58°C Temperature Extreme at El
Azizia, Libya (13 September 1922)
“On 13 September 1922, a temperature of 58°C (136.4°F) was purportedly recorded at El Azizia (approximately 40 kilometers south-southwest of Tripoli) in what is now modern-day Libya…………. The WMO assessment is that the highest recorded surface temperature of 56.7°C (134°F) was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley) CA USA.”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00093.1?af=R&
This is a record that still holds after 106 years & isn’t it the same WMO that said that this is the warmest time in earth’s history, or some other such nonsense?
Effects of climate warming on biodiversity greatly increases extinction risk:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6234/571.abstract
How human streesses are downgrading trophic status in communities:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/333/6040/301
Both of the above are classic and important papers by leading ecologists. There are many more. Justin McBrien is correct in stating the obvious: the 6th great extinction event on Earth is also the first great extermination event. Species at the terminal end of the food chains are being particularly hard hit, and this has consequences for trophic integrity and prey diversity that eventually is manifested in the biomass and community composition or primary producers.
Climate warming is reducing predator abundance in vertebrates with non-linear effects on invertebrates. This also varies depending on the dietary breath of the consumer, on behavior and trait expression in predators and their prety, on plant traits such as primary and secondary metabolism and on microclimatic refugia. Moreover, warming is associated with extreme climatic events(ECEs) such as heatwaves whose frequency, intensity and duration all affect trophic interactions. These ECEs are becoming more frequent.
This message is aimed at those who appreciate ecological complexity and non-linear dynamics as well as the importance of scale. JDS is dimsissed.
It is interesting to see the latest unsubstantiated nonsense that the bug doctor puts out; “Moreover, warming is associated with extreme climatic events(ECEs) such as heatwaves whose frequency, intensity and duration all affect trophic interactions. These ECEs are becoming more frequent”. Jeffh, who specializes in research concerning: “Intra-interspecific variation in plant quality and its effects on herbivores, parasitoids and hyperparasitoids; linking above- and below ground multitrophic interactions via plant defense.”, should not involve himself in something that he obviously knows nothing about, climate change.
Here is some more information on how cold kills more people than heat does & that certainly runs counter to what the anthropogenic global warming want you to believe.
“Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased.
A Trend Analysis of the 1930–2010 Extreme Heat Events in the Continental United States*,+
Evan M. Oswald and Richard B. Rood
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAMC-D-13-071.1
Heat Mortality Versus Cold Mortality: A Study of Conflicting Databases in the United States
P. G. Dixon, D. M. Brommer, B. C. Hedquist, A. J. Kalkstein, G. B. Goodrich, J. C. Walter, C. C. Dickerson IV, S. J. Penny, and R. S. Cerveny
Office of Climatology, Department of Geography, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
Abstract
Studies, public reports, news reports, and Web sites cite a wide range of values associated with deaths resulting from excessive heat and excessive cold. For example, in the United States, the National Climatic Data Center’s Storm Data statistics of temperature- related deaths are skewed heavily toward heat-related deaths, while the National Center for Health Statistics Compressed Mortality Database indicates the reverse—4 times more people die of “excessive cold” conditions in a given year than of “excessive heat.”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-86-7-937
“Cold weather kills far more people than hot weather”
May 20, 2015
The Lancet
Summary: “Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings also reveal that deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150520193831.htm
Again (see above) JDS picks out single data points (record temperatures|) and ignores trends. I have pointed this out so many times and he simply ignores it. Trends are what matters, not outlying data points. This is elementary science that is recognized in junior high school. The fact that 64 out of 103 nations have set all-time temperature records since 2000 while only 14 have broken all-time cold temperature records proves without any doubt that temperature trends are upwards. The record hot:cold ratio is also increasing, it is 8:1 over the past 5 years. These reflect trends. Taking a single data point out of a linear regression and trying to build a story around that is not only flawed, it is intellectually dishonest. If I submitted a manuscript in which I showed a statistically significant positive relationship between ‘parameter A’ on the x-axis and ‘parameter B’ on the y-axis, but then argued that the statistics must be wrong because of one or two outlying data points towards the left end of the x-axis, I would be called out for it by peer-reviewers.
This is exactly what JDS is doing every time he reposts temperature records in Death Valley and Libya. He thinks that this is how data are analyzed. As I have said, he does not understand (or deliberately ignores) the significance of trends in regression analyses. This is because he lacks the proper training and education in the relevant fields. I will just keep repeating this until he finally desists with this ridiculous charade.
Trends in heatwaves are upwards as I said:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2018GL081004
Again, TRENDS. TRENDS. TRENDS. This is what matters.
He’s doing it with sea level now too.
And referencing that crank Nils-Axel Morner… [facepalm]
Prevented from editing, tracking down HTML snaffu.
Post concerned vanished.
Once again JDS betrays his ignorance on a topic. Unaware, or trying to ignore, the British plunder of stable and well off, top to bottom, of various Indian states. Without this plunder, and associated oppression, the British Industrial Revolution would not have been economically possible. Once that was well under-way the British rigged the trade system in favour of British imports into India thus undercutting and dis-employing millions in manufactures such that all had to rely upon agriculture for a living, this had dire consequences.
Many skilled Indian trades in metalwork and fabrics could no longer compete being undercut by cheaply produced artefacts using effectively slave labour in the UK. Also most of the substantial earnings of the small British sector in India was sent back home rather than being spent in the sub-continent.
Indeed the effect on wage levels of workers in Britain, including miners, was depressing, so the conduct of the British oligarch in India supported the profiteering of the oligarch in Britain. This was well recognised by critics and articulated, see sources below, from the nineteenth century onwards.
When it came to resistance and repression,
[1] pp 259
It is no coincidence that with globalization they do now dare to use repressive measures against those they have robbed of the dignity of worthwhile labour to support self and family. This is the underlying current of Brexit and in Trumpistan.
The Indian ryot being taxed unfairly descended into abject poverty unable to grow crops or harvest any crop produced. There were numerous famines during the nineteenth century and on into the twentieth with Churchill being involved in those during WW2.
Sources next post.
Sources:
‘India for the Indians, and for England’ (1885), Digby, William
‘British rule in India condemned by the British themselves’, Indian National Party
‘The bankruptcy of India; an enquiry into the administration of India under the Crown. Including a chapter on the silver question’, Hyndman, H. M.
‘The Case For India’, Will Durant
[1] ‘Insurgent Empire: Anticolonial Resistance and British Dissent’, Priyamvada Gopal
‘Late Victorian Holocausts’ Mike Davis
‘Inglorious Empire: What the British Did to India’, Shashi Tharoor
‘Churchill’s Secret War’, Madhusree Mukerjee
I am awaiting the delivery of the following, which has yet to be printed:
‘The Failure of Lord Curzon: A Study in Imperialism, An Open Letter to the Earl of Rosebery’, O’Donnell, Charles James
William Dalrymple has written a number of well crafted books which provide extra background and colour, I only have those listed below at the moment:
‘Koh-i-Noor: The History of the World’s Most Infamous Diamond’
‘The Last Mughal: The Fall of Delhi, 1857’
‘City of Djinns: A Year in Delhi’
‘White Mughals: Love and Betrayal in 18th-century India: Love and Betrayal in Eighteenth-century India’
The next title has only just been published but will join the others shortly.
‘The Anarchy: The Relentless Rise of the East India Company’
Here is an example of the type of statistical distortion made by BDS:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Results-of-regression-analysis-between-SOM-concentration-and-clay-content-the-3-outliers_fig2_232754143
Note that the regression is statistically significant but that the highest data points in terms of soil organic matter occur at 300 g/kg minus 1 of clay. Despite this, the regression is significantly positive. Swallow’s strategy is to ignore the trend and focus on the outliers. He does this with temperature, he does it with sea level rise and he does it with glacial retreat. THIS IS PHONY SCIENCE. FAKE. BOGUS. Epic fail.
By the way Swallow, what is your expertise in? Basket-weaving? Tiddly winks? You see, unlike you, I defer to the views of 97% of climate scientists and the joint statements of every relevant scientific organization on Earth. You, on the other hand, dismiss them and believe only in a few hacks and shills. You should therefore not involve yourself in ANYTHING to do with science.
By the way, you also fail in attempting to shift the discussion from trends in heat waves and extreme climatic events to hot and cold weather -related deaths. You are creating strawmen.
Speaking of which – if you fancy a giggle – let’s go back to the sea level rise paper by N-A Morner that JDS cited upthread. It’s the usual cherry-picked trickery, but the real fun starts when you get to the references at the end (you’ll love this, Jeff).
Amusingly, out of the 43 references provided at the end of this paper, no fewer than 31(!) are self-citations (several in E&E, I notice). Among the remaining 12, we have the Liberty Institute (indefenceofliberty.org – link broken, wtf?), Doomsday called off (Danish TV documentary, 2004 – wtf?), Murphy G, 2007 claim that sea level rising is a total fraud (wtf?) and New Dawn of Truth, the London Conference 2016 which N-AM seems to have organised with Christopher Monckton – yup, a Potty Peer special, see https://www.desmog.co.uk/2016/09/17/i-went-obscure-climate-science-denier-conference-and-what-i-learned
Sound science indeed :-0
Morner (2016) DOI: 10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-16A-00015.1
https://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-16A-00015.1
On a more serious note, JCR needs to sort its review process out, badly.
Then to have some half-baked jerk make this comment about one of the most renowned experts on sea levels in the scientific community shows how desperate these alarmist are, who probably run their bath tubs over while trying to fill them. “And citing Nils-Axel Mörner on sea level rise is as useful as asking Fido the time” What do you think, Einstein, that I should have sited some shit that you put together about sea levels? Where is your work on the subject? Oh, that’s right, you have done none on the subject; but, like the typical moron alarmist that somehow believes that CO2 is what drives the Earth’s climate, you feel that you have the right to criticize people that have devoted a life time of study into certain subjects that conflict with what your hoax about anthropogenic climate change has made you idiots believe & that is sad. I read the Guardian article that you linked but you will not read this information that a real scientist, Nils-Axel Mörner, has compiled.
XVI INQUA Congress
Paper No. 93-14
Presentation Time: 1:30 PM-4:30 PM
THE MALDIVES SEA LEVEL PROJECT. II: PAST-PRESENT-FUTURE
M RNER, Nils-Axel, Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm Univ, Stockholm S-10691 Sweden,
The Maldives have a uniquely position in sea level research (as discussed in Integrated Coastal Zone Management, No. 1, 2000, p. 17-20). In the last decade, they have attracted special attention because, in the IPCC-scenario, the Maldives would be condemned to become flooded in the next 50-100 years. Our research data do not lend support to any such flooding scenario, however. On the contrary, we find no signs of any on-going sea level rise. Our results comes from visits to numerous islands including extensive work on Hulhudoo and Guidhoo in the north, in Viligili and Loshfuchi (the site of the reef woman ) in the middle, and in Addu in the south. This includes coring, levelling, sampling and dating (35 C14-dates). Present sea level was reached at about 4500 BP. In the last 4000 years, sea level oscillated around the present in the last 4000 years. At 3900 BP, there was a short and sharp sea level high-stand at about +1.2 m. For the last millennium, a detailed sea level record is established: +0 m 1000-800 BP, +60 cm 800-300 BP, 0 to just below 0 in the 18th century AD, +30 cm 1790-1970 AD, fall to 0 in ~1970 up to today. At about 1970, sea level fell by 20-30 cm (presumably due to increased evaporation). This is recorded in storm level, high-tide level, mean sea level and in lake and lagoon levels (from the north to the south). In the last decade, there are no signs of any rise in sea level. Hence, we are able to free the islands from the condemnation to become flooded in the 21st century.
Co-authored with the Maldives Project Team Members.
https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogram/abstract_54486.htm
Then you can’t even take the time to write coherently so you offer up this crap: “BTW WRT your cherry picked Vietnamese SL site what is the total of SLR since those records began? Also how certain, now we are at 2019, is the projected centennial SLR — consult the data table?” If you alarmist are presented valid information that you do not like, then it is cherry picked. That shows just how dishonest and stupid your group of charlatans are. Are you so insanely out of it to not understand that it is not MY graph that you are not understanding; but, one that is put together by NOAA? If you do not like what NOAA is reporting take your inane complaint up with them.
Not that you would ever look up what was reported at this conference that took place at the Reno Hilton Resort and Conference Center because that would cut into your main sources of scientific information, the BBC and the Guardian.
Holocene Sea Level Changes, Coastal Evolution and Future Prospects (Posters)
https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogram/session_3419.htm
It would take an idiotic alarmist to not be able to understand that if the Maldives feared being underwater soon by the rising sea level maybe, just maybe, they would not have a building boom in process.
“After building spree, just how much does the Maldives owe China? Updated: November 24, 2018
China has underwritten millions of dollars in loans for infrastructure in the Maldives, located along its busy shipping route to the Middle East.
But the unprecedented building boom in the island chain of around 400,000 people – known for its white sand beaches and luminous cyan water – stoked fears it was loading up on debt and prompted a strident opposition campaign that helped Solih defeat Yameen in an election in September.”
https://indianexpress.com/article/world/after-building-spree-just-how-much-does-the-maldives-owe-china-5462332/
He isn’t. He’s a crank, as I said earlier, and everybody knows it.
If you had the faintest glimmer of an inkling of a clue, the mad-as-fuck references to that POS paper you cited would ring alarm bells loud enough to crack glass.
Where is yours?
Nor have you. Can you avoid such blatantly stupid attempts at point scoring please? They are embarrassing.
However, unlike you, I have read extensively – unlike you – and simply report the expert consensus, which is that there is unequivocal evidence for global average sea level rise over the last century and an increase in the rate over recent decades.
Perhaps it isn’t being spelled out clearly enough:
There is unequivocal evidence that the climate system (oceans, land surface and troposphere) are warming rapidly, mainly because of human CO2 emissions.
Warming melts ice and causes water to expand.
Therefore sea level is rising and will continue to do so at an accelerating rate as terrestrial ice sheet collapse takes over from thermal expansion of seawater as the main driver.
You are denying everything that is known about the radiative properties of CO2, atmospheric physics, GMST and OHC increases, palaeoclimate behaviour and the fact that ice melts and water expands when temperatures rise.
This isn’t just stupid, it is unhinged.
Lionel A sputters this out to show his ignorance; “Of course we do but it appears that your cognitive framework is behind reality” Reality of what, one might ask? What was the point of the Guardian article that you linked? Were you, in your own confused way, trying to link it to sea level rise? You have no idea about what your point was because you had none other than to show your how deceitful you are since the conversation had been about the lack of sea level rise. I have spent time at the Dubai airport and that is all that I want of what it has to offer.
“Reality of what, one might ask? ”
The reality of what science actually tells us about climate change. You are right on top of all the dishonesty and lies about it, but not the facts.
But since you’ve long ago shown yourself to be an ignorant and dishonest shill, that’s not a surprise.
Clearly JDS does not grasp the strategic aims of China, that he fails to do so is puzzling as the vfollowing are in his cut & paste:
Seeing as China has the logistic ability and economic muscle to build islands in the South China Sea improving the sea defences of selected island in the Maldives archipelago should not be beyond it. The short term imperative is for territorial expansion SLR or not.
China, Maldives clash over mounting Chinese debt as India warms up to Male
It would be safe to assume from what he/she post that BBD is as near being brain dead as what his/her cartoon that announces his or hers attempt to say something intelligent and BBD always fails to do that, like when they post this beyond stupid comment; “You deny the fact that CO2 is a climate forcing greenhouse gas, eg.” What does CO2 force, after all it is actually only 0.03% of the Earth’s atmosphere, according to Cal Tech, that knows one thousand times more than what some fool making inane comments on an obscure internet blog knows?
This is what Cal Tech says makes up the Earth’s atmosphere;
“What is the atmosphere of Earth made of?
Earth’s atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon, and 0.03% carbon dioxide with very small percentages of other elements. Our atmosphere also contains water vapor. In addition, Earth’s atmosphere contains traces of dust particles, pollen, plant grains and other solid particles.”
This is Merriam-Webster’ definition of CO2.
“carbon dioxide noun
Definition of carbon dioxide
: a heavy colorless gas CO2 that does not support combustion, dissolves in water to form carbonic acid, is formed especially in animal respiration and in the decay or combustion of animal and vegetable matter, is absorbed from the air by plants in photosynthesis, and is used in the carbonation of beverages”
“Air” has a molecular weight of 29 while carbon dioxide’s molecular weight is 44.01 & that means that CO2 is 1.51 times heavier than air. I would not expect someone who is so brainwashed regarding CO2 and saying it is such a forcing agent in the atmosphere to ever be able to understand what this fact alone means. How could anyone that believes that a trace gas, CO2, that is 0.03% of the Earth’s atmosphere is the reason the Earth’s climate changes and that it alone is what caused the Earth’s temperature to be what it is, be expected to use a realistic and rational thought process to come to the realization that it is the sun, that makes up 99.86% of the mass of the solar system that causes the Earth’s climate and overall temperature to be what it is?
It is obvious that the gases that comprise the atmosphere mix and move but it is also obvious that the heavier gases such as CO2, that is one and one-half times heavier than what is called “air”, sinks and this was what the information that Richard Belshaw on 3 January 2009 presented; but, BBD must keep in mind that it was not his observation but information taken from the Excel spreadsheet extension of CRC 85th edition 2004-2005 handbook on physics and chemistry. The mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 1.06186E+14 x 10^14 kg . The Mass of Oxygen (O2) in the atmosphere is: 0.23 x (5.12 x 1018kg) = 1.1776 x 1018 kg (1.2 x 1018 kg)
% increase in CO2 per year = 1.1 x 1015/1.23 x 1018 x 100% = 0.089% or 8.9 x 10-4
Total % increase in CO2 in one year is: 8.9 x 10-4 x 0.03 = 2.7 x 10-5
So, in one year the Carbon Dioxide content of the atmosphere would change from 0.03% to 0.030027%. (these figures are for the burning of gasoline)
To increase CO2 by a third: 1.23 x 1018/3 = 4.1 x 1017.
would take: 4.1 x 1017/1.1 x 1015 = 372 years.
Real life examples of how CO2 is 1.51 times heavier than air can be seen here by anyone smart enough to understand what happened at Lake Nyos in August 1986 when more than 1500 people and 6000 head of cattle were killed when carbon dioxide flowed downhill into the low lying valleys
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992JVGR…51..171L
As far as the forcing crap that I see coming from the true believing alarmist goes, they need to know what puts water in its various forms into the atmosphere in the first place and that is sun caused evaporation.
John Tyndall was so far ahead of BBD and your “You deny the fact that CO2 is a climate forcing greenhouse gas, eg” & you do NOT understand that water is the principle greenhouse gas.
“Tyndall concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling surface air temperature by inhibiting leakage of the Earth’s heat back into outer space. He declared that, without water vapour, the Earth’s surface would be ‘held fast in the iron grip of frost’ – the greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse effect works as follows. Most of the Sun’s energy is radiated as visible light. This is not absorbed by the atmosphere and passes through to warm the Earth. The warm Earth radiates heat back into the atmosphere as infrared radiation. This is avidly absorbed by atmospheric water vapour and carbon dioxide, trapping the heat and preventing the Earth from freezing.”
https://archive.is/EC8Ig#selection-901.0-913.378
It is not amazing that John Tyndall knew so much more about this issue 160 years ago than the alarmist who run around like Chicken Little crying that the sky is falling because of CO2. He was something that today’s alarmist are not, a scientist who tried to find out what was the truth and John Tyndall was intelligent enough to recognize what the truth was when he discovered it.
Kinda’ strange, then Mr. Sage of so-called wisdom, that every major relevant scientific organization in the world and National Academy of Science affirms the relationship between concentrations of this gas (CO2) that you claim is insignificant and global surface temperatures across the biosphere. And to suggest that researchers at Caltech or indeed any university or institution (aside from a mental hospital) would stand behind your assertions is, well, beyond parody. It is comedy gold. You are one strange, deluded, weird dude.
And I have asked this before. Please tell us that the biosphere would look like if you reduced concentrations of this supposedly insignificant gas from 0.03% to 0%. Any ideas? You can start with plants if you like and then end with climate. If it is irrelevant at the current concentration, as you suggest, then heck, life on Earth doesn’t need it. This is what you are intimating. Gee, you like to paint yourself into corners. Let’s see you squirm your way out of this, then. I await more of your infinite wisdom gleaned from your old high school classes.
Hmmmm. In summary so who are readers here supposed to believe? A retired old guy whose last science class was in high school back in the 1960s or 70s or the combined weight of the scientific community? Swallow, you write as if you have the weight of science on your side. You don’t. We left you behind 25 years ago. Make that 150.
Seriously this farce as gone on long enough. And you know it. Note how nobody has come on here defending your wacky beliefs. Zero. Zilch. Nada. You are on your own. Think about that.
Denying the *fact* that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is the hallmark of lunacy, JDS. I’m not going to argue facts with a lunatic.
Lastly, Swallow, I still wonder why you have not taken your perceived brilliance and submitted it as an article to a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Since you vehemently disagree with the positions of National Academies and scientific bodies across the world on CO2 and climate, the fact that a self-taught retired old man with a high school science education has seen the light would make headline news everywhere. Are you scared of the media attention you would garner by showing the scientific community how wrong we all are? Do you avoid this scrutiny out of your deep humility?
My take is that you like being an internet troll because it gives you the chance to promulgate your nonsense without your stupid ideas being formally rejected. Moreover, you can selectively respond to posts demolishing each of your memes. Blogs are ideal venues for people like you who are masters of the Gish Gallop. So a blogger you shall remain. For me the consolation is that you are essentially invisible. Almost 100% of the scientific community has never heard of you (me being an unfortunate exception).
It is nice to have discussions with people who can think for themselves and not go like a flock of snot nosed sheep and follow the leader the way the bug doctor, Jeffh does.
I assume, Jeffh, that you know what “The Guardian’s” stance is on this issue of climate change; but, this is what they have to say about your 97% nonsense & “A retired old guy whose last science class was in high school back in the 1960s or 70s or the combined weight of the scientific community?” It is really too bad that you will not learn anything about this subject of anthropogenic climate change and how and why it is not happening instead of making such a disagreeable and ignorant fool out of yourself on this blog. It is very doubtful if having knowledge about something that no one cares about, “Life-history, foraging and developmental strategies in hyperparasitoids” really prepares you to know anything about the Earth’s climate.
“The abstracts of the 12,000 papers were rated, twice, by 24 volunteers. Twelve rapidly dropped out, leaving an enormous task for the rest. This shows. There are patterns in the data that suggest that raters may have fallen asleep with their nose on the keyboard. In July 2013, Mr Cook claimed to have data that showed this is not the case. In May 2014, he claimed that data never existed. The data is also ridden with error. By Cook’s own calculations, 7% of the ratings are wrong. Spot checks suggest a much larger number of errors, up to one-third.”
“Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong. Cook’s consensus is also irrelevant in policy. They try to show that climate change is real and human-made. It is does not follow whether and by how much greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced.”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming
This is what a source that you hate, Fox News, says about the issue:
“Cook and Co. analysed somewhere between 11,944 and 12,876 papers – they can’t get their story straight on the sample size – but only 64 of these explicitly state that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming. A reexamination of their data brought that number down to 41. That is half a per cent or less of the total, rather than 97 percent.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/05/28/climate-change-and-truth-mr-obama-97-percent-experts-do-not-agree-with.html
It takes an exceptionally stupid person to ask this question; “And I have asked this before. Please tell us that the biosphere would look like if you reduced concentrations of this supposedly insignificant gas from 0.03% to 0%”. One needs to ask any fool who ask this kind of a question just what do they believe the atmospheric level of CO2 should be in their make believe world? This below is what people who can actually think and have studied the issue of CO2 have discovered about it while typical bug doctors have no idea as to why greenhouse operators ADD CO2 to their green houses. I’ll give Jeffh a hint, it makes plants grow better and plants are the bases of animal life, as most foliage eating insects well know.
“That 400 ppm is actually dangerously low is a fact the alarmists keep avoiding and suppressing. Below 150 ppm, plant-life dies off on a massive scale. The Earth actually came very close to that point many times over the last 2 million years during the ice ages. At the bottom of the last ice age just 20,000 years ago, life on the planet literally teetered on the brink when CO2 fell to a level of just 180 ppm. Do we really want to live on the brink of extinction. It’s a fact that biologists have shown that once the atmospheric CO2 level falls below the 500 ppm level, plants really begin to suffer. Many of us have seen the video showing how plants grow faster under higher CO2 concentrations. The following charts show the growth curves of some plants as a function of CO2 concentration:
https://notrickszone.com/2013/05/17/atmospheric-co2-concentrations-at-400-ppm-are-still-dangerously-low-for-life-on-earth/
Patrick Moore knows what is going on in the world of science and has not been brainwashed by the perpetrators of this anthropogenic climate change hoax like so many idiots seem to have allowed themselves to be. Then I have some stupid fool make this comment to me; “If it is irrelevant at the current concentration, as you suggest, then heck, life on Earth doesn’t need it. This is what you are intimating.” Who could be so dishonest as to suggest that the bases of all life on earth, the trace gas, CO2, is irrelevant? Show me where I ever emanated what you babble on about regrading carbon dioxide, the bases of all life on earth, in case you have never heard that before.
“Plants grow much faster when CO2 is higher, the optimum concentration is between 1500-2000 ppm so there is a long way to go before plants are happy. CO2 levels in the atmosphere have continued to rise despite plants absorbing more CO2. So what is the ‘scientists’ point? It is to obfuscate, confuse, and otherwise muddy the waters with disinformation.
Moore continued: “We should challenge them to admit that CO2 is the most important nutrient for all life on earth and to admit that it is proven in lab and field experiments that plants would grow much faster if CO2 levels were 4-5 times higher in the atmosphere than they are today. This is why greenhouse growers pipe the exhaust from their gas and wood heaters back into the greenhouse to increase CO2 levels 3-5 times the level in the atmosphere, resulting in 50-100% increase in growth of their crops. And they should recognize that CO2 is lower today than it has been through most of the history of life on earth.
“There is no ‘abrupt’ increase in CO2 absorption, it is gradual as CO2 levels rise and plants become less stressed by low CO2 levels. At 150 ppm CO2 all plants would die, resulting in virtual end of life on earth.
“Thank goodness we came along and reversed the 150 million-year trend of reduced CO2 levels in the global atmosphere. Long live the humans,” Moore concluded.”
Life did return to the earth after the dinosaurs were caused to become extinct because of when the asteroid struck the planet 65 million years ago and carbon dioxide has had a major role in the revival of life because it is what plant life MUST have to produce sugars by sun induced photosynthesis that are the bases for animal life, plus the byproduct of photosynthesis, oxygen.
I will list, with links, some of the benefits that the increase in CO2 is now having for the planet & it is important to keep in mind that for plants to grow they need warmth.
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | LETTER Greening of the Earth and its drivers Nature Climate Change 25 April 2016 “CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau.”
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n8/full/nclimate3004.html
A little message from palaeoclimate:
High CO2 = hothouse climate state
Spike in CO2 = hyperthermal event
Low CO2= icehouse climate state
Wonder why?
You are wrong JDS. Science may not be based on consensus but public policy must be based on it. And the consensus exists. I know it because I am a scientist and I have met thousands upon thousands of colleagues across various disciplines in my 25 years as a scientist and in all that time I have met less than 5 who question anthropogenic climate change. The reason that most scientific papers do not mention it is because it is taken as a given. You don’t see papers on physical geology having to reaffirm the shape of the Earth as a sphere. Just because they do not mention it does not mean that they question it. They don’t mention it because it is accepted. Anthropogenic climate change is also accepted. Deniers hate the consensus because they know that if the public realize the true extent of it that they would push for mitigation. As the empirical evidence grows, as it is, deniers are getting more and more desperate to influence public opinion. That they have fomented the consensus gap is simply due to their slick and well funded PR campaigns. But there is absolutely no doubt at all that thew scientific consensus over climate change exists and is very strong.
I have no reason to want to engage with an economist like Richard Tol any more than I must, but even he admitted after the furore of the Cook et al. paper had died down that the consensus was ‘in the 90s’ in terms of percentage. And it was only one of several major studies affirming it. One of the many things I dislike about climate change deniers – and the list is long – is how they are not proactive but reactive. They do very little primary scientific research. Like creationists, they sit back and simply try to poke holes in existing evidence and models as if that vindicates them.
Finally, all of the National Academies in every industrialized nation in the world and all of the relevant scientific bodies would not affirm the relationship between CO2 and temperature if there was not a strong consensus. Again, despite distorting the evidence, there is nothing you can do to downplay the weight of scientific opinion. And it takes a lot of gall for a retired businessman like you to lecture me, a scientist working in both a university and a research institute, about the opinions of my peers.
There is a consensus, and by now it is more like 99%. Get used to it.
What I wonder about you, Jeffh, is why all of the interest in me? Are you, besides being a totally dishonest and disagreeable slug, also some vile kind of pervert? Please face the fact that almost 100% of the scientific community has never heard of you, Jeffh, who will not use his real name on an inconsequential blog. Am I supposed to be concerned what some dime a dozen bug doctor named, Jeffh, or whatever, thinks of me? Why should I wonder about some fool who is so stupid that they actually seem to believe that the trace gas, CO2, is going to incinerate the planet like the bartender from New York City, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez & the 16 year old Swedish girl that is now the spokesperson for the alarmist, Greta Thunberg, have convinced him of and that he so strongly believes that he, I’m sure to avoid being a hypocrite, no longer uses ANY FOSSIL fuels, which means no plane rides and not buying food that is raised with the use of diesel consuming farm equipment.
“Vitalism states that the functions of living things are controlled by a “vital force” and not biophysical means. Vitalism has a long history in medical philosophies – and it has ties to the four humors. It is sometimes referred to as a “life spark” and even as the soul. In the Eastern traditions it is essentially the same thing as “qi” or “chi”, which is heavily tied in to oriental medicinal methods. The concept is (as can be expected) completely rejected by most mainstream scientists. In 1967, Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, stated “And so to those of you who may be vitalists I would make this prophecy: what everyone believed yesterday, and you believe today, only cranks will believe tomorrow.”
https://listverse.com/2009/01/19/10-debunked-scientific-beliefs-of-the-past/
I’m sure that you do not know enough about American history to know that the Doctor that treated George Washington (I have seen the bed that he died in at Mt. Vernon) and ended up killing him was using the prescribed treatment of the day and following the “consensus” of that time when he basically bled George Washington to death because he had a sore throat.
These are some intelligent folks who did not agree with your consensus nonsense.
“The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement” — Karl Popper
“Skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the unpardonable sin.” Huxley
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of the truth“ Albert Einstein
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” Bertrand Russel
“Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.” —WALTER LIPPMANN (This is you, Jeffh. Try coming up with an original thought some time and you might feel good about yourself)
I place more stock in what these wise people say than what someone who is not confident enough to issue forth his real name or what the fraud, John Cook, says about “consensus”.
We’re not interested in you. We respond to your lunacy and trolling because some of us cannot quite curb the reflexive urge to explain and educate.
Troll nutters like you feed of that weakness, I’m afraid.
Your last post is just another of your lies.
Update: March 16, 2009: Prominent Scientists Continue to Join Report:
Now More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Link to Intro and full updated report:
Link to Full Printable 255-Page PDF Report
POZNAN, Poland – The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See Full report Here: & See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: ‘2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC’ ]
https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases-all?ID=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6
Global Warming Petition Project
Qualifications of Signers
Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.
The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php
Please note this Jeffh:
The skeptics have managed to turn the propaganda around against a tide of money, and it is really some achievement.
Entity USD
Greenpeace: $300m, 2010 Annual Report
WWF: $700m, ($524m Euro)
Pew Charitable Trust: $360m, 2010 Annual Report
Sierra Club: $56m, 2010 Annual Report
NSW climate change fund (just one random Gov. example): $750m, NSW Gov. (A$700m)
UK university climate fund (just another random Gov. example); $360m,UK Gov. (£234 m)
Heartland Institute: $7m, (actually $6.4m)
US government funding for climate science and technology: $7,000m, “Climate Money” 2009
US government funding for “climate related appropriations”: $1,300m
USAID 2010
Annual turnover in global carbon markets: $120,000m, 2010 Point Carbon
Annual investment in renewable energy: $243,000m, 2010 BNEF
US government funding for skeptical scientists
$ 0
“CRU was established in 1971 with funding from BP, Shell and others, according to author Michael Sanderson in his book “The History of East Anglia, Norwich.” This is important because CRU research served as the basis for IPCC findings that were invoked in the mainstream press as proof of catastrophic human induced climate change.”
CRU has its acknowledged a long list of funders, which includes BP. They are as follows:
http://capitalresearch.org/2010/12/bps-fall-from-grace-disgraced-oil-giant-was-once-favored-by-green-groups/
Swallow, several things. First and most importantly listen to BBD’s advice. He sums you up well.
Second, you must really stop being such a flaming hypocrite. You dismiss sources you don’t like (the Guardian) but then put up links from – you guessed it – the Guardian (e.g. the Tol piece). How stupid can you get?
Also if you want to play the selective ‘media is good versus bad’ game, then stop citing crap from Fox News, the American Thinker and other quasi-fascist right wing sources.
As for being obsessed with you, oh the irony! I know who you are but I have not bothered to further your humiliation by telling everyone else who posts on here. And you want to know why? Because it is obvious without doing so that you are doing a pretty good job on here and other blogs of making yourself out to look patently stupid. Simply reinforcing it by showing that you haven’t been anywhere near a university science lecture in your life is just adding salt to the wound.
You aren’t the first person to try and marginalize my scientific qualifications with dismissive remarks and you for sure won’t be the last. I have a very thick skin, Swallow, and nothing you can say dismisses the standing I have in the field of ecology. Besides, put yourself next to me in terms of scientific education. I am up for it. Are you though?
Look at the names of list of signatories on Swallow’s list.
Bottom-feeders. Almost all of them. Old, retired, hardly-ever-published dinosaurs. No wonder Swallow likes them. He can identify with their demographic.
The ‘skeptics’ [sic] meaning ‘deniers’ have not turned any tide. With respect to the science, they lost some time ago. That is why denier lists are invariably filled with no-name nobodies. For every one of the bottom-feeders they list, I could cite 100 generally younger, much more published active scientsts with quite different views. You see there are the movers, the shakers, and the slugs. Most of the deniers are of the gastropod variety.
It takes an exceptionally stupid person to link to a 2014 Guardian article penned by Richard Tol and it takes a dishonest person to hold up an article in a paper which has already been scorned by that person, because they didn’t like the messages.
On Tol 2014 you should see this:
24 Critical Errors in Tol (2014)
as for that Oregon Petition, this is an old canard that has been thrashed to death by many organizations, not least:
How the OISM Petition Project casts doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change
Now as for sourcing such as notrickzone, well know denial and bogus science site, or FoxNews, really, is this the best you can do? You never ever cite scientific papers from accredited climate scientists, I wonder why that is? The noise to signal ratio is top heavy where you are concerned.
I’ll add to BBDs reasons for expending effort answering your bilge – it is also for the benefit of any lurkers.
Excellent post Lionel. The hypocrisy with JDS Is so thick it is rank. He alone decrees which sources are relevant and which aren’t. And he even is selective within those sources – he dismisses the Guardian EXCEPT when he can cite an article in it that he agrees with. As for FoxNews, American Thinker, No Tricks Zone…. BBBBBLLLLEEEECCCCHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
None of this is remotely logical. But JDS will be back, count on it, to regale us with his infinite wisdom.
Probably worth noting that Tol’s piece in The Guardian was a ‘right of reply’ not a reflection of that paper’s editorial stance.
Oh boy, look who posted that article non other than Marc ‘MotorMouth’ Morano’.
JDS your sources are scraping the bottom of the barrel such that you are about to break through releasing all those rotten apples.
I just read through the “comments” that were in reply to my last comment on September 27, 2019 at 5:39 am and, other than the one link that Lionel A, submitted about what the site operated by the cartoonist, John Cook’s irrelevant skeptical science had to say about the “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (the OISM petition). This petition now appears to be signed by 31,487 people with a BSc or higher qualification. The signatories agree with these statements:
The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
I am sure that the totally confused bug doctor, Jeffh, whose main concern at this point is the earth shattering knowledge about; “Spatial and temporal effects on multitrophic interactions.” We must recall that, when proving that he could actually tell the truth, Jeffh said that matters dealing with the climate were beyond his expertise, which we see is totally true by his comments. Jeffh or the always wrong, BBD, cannot bring themselves to understand that no one with a rational mind can possibly believe that the trace gas, CO2, is what determines what the Earth’s climate is going to be. I am not sure if any bug doctors signed the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine petition; but, a very noted individual with a degree in physics, Edward Teller, did proudly sign the petition. Edward Teller was for sure a very intelligent individual and that is why he signed the petition. If Jeffh, BBD or Lionel A, who are not confident of their stand on this issue to even present their names, do not agree with the aim of the petition that is their right, as it is my right and that of 31,487 who have signed this petition to believe what the petition is maintaining.
I know that Dr. Robert B. Laughlin has a much better understanding of this topic than Jeffh, BBD or Lionel A could ever hope to acquire from where ever they get their delusional information.
“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.” — Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
“With every day that passes, I’m becoming more convinced that this is the most oppressive and freedom-eroding religion this world has ever seen. That would be all fine and dandy if it weren’t being forced upon us with such proselytizing madness, and if it weren’t attempting to be legislated from every publicly-held office in our nation.”
http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally
“Warmists ‘Want To Control Every Aspect Of Your Life’: ‘What you eat, what you drive, where you drive, what you believe, what you say, what you can own, how many children you can have…’
‘how much you can travel, how much money you have, what your kids are taught, how big your house is, the temperature of your house, how your house is heated, how far you live from your work, what kind of light bulbs and other appliances you have ……… Global warmers make Lenin’s Bolsheviks look like libertarians. In Soviet Russia, polar bears eat Bolsheviks’”
BBD, on September 20, 2019 at 8:15 am states this; “You deny the fact that CO2 is a climate forcing greenhouse gas, eg”. Then BBD maintains this; “As I said, you are operating in an alternative physical universe to Lindzen, Christy and Spencer. So why are you endorsing their work?
I want an answer this time.” Well there, BBD, I presented you with your answer on September 26, 2019 at 11:09 pm; but, as expected, I received no reply because BBD was too busy trying to come up with more names to call me and that seems to be the extent of his “science”.
This is to the link that the Canadian Greens do not think serves their purpose.
ppm of CO2 with altitude and mass of CO2 in atmosphere to 8520 metres beyond which there is practically no CO2
By Richard Belshaw on 3 January 2009 – 8:57pm
Excel spreadsheet extension of CRC 85th edition 2004-2005 handbook on physics and chemistry……
Equations worked out in Maple 12 by Maplesoft.
The mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 1.06186E+14 x 10^14 kg
http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/169/2009-01-03/ppm-co2-altitude-and-mass-co2-atmosphere-8520-metres-beyond-which-there-practic
But you didn’t answer the question. You doubled down on your denial that CO2 is a climate forcing with the usual specious crap but that only underlines the problem: Lindzen, Spencer and Christy would laugh in your face if they read what you wrote. They accept the radiative physics – they are scientists. They are all peddling low climate sensitivity not wingnut physics denial like you do.
So let’s try again:
As I said, you are operating in an alternative physical universe to Lindzen, Christy and Spencer. So why are you endorsing their work?
I want an answer this time.
And while we’re at it:
A little message from palaeoclimate:
High CO2 = hothouse climate state
Spike in CO2 = hyperthermal event
Low CO2= icehouse climate state
Why?
The link doesn’t work.
Observations show CO2 concentrations increasing right up to the thermosphere at ~100km altitude.
It’s what the term ‘well-mixed greenhouse gas’ means.
I bet you don’t even know how the greenhouse effect actually works.
“No one with a rational mind can possibly believe that a trace gas can possibly determine what the Earth’s climate is going to be”.
This implies that more than 97% of climate scientists do not have ‘rational minds’. This implies that the membership of every National Academy in every industrialized nation in the world as well as the members of every relevant scientific organization oncluding NASA, the AAAS, the NOAA, the AMS, the AGU etc. do not have rational minds.
Similarly, and on a point JDS cannot answer, I would add that his comment further implies that “No one with a rational mind can possibly believe that a trace gas can possibly determine the fate of plants across the biosphere or that if we eliminate this trace gas the planet would be covered in ice”.
You can’t have it both ways and you know it.
Swallow, you are are frigging lunatic. Nuts. Bonkers. Mad. Crazy. Add more descriptors here ___________
With regards to understanding the fate of the biosphere, Robert Laughlin has strayed well outside of his field of expertise. He ought to stay in his lane. I am often amazed how scientists with certain areas of expertise suddenly think that this confers them infinite wisdom in other fields.
Let me be more blunt: Professor Laughlin does not have a clue what he is talking about. I am not a physicist and he is not an ecologist. In terms of expertise in my field of endeavor he may as well be in elementary school. Making flippant remarks about the planet’s ability to heal itself and climate being beyond our control is absolutely childish garbage. Of course ecosystems across the biosphere are resilient to the human assault within defined boundaries. But we are witnessing a mass extermination event caused by us that rivals the rate of genetic and species loss at the Cretaceous-Tertiary interface. Climate change is one of several factors responsible. All are anthropogenic.
The important point lost in Laughlin’s incoherent babble is whether the planet can continue to sustain humanity as we continue with our metaphorical slash-and-burn approach to nature. Of course if and when we disappear the planet’s ecosystems will gradually but inexorably recover over 5-10 million years, just as they did after the asteroid hit the area what is now the Yucatan Peninsula 65 million years ago, driving rapid climatic changes (cooling) that doomed the dinosaurs which disappeared over the next 20,000 or so years – a blink of a geological eye. Humans depend on an array of services emerging over variable spatial and temporal scales from nature, but we know that they are being seriously degraded.
It is amusing how you continually emphasize the qualifications of the small number of generally old scientists whose views resonate with your warped ones. Axel-Morner, Spencer, Christy, Crockford are all grovellingly referred to as ‘Professor’ or ‘Doctor’.
I have more peer-reviewed publications and citations than those four COMBINED. I will pass Lindzen soon even though he published his first paper 30 years before I published mine. I am every bit as qualified as a scientist as any of them. Your attempt to marginalize me and thousands of other qualified scientists will not work.
With regards to understanding the fate of the biosphere, Jeff Harvey has strayed well outside of his field of expertise. He ought to stay in his lane which is Ecology and he seems to be what one could called a bug doctor, or one involved in the study of insects that is a subset of Biology called Entomology. That is a long way from what the credentials of a man that Jeffh seems to hate and badmouth at every opportunity, Dr Roy Spencer; “Spencer received a B.S. in atmospheric sciences from the University of Michigan in 1978 and his M.S. and Ph.D. in meteorology from the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1980 and 1982. […]As well as his position at UHA, Spencer is currently the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite, a position he has held since 1994. In 2001, he designed an algorithm to detect tropical cyclones and estimate their maximum sustained wind speed using the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU).”
I have found from much experience in dealing with Jeffh what his opinion of this very noted atmospheric physicist is; “Richard Siegmund Lindzen who is a Harvard-trained atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 books and scientific papers. He has been a critic of some anthropogenic global warming theories and the alleged political pressures on climate scientists”
Am I to put much stock in anything that Jeffh says after making this comment to me regarding Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and who was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory? It is, given the above facts regarding Jeffh, how he can say with no sense of shame that; “I am often amazed how scientists with certain areas of expertise suddenly think that this confers them infinite wisdom in other fields.”
I can see from this garbage that you produced below how it is that you so dislike Dr. Susan J. Crockford, who has not stepped out of her lane of expertise due to her education and interest and the number of reports that she has produced on Polar bears. “My name is Susan Crockford and I am a zoologist with more than 35 years experience, including published work on the Holocene history of Arctic animals. As of 1 July 2019, I am a former adjunct professor at the University of Victoria, British Columbia and work full time for a private consulting company I co-own with two colleagues, Pacific Identifications Inc. Like Ian Stirling, grand-daddy of all polar bear biologists, I earned my undergraduate degree in zoology at the University of British Columbia. Polar bear evolution is one of my professional interests, which I discuss in my 2006 book, Rhythms of Life: Thyroid Hormone and the Origin of Species (based on my Ph.D. dissertation earned in 2004 at the University of Victoria, B.C. Canada).
https://polarbearscience.com/about-2/
In regard to this paper that you contributed to, it is apparent that it is you, an Ecologist, who seems to like insects and therefore is an Entomologist, that making such grand statements about polar bears requires a bug doctor to step way out his lane of expertise. Dr. Crockford who states that Polar bear evolution is one of her professional interests, which she discusses in her 2006 book, is well within her lane.
Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy
• Jeffrey A. Harvey (Corresponding author
Increasing surface temperatures, Arctic sea-ice loss, and other evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are acknowledged by every major scientific organization in the world. However, there is a wide gap between this broad scientific consensus and public opinion. Internet blogs have strongly contributed to this consensus gap by fomenting misunderstandings of AGW causes and consequences. Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) have become a “poster species” for AGW, making them a target of those denying AGW evidence. Here, focusing on Arctic sea ice and polar bears, we show that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability. By denying the impacts of AGW on polar bears, bloggers aim to cast doubt on other established ecological consequences of AGW, aggravating the consensus gap. To counter misinformation and reduce this gap, scientists should directly engage the public in the media and blogosphere.
https://pure.knaw.nl/portal/en/publications/internet-blogs-polar-bears-and-climatechange-denial-by-proxy(55aeda93-6e80-4f78-ab16-45bf03f75c96).html
You, with the stance that you have taken regarding an animal that you know nothing about, polar bears, and have probably never seen one, now try to defame someone who has spent years studying the Arctic and these bears, Dr. Susan J. Crockford. This is all being done by some ignorant fools who understand that if the polar bear population is increasing, that is another nail in the coffin of their hoax about anthropogenic climate change. What you are doing is despicable and as far away from how actual science is conducted and that is to search for the truth. You are such a dishonest jerk that you will not know the truth when you see it because it is such a foreign element to you and the asshole that you so love, the hockey stick fabricator, Michael Mann, who should be in Pen State prison, like Dr. Ball suggested.
STATE OF THE POLAR BEAR REPORT 2018
Susan J. Crockford
The US Geological Survey estimated the global population of polar bears at 24,500 in 2005.6 In 2015, the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group estimated the population at 26,000 (range 22,000–31,000)7 but additional surveys published 2015–2017 brought the total to near 28,500.8 However, data published in 2018 brought that number to almost 29,5009 with a relatively wide margin of error. This is the highest global estimate since the bears were protected by international treaty in 1973.10 While potential measurement error means it can only be said that the global population has likely been stable since 2005 (but may have increased slightly), it is far from the precipitous decline polar bear experts expected given summer sea ice levels as low as they have been in recent years.11 Between 2007 and 2015, summer sea ice on average dropped about 38% from 1979 levels, an abrupt decline to within measurement error of the reduced coverage expected to occur by mid-century (Figure 1).
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2019/02/State-of-the-polar-bear2018.pdf
Crockford steps well, well out of her lane which is on the history of canid domestication and has absolutely ZILCH to do with polar bear ecology. She has tallied a grand total of ZERO papers in her career on polar bears, Arctic ice and climate change. How can one have a ‘professional interest’ in a field they have never published in? That must make me an expert in quantum physics. The Bioscience paper that you refer to is co-authored by Steven Amstrup and Ian Stirling, two of the leading polar bear scientists in the world.
That paper has had an enormous impact, as it turns out. It has the third highest Altimetric score among the 2,260 papers published in Bioscience. Covered in New York Times, Newsweek, all over the Canadian and European media.
With respect to insects, your feeble attempt to also dismiss their importance in sustaining the human economy is also noted. Pollinators alone are worth billions of dollars to the global economy. Throw in pest control, nutrient cycling, decomposition of wastes etc. and the figure is much higher.
Now back to your playroom.
Bzzzzzzzz!!!!! Swallow, once again you are dismissed. Citing a shitty article by a climate change-denying think tank (GWPF) doesn’t count. Let’s see the incredible Dr. Crockford try to publish her piffle in a scientific journal. Scientists do not read or refer to garbage churned out by think tanks.
By the way, the figures you cite about polar bears are irrelevant. They would only matter if the Arctic ice extent stabilizes. If it continues to disappear seasonally at the present rate, polar bears are history. Their habitat is quite literally melting beneath their feet. Crockford (or you or any of the luminaries in the right wing think tanks) do not understand non-linear dynamics. They do not understand relevant and important concepts like ‘tipping points’ or ‘temporal lags’ or ‘critical thresholds’. Her argument is like saying that 30% of the Amazon forests are gone but jaguars, harpy eagles, tapirs, macaws and other rainforest-dependent species remain in sizeable numbers, so what’s the problem!?
The problem is that the forest continues to shrink as it is logged, cleared and burned. At some critical threshold this will negatively affect the biota dependent on intact forest. Crockford plays the ‘so far, so good’, gambit. This is like someone jumping off a 100 story building, falling 50 floors, looking up and shouting, “everthing is fine!!!” when it clearly isn’t.
The Arctic is most certainly approaching tipping points. The NOAA Arctic report card shows the populations of some Arctic species, such as caribou, are already in a steep decline.
Enough of your puerile piffle. You clearly know nothing about ecology or environmental science. I learned all of this as an undergraduate.
Once again JDS reveals his deep ignorance, bigotry and ideological straight jacket. JDS cannot comprehend that the many strands of evidence on warming and climate change comes from the dedicated research in the field and halls of academia of scientists in many disparate fields. Thus he fails to be able to collate the knowledge achieved across this wide spectrum and grasp the interactions between the different Earth systems. This is why I suggested a text on Oceanography many moons ago on this or an adjacent thread.
John Cook has grasped the importance of the huge body of empirical evidence gathered and has used this to bring together, using the input of working scientists to create a sound, trustworthy and credible resource for dealing with all those zombie utterances that appear out of the rotting woodwork with monotonous regularity, as new zealots appear on the scene. Think of Skeptical Science as Rentokill for science denial, or as the crucifix which cowers the vampires of denial. This is why JDS tries to dismiss John Cook as a mere ‘cartoonist’, which demeans JDS far more than it does Cook, not that JDS has the self awareness to appreciate that.
JDS, don’t be an ignoramus all your life discover what Skeptical Science is about and John Cooks qualifications for collating information from scientific sources with the input of real scientists.
About Skeptical Science
Wilful ignorance is not a good look.
From September 27:
Already addressed on September 18, 2019 at 7:15 am
The plants may be happier at 1000 ppm, but we won’t, as some plants – oh, barely needed ones like rice – will be mostly carbohydrates and not much else.
Our minerals, vitamins, which we are getting from our veggies now? I guess we will have to suck pebbles or something.
Good point, and something else ignored by deniers – but not hydroponic horticulturalists – is that plants in high-CO2 greenhouses only grow faster if they have a perfectly optimised environment – water, nutrients and temperature must be exactly right.
@ BBD
Yep.
Like any diet feed to a living organism. If you increase one part – the carbon source, CO2 – but don’t change the availability of other nutrients…
Heck, just to name the main trio, nitrogen/potassium/phosphore availability has been a strong limiting factor since the start of agriculture. Peasants have tried all sorts of tricks to enrich their soils. More CO2 won’t help with that.
If only the manure spew by the like of JDS could be used as plant fertilizer…
Well the ignorant fool would know if he bothered to study the texts I presented including ‘Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast’ by David Archer or followed these.
Super post. Do you have any other ones you can give? I love this. 🙂
Pielke Sr. is an outlier. Like Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, Michaels and a few others. For every one of them there are 100 climate scientists whose views are completely different and who argue that the recent warming is almost entirely due to the combustion of fossil fuels and that we need to do something about it. They all contributed to the various IPCC drafts, which weighed both the empirical evidence and the collective weight of scientific opinion. This is proof, if any more were needed, of the need to act now to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.
It is quite interesting to me that a self-taught non-scientist like Swallow is somehow magically able to adjudicate the difference between ‘sound’ climate science and ‘flawed’ climate science, and that in doing so to come down on the side of a small minority of scientists who believe in inaction.
As I have said before many times, Swallow’s views are not based on science but on his warped, right wing political ideology. This bleeds through in everything he writes up on here. He refers to extreme right wing sources like FoxNews and American Thinker for his information without any sense of shame and does not shy away from citing material from corporate-funded think tanks and a few fringe academics on their payroll.
I have encountered many right wing blowhards like Swallow over the years on blogs. Before he closed it, Tim Lambert’s Deltoid was infected with similar ideologues like JonasN and Olaus Petri. Swallow’s views have cropped up in a number of progressive blogs over the past several years and he spews the same nonsense on every one of them. He really thinks he knows more than anyone else. To me, he is like an arrogant but mediocre undergraduate student on steroids. He veers all over the place, like a reckless driver constantly swerving into oncoming traffic but then boasting of his prowess as a driver. He has mastered the Gish gallop.
Swallow deferentially and grovelingly refers to scientists whose views he supports as ‘Doctor’ or ‘Professor’, even when they are fringe academics who have hardly published anything in their careers, but he doesn’t hesitate for a second to ridicule scientists whose views he doesn’t like, even when their standing in the scientific community is many times higher (e.g. Michael Mann). Note how I am dismissingly referred to as ‘bug doctor’, even though I am a population ecologist who tests various ecological and evolutionary theories using insects (although I also use other taxa in my research; right now I am writing a paper on invasive cane toads).
Ultimately, Swallow is so full of himself that he has no idea when his arguments are being soundly thrashed. He is like a boxer who is pummeled in every round of a match, loses every one of them but somehow stays on his feet throughout the match, and then with a thoroughly swollen face, blood pouring from cuts and with his gumshield hanging from his mouth, looks into the unmarked face of his opponent and asks, “had enough”? He is like boxer Randall ‘Tex’ Cobb after enduring a 15-round clobbering from Larry Holmes in 1980. There is no more of an apt description.
His comment about “far left socialist” being the only/mainly ones prone to physical violence was quite telling, about his character and opinions.
As an aside, hurricane Lorenzo has now reached category 5 in intensity with maximum sustained winds of 270 kph. It is the most powerful hurricane in recorded history to be so far east in the Atlantic Ocean.
Further evidence of anthropogenic climate change, as if any more were needed.
Mr scientifically illiterate (Swallow), again I find it amusing how much importance you place on ‘an insignificant trace gas’ when it comes to plant growth but completely dismiss its greenhouse properties when it comes to climate. This alone skewers you.
Moreover, plants require a lot more besides carbon to optimize fitness. Changes in precipitation, N, P and other factors in the Anthropocene are vital, especially as they effect plant stoichiometry (a big word you have never heard of). Stoichiometry in turn is linked with both intrinsic and extrinsic effects on trophic interactions that are vital in understanding plant performance. Plant scientists and ecologists are fully aware of the costs and benefits of various environmental changes on plant growth even if you aren’t. And of course most plants depend on pollinators – mostly insects – whose populations are collapsing over much of the world. But of course you dismiss the importance of insects, don’t you.
By the way Mr. Uneducated retired layman who never amounted to anything, the ‘uninformed bug doctor’ is eminently more qualified to comment on science in any fields than you are. At least I went through university which is more than can be said for you.
Idiot.
As for the Arctic, let us see your ‘data’. But you haven’t got any, do you? Just some old newspaper clippings and anecdotes. Not good enough. Epic fail. Put up or shut up.
You are looking more idiotic, old uneducated man, when you try and suggest that I am the ‘only fool’ who believes that CO2 plays a major role in climate. Indeed, then you are arguing that 99% of scientists are ‘fools’. This includes Lindzen, Spencer, Christy and Pielke Sr., who only question sensitivity. But even they know that CO2 is a major driver. The vast majority of climate scientists recognize the link between CO2 and climate. You can spew spittle and froth at the mouth all you like but facts are facts.
And please don’t compare yourself with Edison or Gates. Wtf have you achieved aside from looking like a complete idiot on blogs? Where are your inventions? Where are your peer-reviewed scientific papers in any fields? Nowhere.
You are an anonymous schmuck.
Get lost.
By the way, Swallow, here are Susan J. Crockford’s statistics on Web of Science:
Since 1997 (first paper):
16 publications; 288 citations; h-factor 7.
Mine, since 1993 (first paper):
202 publications; 6,941 citations; h-factor 46.
Spot the difference.
That’s right Mr wilfully ignorant, scoff at stuff that you cannot understand.
One part of the mechanism of warming, and explained by Archer, can be compared to a spring being continually compressed and then released, over time what property of the spring changes? Can you grasp the relevance of this analogy?
Now as for the reality of extreme weather events from global warming and climate change get a load of this:
Wild Week: Winter Storm and Heat Wave Whipsaw US
Do you offer your opinions in public forums? If you do beware for sooner or later somebody who has suffered from the effects of such as the above example will lamp you one, to use an old English expression.
That seems to be the common phrase of science denialists in every area, whether it is the current fool swallow and climate science, anti-vaccination scumbags, folks who deny relativity’s validity and its importance for GPS calculations, etc.
Folks like swallow believe they have a view of the ‘truth’ and neither facts nor thousands of articles of research that show they are full of shit matter to them. Losers like swallow and these other clowns have been around spreading falsehoods about what they oppose as well as their own qualifications (swallow’s “travels” and “experience” are prime examples), they just didn’t have the ability to make their shit widely available.
Folks like swallow and other deniers are one of the banes of the internet.
Keep trying Swallow. You are losing it.
Laughlin’s comments on climate were widely attacked by climate scientists. None of the books he wrote that you cited have anything remotely to do with climate sensitivity or the state of the biosphere.
I repeat: he is a physicist and is well out of his depth outside of this field. He isn’t remotely as qualified as I am in ecology. He seems to be staying in his lane more since his embarrassing 2010 article. Wise move.
As for Ivan Giaever, again it is interesting how being esteemed in one field leads some scientists to become pseudoscientists in another. He is no exception. Once again, he looks foolish commenting in an area in which he lacks expertise. As with Laughlin, he has been widely criticized for it, and rightly so.
I think swallow spewed laughlin as evidence for his preferred bullshit because laughlin’s “argument” is on the same level of wrong as swallow’s: they both seem to have a hard-on over the sun. Both ignore the long known effects of greenhouse gasses too.
I still find this comment by Carl Wunsch amusing:
Indeed, Ivan Giaever.
Nuff said.
Keep going Swallow. You have so far plugged 3 of my papers. Only 199 to go.
It is easier for you to plug Susan Crockford’s career output. It tallies a whopping 16.
Yours is even easier. A stunning zero. You haven’t done any science in your miserable life, have you? And comparing yourself with Gates and Edison takes the ultimate prize. You are really a bombastic, pompous old narcissist.
Laughlin’s 2010 article was taken apart by a number of scientists. You are such a genius. Look it up.
🙂
At least he knows you are a scientist now. Time was, long upthread, when he was denying that too…
This ought to be funny, but somehow, it just isn’t.
What, do some actual work? You must be kidding.
Comprehension failed JDS, again, given that this is Jeff’s statement which you quoted back at him:
Spot the problem now JDS?
Now following the trail of Robert Laughlin things get interesting here with a post by one using the nom de plume jdouglashuahin , as I read I thought the style and content of that was familiar, sure enough look at who signs off on it.
Also follow that sub-thread down and we find this rebuttal from a familiar contributor to real science blogs, one johnrussell:
Not exactly covering yourself in glory are you Mr Swallow, or whatever your name is.
Enough! Swallow, once you start descending to this infantile level you have well passed the tolerance threshold. I know who you are from your Facebook pages. The only reason anyone should cut you any slack is because you are a bitter, wretched old man.
Greg should have banned you earlier. I wish he would now. Your track record on blogs is appalling.
I have written to Greg Laden, Swallow. These latest attacks on me are well below the line. You are repugnant, we all know that by now, but your latest posts are even despicable by your own wretched standards. I know exactly who you are, but that doesn’t matter to me because it is what you say and not who you are that matters to me. And your opinions fall well outside of the scientific mainstream. You can try to isolate me from my peers all you like but it won’t work. I am a part of the broad consensus, not outside of it like the tiny number of scientists you cite here.
You claim I lied when i said that climate and Earth scientists strongly rebutted Laughlin’s 2010 piece. Here you go:
https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/scientists-react-to-a-nobelists-climate-thoughts/
The best come from Matthew Huber:
“It’s pretty clear that his Nobel is not in the Earth Sciences. The crux of his argument is that “Nobody knows why these dramatic climate changes occurred in the ancient past. Ideas that commonly surface include perturbations to the earth’s orbit by other planets, disruptions of ocean currents, the rise and fall of greenhouse gases, heat reflection by snow, continental drift, comet impacts, Genesis floods, volcanoes, and slow changes in the irradiance of the sun. No scientifically solid support has been found for any of these suggestions. ”
In other words he apparently thinks we live in a world of mysterious forces which are utterly incomprehensible and climate has responded like a voodoo doll to invisible hands through time. Perhaps they are incomprehensible to him. He needs to take some courses in paleoclimate — I suggest he start at the undergraduate level. I hear there might be something appropriate being taught on his campus. His know-nothing approach hearkens back to the pre-scientific era of the flat earth, vapors and phlogiston”
Huber points out what we do know:
“raise greenhouse gases and the climate will warm substantially. There is no great mystery here, other than perhaps why a Nobel prize winner is either ignorant of the major results of the field of paleoclimatology over the past two decades or simply chooses to ignore the science for the sake of some sound bytes.
“Our understanding of the climate system is still rudimentary but ultimately we know what the big knobs are that turn up the heat and those are the same knobs we are cranking on right now. We know this absolutely and have known at least since Arrhenius and he got the Nobel (in 1903)!”
So Swallow, take your ignorance and shove it.
It looks like the most recent posts of JDS have been expunged, and possibly their author blocked, which now orphans some of our responses to those.
See my latest post.
Thanks Greg.
Yes Lionel, that was my presonal request to Greg. JDS had crossed the line in my opinion by going after my research with childish smears. This was too much.
The comments are still there. They are just … invisible. I do appreciate the fact that this makes the conversation otherwise awkward, but I’m not sure yet what to do about that.
So swallow is truly a “he” and not a bot/organization?
Well if they are invisible he will cease and desist. I am sure he will head off to another progressive blog and begin ranting at people on there. This is what he does. His track record is quite abominable.
I have watched the exchange between Swallow and the regulars here with interest. The name calling and insults, both ways, was very distasteful. I found myself barely reading the posts.
I encourage all to keep our disagreements polite and civil. Lets not engage in name calling. It is just not very productive.
In which RickA manages to blank the fact that JDS posted complete and utter denialist bollocks (greenhouse effect denial, FFS) , ignored debunking of same and refused to engage and answer any questions despite repeated requests to do so.
Instead of gently chastising JDS for his provocatively irritating behaviour, RickA opts for a false equivalence wrapped in a tu quoque.
Sometimes I hope you are just trolling and having a good laugh. Because if not, if you believe what you just wrote is justified, then, well, fuck it, really.
Thank you, Greg.
And JDS wonders why some people prefer to use pseudonyms…
Oh cripes, look a tone troll.
Not worth you reading any of the posts from us RickA as you would not understand them given your track record on this topic.
Omg, RickA playing the honest broker when one of the parties here -Swallow – lies through his teeth and distorts science in a serial fashion. Trust the right wing Republican to come in here with his two cents worth of non-wisdom.
FYI Swallow started sending me emails two days ago (1) attacking my scientific research and (2) spewing the usual crap downplaying climate change. I deleted both posts without responding, but this is proof, if any were needed, that he is off of his rocker. If he doesn’t desist I will take action. But this proves BBDs point. Swallow wants to know who people are so he can track them down and harangue them. I know how he found out who I am (it wasn’t me) but now he knows it seems like he intends to keep up this fanatic pestering. We humiliated him and he is frustrated and angry. But as I said, I know who he is and the country he is living in and he had better stop bothering me soon or I will consult the proper authorities of that country.
Predictable. Just blacklist him in your email spam filter and forget the loon. But this is why I won’t use my real name – there are way too many stalkerish denier nutcases out there who won’t leave it on the blog comments page.
BBD
Sadly RickA will likely express the sentiments pushed in this ‘Blue Collar Logic: The Common Sense of Our Time’ [If only] video. Warning those who understand all the issues evoked by this calmly delivered rant of non-sequiturs, straw men and other logic and knowledge fails best have a vomit bucket to hand:
Go Home Greta
Blue Collar Logic: a cesspit of ignorance and prejudice for our times.
We’ve had enough of ‘experts’… [facepalm].
The problem with blue collar logic is that is is based on an incomplete grasp of the facts and is not therefore logical. But it plays well to the crowd, as populist demagogues know, and so here we are, unpicking the Enlightenment with nicotine-stained fingers and megaphones.
Whoops – I seem to have had a comment deleted. Sorry Greg, but not sure what I did there?
Thanks a lot for sharing kind of information. Your article provide such a great information with good knowledge. Here we would like to inform you as we are professional cleaning & painting service providers in Dubai! Regards Kitchen exhaust cleaning dubai
lovely information as we have been looking for… Your article is fantastic and I would like to tell you that you have done great job and we are looking forward to read more. Keep up the good work. RegardsMarble crystallization in dubai
Excellent blog, thanks a lot for sharing this article have been looking since so long for this type information. Thanks a ton once again, Regards, Marble crystallization in dubai