Speaking of Curry, she doesn't think the record ice minimum is particularly significant "... in our understanding of climate variability and change of Arctic sea ice.":
If they want to keep allying themselves with Sherriff Arpaio's little Dep'ty and trail buddy My Lord 'Birther' Monckton I suggest that's their own lookout.
Can we agree, that summer sea ice is not a tipping point? please.
e.g. Tietsche, S., D. Notz, J.H. Jungclaus, and J. Marotzke, 2011: Recovery mechanisms of Arctic summer sea ice, Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L02707, doi:10.1029/2010GL045698
A tipping point to what? No one doubts that if it is cold the ice can recover, OTOH a thin layer of ice that disappears in the summer is not the same climate driver as what we had twenty years ago.
tipping point as in: "if the ice does not recover from a certain ice loss caused by climatic warming even if the climatic forcing were to return to the colder conditions that existed before the onset of that specific ice loss." cited from
Notz, D., 2009: The future of ice sheets and sea ice: between reversible retreat and unstoppable loss, Proc. Nat. Ac. Sci., 106(49), 20590-20595. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0902356106.
Which to my understanding follows the classical definition of "tipping points".
Well promise not to explode from this then: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658?v=s5 ~Magnus Westerstrand
I promise to put my feet up and smoke a pipe until some person cleverer than me and with access to the full article - not just the abstract - cogitates on the thing and puts it into context.
Not exploding from single papers is a personal rule of mine.
...meanwhile... Doing what any bunny frustrated at a pay wall blocking his digging would do - I looked up the authors on Google Scholar. Turns out that global warming since 1850 is all due to natural cycles after all.
Stumpytooth wrote: " the record ice extent of Antarctica"
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.antarctic.png and http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
Surely you jest?
Or are you so arrogant as to think that no one here would bother to check?
"Turns out that global warming since 1850 is all due to natural cycles after all."
Indeed?
I wonder into which little pocket of the space-time continuum Ol' Ho-hum et al placed the sum total of human carbon emissions over the last few centuries, and the inconvenient laws of physics that were attached?
The problem (as I say) is that journalists not interested in the science but the mames will say loook faaaaaar from settled science! and the public goes uh... and it takes time from "serious" research... there should be a system to mark journals that let this kind of garbage through or something.
The trio consists of a geology professor (geomorphology + climate, mainly) who is currently a visiting professor in Oslo, started publishing in 1976. #2 is aged 67 and is/was market researcher/forecaster in a telecommunications company. The last one is an emeritus professor in astrophysics. They started writing about how climate change is all natural in 2011.
I was thinking they might be the climate elves of current fame, but turns out they are just yet more climate gomers - as if we haven't enough of those already.
I'm reminded by this to say that I think you're the Platonic ideal of someone suited to mock Watts. Others, not me I hasten to say but very probably Eli... well, OK, me too... do our best but descend into mere belittling insult so fast that our poor Asperpger's sufferer Tony can't even perceive the transition, whereas you put the frost right on the proverbial punkin' head.
Speaking of the Good Lawd!, his arse is being served by Tom P. as toad-in-the-hole, over at WWWT.
Richard Courtney is reprising his role as the mash to Monckton's banger, and Willard is working on his comedy routine - I mean, who couldn't help but guffaw at the witty "Your Snideship"?
Monckton's mathematical errors really are of school-kid level, and he has written thousands of words to skirt around it. But I'm not sure if that's worse than his pompous declaration:
"Now hear this. From here on, do science, not politics, and do not sully science with willful or ignorant attempts at diversion. The result described in my short and not particularly complicated paper is respectable, as far as I or anyone else who has seen it so far can see. Please, please, produce proper, serious arguments against it, or go and play in somebody else’s sandbox. The time for intellectual dishonesty is over."
or his inherently sexist:
"I suggest that Jim D, whoever he or she is..."
And just because he's an even more pompous linguistic ponce that I, my own snideness moves me to record Chris's:
"If Mr. Curtin is right, that is further good news: for it indicates that the biosphere, far from taking up a declining fraction of the CO2 we emit, are doing the opposite."
I'll leave it to the reader to find the [sic].
Loud Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq. of Benchpress
It's time for the WUWT videovergeltungskaptionflotte to bid fairwell to Heligoland, and set sail for the Osmond's shores to hunt the wild Godwin in the fever swamps of East Anglia.
In all of this you have assiduously avoided addressing Tom P's substantive points. You rail against his name, but it matters not a whit if he styles himself as Peter Pan if his argument is sound, and thus far you have done nothing to demonstrate that Tom P is incorrect.
Oh, there's been a lot of huffing and puffing, but anyone who is numerate can see quite plainly that you are prevaricating. Indeed, it seems that you are caught in a recursive loop of avoidance, so I would suggest a simple way to break the deadlock.
Write your "proof of an independent constraint on climate sensitivity" in exactly a form that would be presented to a professionally reviewed journal. You know, similar to the draft paper that Anthony Watts released just over a month ago. Include in it a rebuttal of Tom P's disputation. Doing so will not only cement your case if you are correct, it will also show that you understand the mathematics and physics sufficiently that you are able to engage at that level.
If you can construct such an argument, then real scientists might take you seriously. Otherwise, all you are good for is fodder for the denialosphere."
UPDATE: The spambots got clever so the verification is back. Apologies
Some of the regulars here are having trouble telling the anonymice apart. Please add some distinguishing name to your comment such as Mickey, Minnie, Mighty, or Fred.
Oh look! Polar bears!
ReplyDelete...cough.....
ReplyDelete"Your post on the climate elves was excellent".
ReplyDeleteWell promise not to explode from this then: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658?v=s5
ReplyDeleteWere those the climate elves of uncertainty?
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of Curry, she doesn't think the record ice minimum is particularly significant "... in our understanding of climate variability and change of Arctic sea ice.":
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/tipping_point_arctic_heads_to_ice_free_summers/2567/
Hell, all the elves toiling away in the North Pole factories of Santa Inc. (formerly the Mattel Corporation) - UHI or what?
ReplyDeleteThis is the funniest Downfall subtitling I've seen for a while.
Right on cue there's a new confusionist post by Monckton.
ReplyDeleteIf they want to keep allying themselves with Sherriff Arpaio's little Dep'ty and trail buddy My Lord 'Birther' Monckton I suggest that's their own lookout.
ReplyDeleteHistory has not afforded many greater targets for justifiable ridicule.
at holly stick and the tipping point.
ReplyDeleteCan we agree, that summer sea ice is not a tipping point? please.
e.g. Tietsche, S., D. Notz, J.H. Jungclaus, and J. Marotzke, 2011: Recovery mechanisms of Arctic summer sea ice, Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L02707, doi:10.1029/2010GL045698
Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.
ReplyDelete@holly stick
you don't seem to think the record ice extent of Antarctica is important either.
Oh, Lumpus, the current antarctic sea ice extent only lies about one-sigma above average.
ReplyDeletehttp://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
Not at all comparable to what's happening in the arctic, as predicted long ago.
A tipping point to what? No one doubts that if it is cold the ice can recover, OTOH a thin layer of ice that disappears in the summer is not the same climate driver as what we had twenty years ago.
ReplyDeletetipping point as in: "if the ice does not recover from a certain ice loss caused by climatic warming even if the climatic forcing were to return to the colder conditions that existed before the onset of that specific ice loss." cited from
ReplyDeleteNotz, D., 2009: The future of ice sheets and sea ice: between reversible retreat and unstoppable loss, Proc. Nat. Ac. Sci., 106(49), 20590-20595. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0902356106.
Which to my understanding follows the classical definition of "tipping points".
Well promise not to explode from this then: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658?v=s5
ReplyDelete~Magnus Westerstrand
I promise to put my feet up and smoke a pipe until some person cleverer than me and with access to the full article - not just the abstract - cogitates on the thing and puts it into context.
Not exploding from single papers is a personal rule of mine.
...meanwhile... Doing what any bunny frustrated at a pay wall blocking his digging would do - I looked up the authors on Google Scholar. Turns out that global warming since 1850 is all due to natural cycles after all.
ReplyDeleteWell, it's fortunate I didn't say anything about a tipping point. But would you agree with Curry that what is happening this year is not significant?
ReplyDeleteI strongly suspect that no explosions are imminent.
ReplyDeleteNow, there's a surprise.
A sound thrashing, on the other hand, might be. Could be entertaining, but what a waste of effort all round.
Stumpytooth wrote: " the record ice extent of Antarctica"
ReplyDeletehttp://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.antarctic.png
and
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
Surely you jest?
Or are you so arrogant as to think that no one here would bother to check?
Or are you truly that deluded?
Fool.
Be of good courage Spookytooth.
ReplyDeleteMonckton's miracle cure works as well on lumpus as the mange.
"Turns out that global warming since 1850 is all due to natural cycles after all."
ReplyDeleteIndeed?
I wonder into which little pocket of the space-time continuum Ol' Ho-hum et al placed the sum total of human carbon emissions over the last few centuries, and the inconvenient laws of physics that were attached?
Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.
did not find another place to report a paper by those wealthy noirwegians: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658
ReplyDeletesub-arctic bunny
The problem (as I say) is that journalists not interested in the science but the mames will say loook faaaaaar from settled science! and the public goes uh... and it takes time from "serious" research... there should be a system to mark journals that let this kind of garbage through or something.
ReplyDeleteSame journal let this gem through: http://westerstrand.blogspot.se/2008/09/its-that-time-of-year.html
ReplyDeleteI call emeriti.
ReplyDeleteThe trio consists of a geology professor (geomorphology + climate, mainly) who is currently a visiting professor in Oslo, started publishing in 1976. #2 is aged 67 and is/was market researcher/forecaster in a telecommunications company. The last one is an emeritus professor in astrophysics. They started writing about how climate change is all natural in 2011.
@bluedwarf
ReplyDeleteI was thinking they might be the climate elves of current fame, but turns out they are just yet more climate gomers - as if we haven't enough of those already.
Regards, Millicent
+1 Russell
ReplyDeleteI'm reminded by this to say that I think you're the Platonic ideal of someone suited to mock Watts. Others, not me I hasten to say but very probably Eli... well, OK, me too... do our best but descend into mere belittling insult so fast that our poor Asperpger's sufferer Tony can't even perceive the transition, whereas you put the frost right on the proverbial punkin' head.
But Magnus, note that J. Hargreaves considers it to be some sort of badge of honor to let such stuff through.
ReplyDeleteJay, if you have the stomach for it Humlum has a website where he goes on at length about his many brilliant and paradigm-smashing insights.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of the Good Lawd!, his arse is being served by Tom P. as toad-in-the-hole, over at WWWT.
ReplyDeleteRichard Courtney is reprising his role as the mash to Monckton's banger, and Willard is working on his comedy routine - I mean, who couldn't help but guffaw at the witty "Your Snideship"?
Monckton's mathematical errors really are of school-kid level, and he has written thousands of words to skirt around it. But I'm not sure if that's worse than his pompous declaration:
"Now hear this. From here on, do science, not politics, and do not sully science with willful or ignorant attempts at diversion. The result described in my short and not particularly complicated paper is respectable, as far as I or anyone else who has seen it so far can see. Please, please, produce proper, serious arguments against it, or go and play in somebody else’s sandbox. The time for intellectual dishonesty is over."
or his inherently sexist:
"I suggest that Jim D, whoever he or she is..."
And just because he's an even more pompous linguistic ponce that I, my own snideness moves me to record Chris's:
"If Mr. Curtin is right, that is further good news: for it indicates that the biosphere, far from taking up a declining fraction of the CO2 we emit, are doing the opposite."
I'll leave it to the reader to find the [sic].
Loud Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq. of Benchpress
Rest assured Hargreaves is no Hargreaves-Allen.
ReplyDeleteIt's time for the WUWT videovergeltungskaptionflotte to bid fairwell to Heligoland, and set sail for the Osmond's shores to hunt the wild Godwin in the fever swamps of East Anglia.
ReplyDeleteThe preceding reflects the failure ofWUWTwonderkindling :'MangoChutney ' to note
ReplyDeleteSeptember 2, 2012 at 11:58 am
"We are worse than Nazis?…ok then…how do we compare with the Osmonds?
Ha! Not so bad now, are we?
that the Godwin-winning first strike in the Watts: My Role In His Downfall wars came from his own side.
Ya know that little pontification stage that WWWT is providing for Monckton? Well, it seems that only certain players are allowed to perform...
ReplyDeleteHere's what I said:
"Mr Monckton.
In all of this you have assiduously avoided addressing Tom P's substantive points. You rail against his name, but it matters not a whit if he styles himself as Peter Pan if his argument is sound, and thus far you have done nothing to demonstrate that Tom P is incorrect.
Oh, there's been a lot of huffing and puffing, but anyone who is numerate can see quite plainly that you are prevaricating. Indeed, it seems that you are caught in a recursive loop of avoidance, so I would suggest a simple way to break the deadlock.
Write your "proof of an independent constraint on climate sensitivity" in exactly a form that would be presented to a professionally reviewed journal. You know, similar to the draft paper that Anthony Watts released just over a month ago. Include in it a rebuttal of Tom P's disputation. Doing so will not only cement your case if you are correct, it will also show that you understand the mathematics and physics sufficiently that you are able to engage at that level.
If you can construct such an argument, then real scientists might take you seriously. Otherwise, all you are good for is fodder for the denialosphere."
Here's what the moderator said:
"[Snip. 'Denialism' or its synonyms violates site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]"
Let's see what happens if I engage in some judicious self-censorship...
Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.
Done.
ReplyDeleteBernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.
The hilarious thing is that WUWT *did* post some nonsense about a artic ice recovery....
ReplyDelete