Oceans are the focus as warming seems to be in an accelerated phase, at least in terms of surface temperatures. Any claims about “slowdown” or “pause” no longer operative.
Bill Peterson, an oceanographer with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said the warmth along the North Pacific coast is very unusual.
“We’ve never seen this before. It’s beyond anyone’s experience and this is why it’s puzzling,” he said.
Sea Surface Temperature anomaly of September 2014 from NOAA’s ERSST dataset.
To further complicate the picture, Peterson says an El Niño warm water ocean current should arrive in about a month.
“We’ll have what we call a double whammy,” he said. “It’s already very warm up north, up here. If we get an extra push of super warm water from the tropics, we could possibly have a big disaster on our hands, ecologically speaking.”
“The 2014 global ocean warming is mostly due to the North Pacific, which has warmed far beyond any recorded value and has shifted hurricane tracks, weakened trade winds, and produced coral bleaching in the Hawaiian Islands,” explains Timmermann.
He describes the events leading up to this upswing as follows: Sea-surface temperatures started to rise unusually quickly in the extratropical North Pacific already in January 2014. A few months later, in April and May, westerly winds pushed a huge amount of very warm water usually stored in the western Pacific along the equator to the eastern Pacific. This warm water has spread along the North American Pacific coast, releasing into the atmosphere enormous amounts of heat–heat that had been locked up in the Western tropical Pacific for nearly a decade.
“Record-breaking greenhouse gas concentrations and anomalously weak North Pacific summer trade winds, which usually cool the ocean surface, have contributed further to the rise in sea surface temperatures. The warm temperatures now extend in a wide swath from just north of Papua New Guinea to the Gulf of Alaska,” says Timmermann.
The current record-breaking temperatures indicate that the 14-year-long pause in ocean warming has come to an end.
After an alarming report of a collapsed fishery cancelled the shrimp season in the Gulf of Maine last year due to higher water temperatures, it seemed unthinkable to locals that it would happen again.
“There are definitely still people that were holding out hope that we might be able to get in a bit of a season this year,” said Ben Martens, who runs the Maine Coast Fishermen’s Association.
But that’s exactly what a team of scientific experts told the federal regulators who will make the call next week in a draft report, according to the AP. The scientists on the Northern Shrimp Technical Committee told the regulatory body known as the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission that “the depleted condition of the resource” — meaning the shrimp population — can be blamed on “long term trends in environmental conditions.” And the culprit, according to the AP’s take on the draft report, is “rising ocean temperatures.”
Maine’s collapsing fisheries are on the bleeding edge of what climate change could look like in many places around the world. A study being conducted by the Gulf of Maine Research Institute has found the area’s oceans are warming up faster than 99 percent of the planet’s oceans, according to New Hampshire Public Radio. The institute’s Chief Scientific Officer, Andrew Pershing, said that “the trend we have in the Gulf Of Maine Right now over the last ten years, is about 8 times faster than that global rate.” Pershing pointed out the appearance of species that normally live in warmer, southern waters, like the Black Sea Bass and long fin squid, as signs of warming waters off Maine’s coast.
“The decline of the shrimp fishery, I think that’s another one that has a very strong finger-print of warming,” he added.
Maine’s Northern shrimp catch has declined sharply since it hit a high of around 12 million pounds in 2010, essentially bottoming out at 563,313 pounds in 2013. Regulators estimate that the total shrimp population dropped even more sharply — by a factor of 14.
Jeff Nichols, Communications Director for the Maine Department of Marine Resources, said the 2013 moratorium was the right decision “given the overwhelming evidence of recruitment failure and stock collapse, and unfavorable environmental conditions.” There, because of the fishery’s collapse and “poor prospects for the near future,” scientists on the committee are recommending that the federal regulators vote on November 5th to close the fishery again this season. Nichols said the Commissioner would review the report from the Technical Committee, consult with DMR scientists, and attend the meeting.
61 thoughts on “North Pacific Warm Spot Worries Scientists.”
This news piece has great video coverage of scientists at work as they make up facts to engorge their limousine lifestyles and buy their multi-million dollar bathtub toys to fool us into joining their plot for a global socialist revolution.
I’ve got to hand it to these guys, they are absolute geniuses! I wish I were intelligent enough to spread disinformation like they do and get paid for it: http://bit.ly/14MdGpb
You are going up hard against Poe’s law, which basically says that you simply can’t satirize someone like Tony Heller (aka “Steve Goddard”) without being mistaken for the genuine article (at least by those not already familiar with you).
My only hope is that they can divert some more tax money to get the Solyndra factory back up and running and attach Solyndra panels to their yachts, inside which they can plan another Benghazi and IRS strategy.
It was funny until you got to the IRS part. You probably haven’t’ heard of FATCA (Google it). I’m an American expat, and we aren’t laughing about this. I’m actually planning to give up my US citizenship because of it.
Sorry Cy – I was thinking more along the lines of charitable foundations being used as political bribe laundering outfits, and the Republicans manufacturing a scandal that they were being unfairly targeted regarding such.
I mentioned on another thread that the exact same thing is happening in the Gulf of Maine on the Atlantic side of N America, where an unprecedented rise in temperature and impacts on the biota is occurring. Google “temperature rise in the Gulf of Maine” and follow the links to shrimp and lobsters.
Some time back I touted a great book on invasive species on another thread. The thread and the title of the book escape me—-CRS and DOG disease strike.
If I recall, the Signal Crayfish was imported from its native habitat in the U.S. Pacific Northwest because European crayfish were being attacked by some disease and the populations were declining. It turned out that the Signal was actually a carrier of the same disease but more resistant to it than the European species, so it has been replacing them rapidly. Another good idea gone bad, as most introductions of non-native species turn out to be—-hence “invasive”.
The problem of invasive species exacerbates the problem of extinction and migration due to AGW. If only the species native to a particular habitat were present when conditions changed, there might be some chance of “orderly” adaptation. The presence of invasives makes the equation far more complicated.
And that reminds me of a shorthand formula I came across—-P2C2E—-for Problems/Phenomena Too Complicated To Explain.
PS Britain and the U.S. have been trading invasive species since the settlers brought some over on the Mayflower. Many more came our way than what we have sent back.
Loading...
How reputable do you consider the IPCC? A lot? Some? When they agree with your conclusions?
According to the IPCC WG1 AR5 report, chapter 9, page 769, Box 9.2, on evaluation of climate models, they admit there has been little to no warming (0.04C per decade) for at least 15 years. This while co2 emissions have risen rapidly… 25% of all co2 man has ever produced since ’98. They also admit 111/114 climate models overstate warming compared to real world observation, a 97% failure rate. O sweet irony.
Not only is there no apparent causation, there is not even correlation between warming and co2 emissions. Without any established correlation, it is impossible to assert there is causation. No short term, local variation or anomaly changes that. Period. To say otherwise plants both feet firmly in the dogma camp.
“If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make a difference how beautiful your guess is. It doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it is WRONG” ~~ Richard Feynman, Nobel winner for physics, 1965
Another Feynman-quoting, pick out a line on page 769, spout the same old BS denier troll arrives. Boooring! Such bald assertions he makes as he “goes where no other denier troll has gone before” and “plants both feet firmly in the dogma camp”. Still booooooooring!
What might be interesting is the derivation of that “toadliquuor” handle. Is that a play on words and you really do “lick toads”, presumably those with psychedelic skin secretions to power your forays into denier land? What part of the toad do you lick? Does the toad like it? How do you know?
Or do you drink the beer named Toad Licker? Or are you a fan of the band of that name? Here’s a great video from toad licker land. I love it, maybe you will too.
It is quite simple: the DATA shows no correlation, hence causation can not be asserted. This is science. Your opinion of that is entirely irrelevant.
I’m not claiming knowledge. I’m saying any claim that human emissions of co2 are responsible for warming climate is NOT supported by either observation OR climate models.
You stick with the belief even though evidence contradicts it. This is the very definition of dogma. So it is reduced to nothing more than simple speculation, or a wish.
The hypothesis as it currently stands is flawed. This isn’t something you can change by tossing insults or being childish. It takes enough courage to acknowledge the flaws, and correct them, before we can move forward and learn what other factors are influencing climate, and what the ramifications are for humanity.
You claim no knowledge? Does that mean you can’t tell us why the arctic sea ice is melting away, sea level is rising, and 2014 is going to be the hottest year on record? Fine, since we have no confidence in what you parrot to us (we’ve heard it all before), we can continue to ignore you.
How about telling us what “other” factors are influencing climate, and what the “ramifications” are for humanity? Fine-sounding but non-specific BS is not “data”, T-L.
And how about talking to us about toadliquor? Did you enjoy the toad licker video? Is it true that “All toads are worth licking, but some taste better than others”?
Arctic ice is largely marine ice and waxes and wanes. It is currently near recent historical coverage. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ Marine ice melt has no effect on sea levels as it only displaces water equal to it’s own volume.
Sea levels are rising, but there are also several factors that can influence that; temp, mineral content, glacial melt (may be geothermal causes as in Antarctica), depletion of aquifers, etc. And shifting wind patterns and ocean currents can ‘push’ more water to some locations than others. In some areas water levels are lower. Pre satellite era measurements are often suspect because they don’t account for geophysical movement, such as land rebound from ice age that continues in some areas.
As for 2014 being “warmest” on record, you need to define what “record” is. It has been much warmer than it is now in the past. And it has been much cooler. And with both lower and higher co2 concentrations. Even the medieval warm period was likely as warm as now. There is no such thing as a stable climate. There never has been. We’ve had 5 million years of ice ages with interglacial warming periods between. And all without industrialization and a large human presence, other than the last couple of hundred years. And satellite data, such as that from UAH shows 2014 is eclipsed by ’98 and ’10, and roughly equal to ’07. http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2014/October2014/Oct2014graf.jpg
“Other” factors are what should be investigated. As previously stated, co2 levels don’t align with temp. Even the IPCC says so. We know that methane and water vapor have much more powerful greenhouse effects than co2. We know the ‘pause’ aligns with the Montreal protocol that banned certain CFCs. Doesn’t mean they are the explanation. But we don’t figure it out by saying “We’ve got the answers we want. Put the instruments away and go home.” Especially when both real world observation AND climate models refute the co2 hypothesis.
Non-specific BS may or may not be data that is relevant. How do you know? And if it isn’t investigated, you will never know. But all this is extraneous to the assertion that co2 is a climate driver. Current hypothesis on this is a dismal failure. Period. So if you are to continue supporting that position, you need to show a link between temp and co2 that even the IPCC says is not there.
Or I guess you could continue to ignore it and ask childish question that have no bearing on the issue as a deflection… Your choice…
Loading...
A veritable Gish Gallop of the same old BS, with the patented distortions, misinterpretations, and just plain lies of the denier. I’m too busy with real life tonight to address all of it, but I will address it in pieces, the first being Toad Licker’s opening (and false) bald assertion:
“Arctic ice is largely marine ice and waxes and wanes. It is currently near recent historical coverage. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ Marine ice melt has no effect on sea levels as it only displaces water equal to it’s own volume”.
I asked T-L about “arctic SEA ice”, not “arctic ice”, which could be construed to include the Greenland ice sheet and permafrost. It is not just “largely” but almost totally “marine” ice (except for some calving icebergs). A careful reading of the link T-L provided shows that it is more than a bit disingenuous to say it is “near RECENT historical coverage” (some non-specific cherry- picking there?). It happens to be on the low end of “recent”, and depending on how you define “recent” quite low.
Note also the use of the term “coverage”, which means “extent”, and is always used by deniers to obfuscate the real measure of Arctic sea ice—-VOLUME—–which is declining exponentially.
And of course note the inclusion of “true” statements in the first and third sentences of that paragraph. That’s the standard propagandist’s trick of speaking truth and lulling the listener into nodding yes and saying “Uh-huh, That’s right, Yep”, so that the BS can be slipped in the middle and (hopefully) swallowed along with the truth. Who can argue with “melting marine ice has no effect on sea level because it only displaces its own volume”? DUH! (Of course, that’s not strictly true, as Crock followers know, it’s a bit more complicated).
All that aside, my major complaint is that I asked T-L the following—–“Does that mean you can’t tell us why the arctic sea ice is melting away?”—-and he DID NOT answer that question but simply blew smoke. Why is that? Is he afraid of the “data”about how serious the Arctic sea ice situation appears to be? Why is is melting and showing a consistent trend of doing so if temperatures are not rising?
He continues in the same vein with his other NON “answers” to my questions—-slinging BS that requires many more words to rebut than it does for him to put it out there, and that’s another denier trick. Real life calls, but I’ll be back (although most Crockers don’t need me to point out T-L’s BS to them).
In the meantime, try not to laugh at his sea level BS, his “no warming” BS, and the wonderfully crazy “CFC Hypothesis”. Any straw that can be grabbed to obfuscate is fair game!
Loading...
Once again, as I stated previously, it matters not what you believe or want to believe. It’s totally irrelevant. The matter at the core is this:
Is there reasonable doubt that co2 is a primary climate driver. I’ve shown, linked to evidence, that indeed there is. Even the IPCC, a political organization founded to investigate “the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”, hardly an unbiased role, recognizes such.
Now you can rant and rave about what answers I can or can’t provide about sea ice… or any other topic… but why would you? You have access to the internet. If you actually WANT to investigate the truth, it is at your fingertips. Look.
Now you could examine the same evidence and come to a different conclusion; entirely possible and reasonable. But as with most dogmatics, you aren’t interested in information that may conflict with your bias. This is why you run this little obfuscation line about me answering your questions. Because confronting the truth of the IPCC admissions and the UAH satellite data, and many other contrary sources leads to conflict with your closely held opinions… your BELIEFS. And the only way you can deal with that is with cognitive dissonance.
So what is left to you is to ignore what doesn’t conform to your narrow view and continue with your misdirection, obfuscation, insults and outright weirdness. Is an opinion that can’t withstand scrutiny really an opinion you want to hang on to?
Ice melts because the temperature exceeds the freezing point. Period. Ice levels are not constant. They never have been. Not at either pole. That ice melts is not evidence that human activity caused it to melt. It is evidence that the temperature is above the freezing point of water. You haven’t shown it is linked to human activity, just that it happens. Well, sorry, but that ice melts is well know. It happens naturally every spring. The process reverses every winter. No human intervention is required.
And I didn’t posit that there was a “CFC Hypothesis”. If you are going to use quotes, quote what I actually said which was the opposite. Not good enough to misrepresent? You actually need to lie? That’s weak, pal. And for the record, CFCs parallel temps much more closely than co2 does… as you could see here if you looked: https://uwaterloo.ca/news/news/global-warming-caused-cfcs-not-carbon-dioxide-study-says. No that doesn’t imply causation, as I said before. But co2 doesn’t correlate nearly as closely and you are all over that as if your world would end if you are wrong.
Again, without correlation, there can’t be causation. Do you know of some magic formula where causation happens without correlation? I don’t expect you to answer to that… It would require honesty, which would require more introspection than I suspect you are capable of.
Here’s Toad Licker, launching on yet another torrent of BS before we can find time address his earlier “load”. In the true propagandist model, T-L is trying to bury us in BS and hoping we won’t have the time to respond. A time-honored tactic among deniers and other BS artists. Ever deal with a high pressure salesman? Same tactic—-keep the customer off balance and keep hammering until he “buys”.
Lesliegraham did respond and I’m sure speaks for all Crockers who are tired of trolls like Toad-Licker. I am still busy with real life today and only looked in on this thread in passing.
I will comment here only to say three things:
1) That lesliegraham is correct, and the best place to look for evidence of that is to see what Skeptical Science has to say about any of T-L’s BS. That’s where you can find the “debunking. disproving, and shredding” of all of it. I for one am tired of reading all the evidence, (which has been accumulating for years), never mind having to put it all down to feed a troll.
2) T-L gets on his high horse over my comments about the “wonderfully crazy CFC hypothesis”, and insists that he “….didn’t posit that there was a “CFC Hypothesis”. The very fact that he stated emphatically that “We KNOW the ‘pause’ aligns with the Montreal protocol that banned certain CFCs” is the equivalent of positing a hypothesis that CFC’s cause global warming. And adding the qualifier “Doesn’t mean they are the explanation” doesn’t alter that fact. The seed is planted. What “we all know” is that there was NO pause, and that CO2 DOES correlate with temperature rise on Earth. (T-L thinks that we don’t know that 93+% of the heat has been going into the oceans).
3) Notice also all the “messenger attacking” and “ad hominem-ing” that T-L is engaging in here. Not much science. Perhaps because the science is not with him?
And tell us before I go, T-L, how many toads have you licked today?
And is it true that all toads are lickable, but some are more lickable than others?
Loading...
My words are in black and white, and I never stated CFC is a candidate hypothesis. I went further and stated outright that correlation does NOT imply causation. Your attempt to assert something else is classic strawman.
You neglected to explain how there can be causation w/o correlation. Failing that, you could explain why the IPCC is wrong when they state there has been no warming (0.04C per decade) for at least 15 years while co2 emissions rose sharply, and also when they say 111/114 climate models overstate warming.
This is actual data. Please, do explain how real world data is wrong, but the modeled hypotheses that overstate warming in 97% of cases are right.
Where is the messenger attacking or ad homs? Who keeps asking stupid, childish questions about my name as if that is relevant? Have you noticed your OWN handle?
This isn’t difficult. There are simple points you could address to clear this up stated above. But it seems you deliberately want to avoid that.
Again, I doubt you will respond to these points. If you could without betraying your adherence to dogma, you would have by now.
Loading...
Toadliquor – After cherry picking tiny little portions of the IPCC AR5 report, you dismiss the organisation as a “political organization”.
Even if I dismiss the IPCC (which I certainly do not), the World Bank has just issued a report based on other studies which confirms our worst fears on Global Warming.
World Is Locked into ~1.5°C Warming & Risks Are Rising, New Climate Report Finds
“Today’s report confirms what scientists have been saying – past emissions have set an unavoidable course of warming over the next two decades, which will affect the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people the most,” World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim said. “We cannot continue down the current path of unchecked, growing emissions.”
I keep line charts of NASA’s monthly GISS data for both Land Surface and Land/Sea Surface, both charts are steadily rising on the way up to the 2°C bar (together with CO2 atmospheric concentrations), I understand the physics of the radiation blocking effect by GHG, there is no doubt about it. It is no longer debatable.
Your denial is endangering people across the world.
I am not ranting and raving, I have listened to learned scientists (such as Gilbert N. Plass, Richard B.Alley, Roger Revelle, Svante Arrhenious and many others) and LEARNT. That’s how humans work by acting on the latest and best of our knowledge available.
You accuse me of cherry-picking, yet disregard the IPCC when the data disagrees with your preformed conclusion.
The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific organization. Period. It’s mandate is to investigate “human-induced” warming. This is a conclusion before they even begin. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
The World Bank? Isn’t this supposed to be about science? What degree of confidence do you suggest is appropriate for ‘science’ decrees from a ‘bank’?
As posted earlier, satellite data from UAH and others disagrees with models. And this is the whole point: Real world measurements contradict models. So which is wrong, the real world or the models? If the models are wrong, the hypothesis is wrong. And this raises doubts that in a rational world require further investigation.
This blather about something not being debatable is an explicit display of bias, and an attempt to shutdown discussion. In what other area of science would this be acceptable? When is it ever acceptable to say “We know enough. Stop trying to find answers.”? This smacks of religiosity. Your questions are dangerous… Such unbridled hypocrisy!
What is dangerous is trying to shutdown discussion while forcing a vision that is not backed by science. And no amount of name dropping makes bad science good.
Loading...
Quick, throw T-L a nice juicy toad! If his mouth is busy licking, maybe he won’t be able to spout so much DRIVEL.
Loading...
The licker of toads makes another of his moronic bald assertions (note the finality and irrefutable nature of the “Period” he inserts).
“The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific organization. Period. It’s mandate is to investigate “human-induced” warming. This is a conclusion before they even begin. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf”
A look at the link that supposedly will prove that there was a “conclusion before they even began” shows this statement of the “role” of the IPCC, first stated way back when and reaffirmed several times since:
“The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies”.
I’m sorry, but I fail to see how the licker of toads can interpret that to mean that the IPCC is “a POLITICAL organizatiion, not a SCIENTIFIC organization”. The word “scientific” appears three times in that statement, while “human induced” appears only once, and then in the context of assessing and understanding its scientific basis. Politics and political are words that appear not at all, are not even implied, and cannot be inferred (other than that the UN is a body made up of “political” entities who live by “policies”).
How about some real evidence, T-L. Yes, the group WAS formed to investigate “human-induced” climate change, and it keeps reaching ever-more frightening conclusions base on the unfolding science. How is that “political”? What IS “political” is the efforts by people like you to deny the truth of AGW.
Yep, this is all just more denier horsepucky thrown against the wall by T-L, and it’s so weak that it bounced right off. T-L is losing it—-watch for him to become even more frenzied and frantic in his efforts to deny truth.
Loading...
O.K ToadLiquor – You reject the advice and warnings from the IPCC and World Bank, plus scientists like Richard B. Alley and David Archer.
You dismiss the obvious signs from NASA, NOAA and JMA.
Admit it you are in denial and what comes after denial – Anger, please direct it away from me and at yourself when it comes.
Loading...
Points already responded to previously.
Loading...
No, you didn’t “respond” to redsky or address his points or anyone else’s, you merely threw BS against the wall.
And you refuse to accept that we all know it won’t stick, now or ever, but you just keep parroting the same denier “talking points”. Get real or go away, you waste our time.
Loading...
ToadLiquor
“The World Bank? Isn’t this supposed to be about science? What degree of confidence do you suggest is appropriate for ‘science’ decrees from a ‘bank’?”
The World Bank report is based on a study by the Potsdam Institute for Climatic Impact Research a highly reputable scientific organisation funded by the German Federal government.
“As posted earlier, satellite data from UAH and others disagrees with models.”
I am very sceptical of the UAH data – John Raymond Christy is a well known contrarian and speaker/ member of the Marshall Institute – a conservative thinktank with a highly anti AGW agenda.
My own spreadsheet program shows a clear upwards trend to a +2°C using the NASA GISS data later on this century, and unlike (UAH) I trust this organisation and data.
If you think spreadsheets are not appropriate for climate science, then have a word with the UAH and Roy Spencer (who favours simple one dimensional EXCEL climate models.)
Just for once put yourself in the place of an Alaskan or Pacific Islander that is going to lose their land by you “debatable science”.
“I told them once we build the sea wall, everybody’s going to get comfortable and say we don’t need to relocate anymore,” said Tony Weyiouanna, Clifford’s cousin and president of the Shishmaref Native Corp. “But they don’t see the other problems. The sea level’s rising. It’s going to happen eventually.”
“The World Bank? Isn’t this supposed to be about science? What degree of confidence do you suggest is appropriate for ‘science’ decrees from a ‘bank’?”
The World Bank report is based on a study by the Potsdam Institute for Climatic Impact Research a highly reputable scientific organisation funded by the German Federal government.
“As posted earlier, satellite data from UAH and others disagrees with models.”
I am very sceptical of the UAH data – John Raymond Christy is a well known contrarian and speaker/ member of the Marshall Institute – a conservative thinktank with a highly anti AGW agenda.
My own spreadsheet program shows a clear upwards trend to a +2°C using the NASA GISS data later on this century, and unlike (UAH) I trust this organisation and data.
If you think spreadsheets are not appropriate for climate science, then have a word with the UAH and Roy Spencer (who favours simple one dimensional EXCEL climate models.)
Just for once put yourself in the place of an Alaskan or Pacific Islander that is going to lose their land by you “debatable science”.
“I told them once we build the sea wall, everybody’s going to get comfortable and say we don’t need to relocate anymore,” said Tony Weyiouanna, Clifford’s cousin and president of the Shishmaref Native Corp. “But they don’t see the other problems. The sea level’s rising. It’s going to happen eventually.”
What your opinions are don’t matter. You are claiming absolute knowledge. I’m pointing out flaws and contrary evidence. If you choose to discount evidence solely because you disapprove of the source, that is prejudicial AND cherry picking. And you may want to read up on Pascal’s Wager.
Let’s peck away some more at T-L’s BS. Let’s look at this small bit.
“As for 2014 being “warmest” on record, you need to define what “record” is. It has been much warmer than it is now in the past. And it has been much cooler.
And with both lower and higher co2 concentrations. Even the medieval warm period was likely as warm as now. There is no such thing as a stable climate. There never has been. We’ve had 5 million years of ice ages with interglacial warming periods between. And all without industrialization and a large human presence, other than the last couple of hundred years. And satellite data, such as that from UAH shows 2014 is eclipsed by ’98 and ’10, and roughly equal to ’07”
All that BS can be found on page 289 of the Handbook for Denier Trolls. It has been warmer, it has been colder, CO2 is up, CO2 is down, glaciers come, glaciers go, tide comes in , tide goes out—-all of this can be heard in the denier echo chamber at any time, and the only words of any significance in the whole pile of BS are “the last couple of hundred years”, and more specifically the decades since WW2, and particularly the past couple of decades where the effects of AGW have become more extreme and obvious. Deniers love to take us all over the historical landscape with their “but-but-buts”, even millions of years into the past, but the fact is that the RECORDS are piling up on us right NOW, and the only explanation for them is AGW. Hey, T-L. You never did address the question of Arctic sea ice decline. What do have to say about my favorite video clip on that topic?
“the DATA shows no correlation, hence causation can not be asserted.”
1) you’re not referring to global warming, but atmospheric warming. Since global warming is ocean warming, when the ocean hiccups, the atmospheric catches pneumonia. Here is what the climate models look like when the El Nino effect is added back in: http://skepticalscience.com/pics/Schmidt2014.gif
2) you’re referring to data less than 30 years old, so why are you making conclusions about climate on that basis?
“any claim that human emissions of co2 are responsible for warming climate is NOT supported by… observation”
Umm, OK http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files/2014/02/CO2_and_temperature_since_mid_19th_cen.gif
Say, since you’ve ‘demonstrably’ upended global warming as a cause of recent warming, what does your Ouija board say is causing warming? Because we’ve been warming dramatically since around 1880: http://www.realclimate.org/images/Marcott.png
Is it the Sun? Cow farts? Cosmic Rays?
Here are all the hockey sticks since 1880: human fossil fuel emissions. atmospheric CO2 content. climate forcers (solar+CO2+aerosols). Surface temperature. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-stick-or-hockey-league.html
Models. See previous posts re: 111/114 climate models overstate warming. Once again, as previously stated, I’m highlighting uncertainty. And you can’t claim the answer is co2 with any degree of certainty with so many apparent inconsistencies.
It isn’t up to me to present an alternate answer any more than it is your call to mandate a decision. And to frame it such again displays bias and a complete disregard for science. Research continues precisely because the answers are NOT known.
And we DO want answers… don’t we? Isn’t that the whole point, to continue learning more about the myriad of inputs and their interactions?
Loading...
There is mountains of evidence.
Your wearisome list of the usual standard thousand-times-falsified denial-for-beginers myths and cherry-picks have been debunked, disproved and shredded so many hundreds of times now that they have reached a dropping consistancy.
I doubt anyone here will have the energy or inclination to go through the whole tedious process yet again.
By the way – why is 2014 the hottest year for 8,000 years?
Why did the slow cooling of the last 8,000 years suddenly slam into reverse as CO2 levels began to rise?
Did you like the video?
How many toads do you lick on a daily basis?
Do you know your raving comes across as near insanity now that man-made climate change is simply an obvious everyday reality all over the world?
You obviously didn’t read previous posts or you wouldn’t post such drivel.
Loading...
Drivel? DRIVEL???!!!
T-L has apparently licked some bad tasting toads today and it’s making him forget his manners.
Way to go, L-T! That’s how to get people to believe your BS! Insult them!
(and, by extension, insult all who agree with them, and they are many).
Loading...
Drivel because it is repetition of what YOU had already said earlier. In case you aren’t aware of what drivel is, and it seems you aren’t, here’s the link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/drivel
It is a reference to the content of the post. Surprise, surprise… it isn’t an ad hom or an insult. If that was my aim I could certainly do much better.
But I leave those childish tactics to you… Carry on.
Loading...
As expected, the toad licker doubles down on his “feigned superiority” ploy. Dumb is as dumb does, I guess. I wonder if E-Pot left behind the perfumed sleeve hankie for T-L to sniff in feigned disdain?
Yes, he will most certainly win friends and influence people here by defining “drivel” for us and accusing us of spouting same. And he boasts of being able to do “much better” at ad homming and insulting? Bring it on, T-L! Show us how big a flaming anal orifice you really are! We know you are one—-it’s obvious—-but we can still be convinced that you are a far bigger one than you have shown us to date.
This licker of toads (yuk!) has thrown all his horsepucky against the wall and hopes it sticks. He is trying to help it stuck by distracting us with his insults and ad homs, and trying to ignore redsky, jpc, lesliegraham, and others who see him for what he is—-another lying POS denier troll that wastes our time. Will he respond to them? I doubt it (other than to insult them). He has shot his load with his original parrotings from the denier troll handbook—all he can do now is repeat them (endlessly) until they magically become truth.
PS T-L, In case you aren’t aware of what a “flaming anal orifice” is, here’s the link. http://www.GFYS.com
Loading...
“Flaming anal orifice”? Really? So you are going full rabid ad hom now? No need to refute anything I said when you have a witty retort like that in the toolkit… Well I guess that’s settled. Can’t fight that kind of logic. You win.
Loading...
When dealing with the depradations of flaming anal orifices like you, “full rabid ad hom” is the only way to go. Anything else gives you a legitimacy that you don’t deserve. (And in this virtual world we spar in, we can’t shoot you). It’s time to trot out Alice and the Duchess (You’re the Duchess and all Crockers are Alice, in case that’s not clear)
“I quite agree with you,” said the Duchess; “and the moral of that is–‘Be what you would seem to be’–or if you’d like it put more simply–‘Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.'”
“I think I should understand that better,” Alice said very politely, “`if I had it written down: but I can’t quite follow it as you say it.”
“That’s nothing to what I could say if I chose,” the Duchess replied, in a pleased tone.
“Pray don’t trouble yourself to say it any longer than that,” said Alice.
(Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Chapter 9)
And the message there to you is that we would be glad to refute your “logic” if you ever displayed any. We are instead forced into the tedious task of pointing out that there is no logic and no truth to the convoluted and dishonest denier horsepucky and drivel you spout in such quantity.
(PS I eagerly await your response to my “refutation” of your drivel about the IPCC not being a scientific organization)
Loading...
Stop dodging the question.
How many toads do you lick on a daily basis.
This is the only thing of interest to us in your “posts”.
Loading...
“The current record-breaking temperatures indicate that the 14-year-long pause in ocean warming has come to an end.”
Looks like sloppy reporting. This reporter throws the words “ocean temperature” around pretty casually without clearly specifying whether it is “surface” or not, and either doesn’t relate it to (or confuses it with) atmospheric warming or deep ocean warming. An earlier passage in the full Science Daily article that is also not too clear.
“From 2000-2013 the global ocean surface temperature rise paused, in spite of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. This period, referred to as the Global Warming Hiatus, raised a lot of public and scientific interest. However, as of April 2014 ocean warming has picked up speed again, according to Timmermann’s analysis of ocean temperature datasets”.
Posted by FrankLee on another CAGW-related topic:
Global temperature DECREASED in the periods from 1879 to 1910, 1942 to 1972 and from 2002 to now corresponding to the 60 year Jupiter / Saturn Tri-Synodic cycle. The 60 years cycle was recognized 5,000 years ago by the Chinese.
All global temperature variations track to the following natural cycles:
The 9 year Soli/Lunar tidal cycle, the 11.2 year Wolf sun spot cycle, the 60 year Jupiter / Saturn Tri-Synodic cycle, the Milankovitch cycles of 26,000, 41,000, and 100,000 years. We are now well into the third 30 year cooling phase since 1879.
A 1979 tree ring study of the last 500 years predicted a warming until the year 2000 and then a drop of 2C to 4C by 2045 accompanied by a drop in agricultural productivity. So far temperatures match this prediction. They do not match any of the CMIP5 climate models.
When you think you’ve understood it, and why it refutes your small sample size, statistically insignificant notions of lack of correlation, get back to us.
A simple analogy: The flight of the typical dandelion seed does not correlate well with the force of gravity. This does not prove that gravity does not act on dandelion seeds.
It seems we at least we agree we need to keep working on refining the science… and this is because there are still questions. Science is still trying to understand the relationships between the myriad of inputs required to come up with a functional system for ACCURATE predictions. As it should.
And this is all I’ve tried to make clear; that making assertions of knowledge is both premature and counterproductive.
And once again, Feynman captured it brilliantly: “If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make a difference how beautiful your guess is. It doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it is WRONG”
1. All models are incomplete. That doesn’t make them useless.
2. Warming in the nineties was was more than expected. Less warming in the 21st century, if one ignores the obvious cherry-picking, averages out to be much the same as what was expected.
3. One hypothesis was that warming was going into the ocean deeps. Newer evidence is that the ‘missing heat’ is an artifact of underestimated heat content of the southern oceans.
Again, you seem to be in agreement. Models are incomplete… new hypothesis… And this logically leads to a conclusion that there are unknowns. If there are unknowns you can’t subsequently claim we have answers that are somehow magically beyond any further discussion or investigation.
licker
Don’t pretend that because you distort the meaning of a headline on a news item that you apparently did not read, that somehow NASA research supports your views. The article quotes Josh Willis. I know Josh, he’s a friend. I’ve interviewed him numerous times. There is no doubt in his mind about climate change and human caused warming, and he would call you out for being either a liar, an ignoramus or both.
The article plainly resolves the supposed issue you are trying to create.
“Coauthor Felix Landerer of JPL noted that during the same period warming in the top half of the ocean continued unabated, an unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up. Some recent studies reporting deep-ocean warming were, in fact, referring to the warming in the upper half of the ocean but below the topmost layer, which ends about 0.4 mile (700 meters) down.
Landerer also is a coauthor of another paper in the same journal issue on 1970-2005 ocean warming in the Southern Hemisphere. Before Argo floats were deployed, temperature measurements in the Southern Ocean were spotty, at best. Using satellite measurements and climate simulations of sea level changes around the world, the new study found the global ocean absorbed far more heat in those 35 years than previously thought — a whopping 24 to 58 percent more than early estimates.”
Josh Willis here:
Who is arguing that climate doesn’t change? I question whether you are building a strawman, or are you that thick? Nobody is arguing that climate doesn’t change. I am pointing out that failures in models and contrary data mean the hypothesis that co2 is THE primary climate driver is questionable. You are claiming absolute knowledge that evidence contradicts. Try a little humility.
Yes, Greenman, try a little HUMILITY!! After all, Toad Licker sets us such a good example in the humility category that he is entitled (no, actually, in his mind he is REQUIRED) to give you orders on your own blog.
Stop building those pesky STRAWMEN!!
Stop being so downright THICK!!!
I have just finished reading a 14 comment back-and-forth between Toad Licker and Boxing Pythagoras on R-L’s blog. It was fun, because B-P was beating T-L’s brains in just as we do here on Crock. Suddenly, Toad Licker spewed a huge ration of BS in the last comment in the string and BANNED BOXING PYTHAGORAS for having the temerity to make T-L look bad. LOL
Toad Licker’s exact words to Boxing Pythagoras:
“….you can pat yourself on the back over being the first waste of time so annoying as to be blocked from further comment. Good show, good bye, and good riddance”.
Where’s Toad Licker? We haven’t heard from him for a while. Can we hope that we’ve driven him off and he will now sow his confusion and denial on some other site?
In case Crockers are unaware, toadliquor has a website on which you can really explore who he really “is” http://toadliquor.wordpress.com/
I posted a comment there but it’s “awaiting moderation”. We shall see if he has the (parts of the toad he licks most) to allow it to appear.
As suspected, he’s just another narcissistic self promoter with few original thoughts that merely posts excerpts from other folks. His “climate change” page is particularly revealing. The following list appears in one of his posts there:
Yep, our friend T-L really wants us to look at things in a fair and balanced way. That’s why his “sources of information” list consists of nothing but the biggest deniers on the planet. Hypocrite and liar!
This news piece has great video coverage of scientists at work as they make up facts to engorge their limousine lifestyles and buy their multi-million dollar bathtub toys to fool us into joining their plot for a global socialist revolution.
I’ve got to hand it to these guys, they are absolute geniuses! I wish I were intelligent enough to spread disinformation like they do and get paid for it: http://bit.ly/14MdGpb
Are you talking about “scientists” or the Koch Bros.?
Are you looking to get added to my insult tweet log? http://bit.ly/1tZnoNK
Geez, it’s *satire* people. I guess it’s impossible to be ironic about deniers these days. They out-loon themselves.
tonyhellerexposed,
You are going up hard against Poe’s law, which basically says that you simply can’t satirize someone like Tony Heller (aka “Steve Goddard”) without being mistaken for the genuine article (at least by those not already familiar with you).
Poe’s law, huh? Good to know. Thanks!
My only hope is that they can divert some more tax money to get the Solyndra factory back up and running and attach Solyndra panels to their yachts, inside which they can plan another Benghazi and IRS strategy.
It was funny until you got to the IRS part. You probably haven’t’ heard of FATCA (Google it). I’m an American expat, and we aren’t laughing about this. I’m actually planning to give up my US citizenship because of it.
Sorry Cy – I was thinking more along the lines of charitable foundations being used as political bribe laundering outfits, and the Republicans manufacturing a scandal that they were being unfairly targeted regarding such.
I mentioned on another thread that the exact same thing is happening in the Gulf of Maine on the Atlantic side of N America, where an unprecedented rise in temperature and impacts on the biota is occurring. Google “temperature rise in the Gulf of Maine” and follow the links to shrimp and lobsters.
OOOPS! I didn’t go all the way to the end of the piece, or I would have seen that Peter has already done that for us. Sorry.
Here’s a link that adds some good info, particularly about the dreaded green crab, which is one scary critter.
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/fast-warming_gulf_of_maineoffers_hint_of_future_for_oceans/2827/
Hum! Now from where did we get the Signal Crayfish that appeared over here in the UK.
Not that that is of much comfort to anybody.
anotheralionel
aka anotherDOG.
Some time back I touted a great book on invasive species on another thread. The thread and the title of the book escape me—-CRS and DOG disease strike.
If I recall, the Signal Crayfish was imported from its native habitat in the U.S. Pacific Northwest because European crayfish were being attacked by some disease and the populations were declining. It turned out that the Signal was actually a carrier of the same disease but more resistant to it than the European species, so it has been replacing them rapidly. Another good idea gone bad, as most introductions of non-native species turn out to be—-hence “invasive”.
The problem of invasive species exacerbates the problem of extinction and migration due to AGW. If only the species native to a particular habitat were present when conditions changed, there might be some chance of “orderly” adaptation. The presence of invasives makes the equation far more complicated.
And that reminds me of a shorthand formula I came across—-P2C2E—-for Problems/Phenomena Too Complicated To Explain.
PS Britain and the U.S. have been trading invasive species since the settlers brought some over on the Mayflower. Many more came our way than what we have sent back.
How reputable do you consider the IPCC? A lot? Some? When they agree with your conclusions?
According to the IPCC WG1 AR5 report, chapter 9, page 769, Box 9.2, on evaluation of climate models, they admit there has been little to no warming (0.04C per decade) for at least 15 years. This while co2 emissions have risen rapidly… 25% of all co2 man has ever produced since ’98. They also admit 111/114 climate models overstate warming compared to real world observation, a 97% failure rate. O sweet irony.
Not only is there no apparent causation, there is not even correlation between warming and co2 emissions. Without any established correlation, it is impossible to assert there is causation. No short term, local variation or anomaly changes that. Period. To say otherwise plants both feet firmly in the dogma camp.
“If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make a difference how beautiful your guess is. It doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it is WRONG” ~~ Richard Feynman, Nobel winner for physics, 1965
Another Feynman-quoting, pick out a line on page 769, spout the same old BS denier troll arrives. Boooring! Such bald assertions he makes as he “goes where no other denier troll has gone before” and “plants both feet firmly in the dogma camp”. Still booooooooring!
What might be interesting is the derivation of that “toadliquuor” handle. Is that a play on words and you really do “lick toads”, presumably those with psychedelic skin secretions to power your forays into denier land? What part of the toad do you lick? Does the toad like it? How do you know?
Or do you drink the beer named Toad Licker? Or are you a fan of the band of that name? Here’s a great video from toad licker land. I love it, maybe you will too.
http://youtu.be/5SuZMwe-XRc
It is quite simple: the DATA shows no correlation, hence causation can not be asserted. This is science. Your opinion of that is entirely irrelevant.
I’m not claiming knowledge. I’m saying any claim that human emissions of co2 are responsible for warming climate is NOT supported by either observation OR climate models.
You stick with the belief even though evidence contradicts it. This is the very definition of dogma. So it is reduced to nothing more than simple speculation, or a wish.
The hypothesis as it currently stands is flawed. This isn’t something you can change by tossing insults or being childish. It takes enough courage to acknowledge the flaws, and correct them, before we can move forward and learn what other factors are influencing climate, and what the ramifications are for humanity.
You claim no knowledge? Does that mean you can’t tell us why the arctic sea ice is melting away, sea level is rising, and 2014 is going to be the hottest year on record? Fine, since we have no confidence in what you parrot to us (we’ve heard it all before), we can continue to ignore you.
How about telling us what “other” factors are influencing climate, and what the “ramifications” are for humanity? Fine-sounding but non-specific BS is not “data”, T-L.
And how about talking to us about toadliquor? Did you enjoy the toad licker video? Is it true that “All toads are worth licking, but some taste better than others”?
Arctic ice is largely marine ice and waxes and wanes. It is currently near recent historical coverage. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ Marine ice melt has no effect on sea levels as it only displaces water equal to it’s own volume.
Sea levels are rising, but there are also several factors that can influence that; temp, mineral content, glacial melt (may be geothermal causes as in Antarctica), depletion of aquifers, etc. And shifting wind patterns and ocean currents can ‘push’ more water to some locations than others. In some areas water levels are lower. Pre satellite era measurements are often suspect because they don’t account for geophysical movement, such as land rebound from ice age that continues in some areas.
As for 2014 being “warmest” on record, you need to define what “record” is. It has been much warmer than it is now in the past. And it has been much cooler. And with both lower and higher co2 concentrations. Even the medieval warm period was likely as warm as now. There is no such thing as a stable climate. There never has been. We’ve had 5 million years of ice ages with interglacial warming periods between. And all without industrialization and a large human presence, other than the last couple of hundred years. And satellite data, such as that from UAH shows 2014 is eclipsed by ’98 and ’10, and roughly equal to ’07. http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2014/October2014/Oct2014graf.jpg
“Other” factors are what should be investigated. As previously stated, co2 levels don’t align with temp. Even the IPCC says so. We know that methane and water vapor have much more powerful greenhouse effects than co2. We know the ‘pause’ aligns with the Montreal protocol that banned certain CFCs. Doesn’t mean they are the explanation. But we don’t figure it out by saying “We’ve got the answers we want. Put the instruments away and go home.” Especially when both real world observation AND climate models refute the co2 hypothesis.
Non-specific BS may or may not be data that is relevant. How do you know? And if it isn’t investigated, you will never know. But all this is extraneous to the assertion that co2 is a climate driver. Current hypothesis on this is a dismal failure. Period. So if you are to continue supporting that position, you need to show a link between temp and co2 that even the IPCC says is not there.
Or I guess you could continue to ignore it and ask childish question that have no bearing on the issue as a deflection… Your choice…
A veritable Gish Gallop of the same old BS, with the patented distortions, misinterpretations, and just plain lies of the denier. I’m too busy with real life tonight to address all of it, but I will address it in pieces, the first being Toad Licker’s opening (and false) bald assertion:
“Arctic ice is largely marine ice and waxes and wanes. It is currently near recent historical coverage. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ Marine ice melt has no effect on sea levels as it only displaces water equal to it’s own volume”.
I asked T-L about “arctic SEA ice”, not “arctic ice”, which could be construed to include the Greenland ice sheet and permafrost. It is not just “largely” but almost totally “marine” ice (except for some calving icebergs). A careful reading of the link T-L provided shows that it is more than a bit disingenuous to say it is “near RECENT historical coverage” (some non-specific cherry- picking there?). It happens to be on the low end of “recent”, and depending on how you define “recent” quite low.
Note also the use of the term “coverage”, which means “extent”, and is always used by deniers to obfuscate the real measure of Arctic sea ice—-VOLUME—–which is declining exponentially.
And of course note the inclusion of “true” statements in the first and third sentences of that paragraph. That’s the standard propagandist’s trick of speaking truth and lulling the listener into nodding yes and saying “Uh-huh, That’s right, Yep”, so that the BS can be slipped in the middle and (hopefully) swallowed along with the truth. Who can argue with “melting marine ice has no effect on sea level because it only displaces its own volume”? DUH! (Of course, that’s not strictly true, as Crock followers know, it’s a bit more complicated).
All that aside, my major complaint is that I asked T-L the following—–“Does that mean you can’t tell us why the arctic sea ice is melting away?”—-and he DID NOT answer that question but simply blew smoke. Why is that? Is he afraid of the “data”about how serious the Arctic sea ice situation appears to be? Why is is melting and showing a consistent trend of doing so if temperatures are not rising?
He continues in the same vein with his other NON “answers” to my questions—-slinging BS that requires many more words to rebut than it does for him to put it out there, and that’s another denier trick. Real life calls, but I’ll be back (although most Crockers don’t need me to point out T-L’s BS to them).
In the meantime, try not to laugh at his sea level BS, his “no warming” BS, and the wonderfully crazy “CFC Hypothesis”. Any straw that can be grabbed to obfuscate is fair game!
Once again, as I stated previously, it matters not what you believe or want to believe. It’s totally irrelevant. The matter at the core is this:
Is there reasonable doubt that co2 is a primary climate driver. I’ve shown, linked to evidence, that indeed there is. Even the IPCC, a political organization founded to investigate “the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”, hardly an unbiased role, recognizes such.
Now you can rant and rave about what answers I can or can’t provide about sea ice… or any other topic… but why would you? You have access to the internet. If you actually WANT to investigate the truth, it is at your fingertips. Look.
Now you could examine the same evidence and come to a different conclusion; entirely possible and reasonable. But as with most dogmatics, you aren’t interested in information that may conflict with your bias. This is why you run this little obfuscation line about me answering your questions. Because confronting the truth of the IPCC admissions and the UAH satellite data, and many other contrary sources leads to conflict with your closely held opinions… your BELIEFS. And the only way you can deal with that is with cognitive dissonance.
So what is left to you is to ignore what doesn’t conform to your narrow view and continue with your misdirection, obfuscation, insults and outright weirdness. Is an opinion that can’t withstand scrutiny really an opinion you want to hang on to?
Ice melts because the temperature exceeds the freezing point. Period. Ice levels are not constant. They never have been. Not at either pole. That ice melts is not evidence that human activity caused it to melt. It is evidence that the temperature is above the freezing point of water. You haven’t shown it is linked to human activity, just that it happens. Well, sorry, but that ice melts is well know. It happens naturally every spring. The process reverses every winter. No human intervention is required.
And I didn’t posit that there was a “CFC Hypothesis”. If you are going to use quotes, quote what I actually said which was the opposite. Not good enough to misrepresent? You actually need to lie? That’s weak, pal. And for the record, CFCs parallel temps much more closely than co2 does… as you could see here if you looked: https://uwaterloo.ca/news/news/global-warming-caused-cfcs-not-carbon-dioxide-study-says. No that doesn’t imply causation, as I said before. But co2 doesn’t correlate nearly as closely and you are all over that as if your world would end if you are wrong.
Again, without correlation, there can’t be causation. Do you know of some magic formula where causation happens without correlation? I don’t expect you to answer to that… It would require honesty, which would require more introspection than I suspect you are capable of.
You REALLY need to watch this: http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong
Here’s Toad Licker, launching on yet another torrent of BS before we can find time address his earlier “load”. In the true propagandist model, T-L is trying to bury us in BS and hoping we won’t have the time to respond. A time-honored tactic among deniers and other BS artists. Ever deal with a high pressure salesman? Same tactic—-keep the customer off balance and keep hammering until he “buys”.
Lesliegraham did respond and I’m sure speaks for all Crockers who are tired of trolls like Toad-Licker. I am still busy with real life today and only looked in on this thread in passing.
I will comment here only to say three things:
1) That lesliegraham is correct, and the best place to look for evidence of that is to see what Skeptical Science has to say about any of T-L’s BS. That’s where you can find the “debunking. disproving, and shredding” of all of it. I for one am tired of reading all the evidence, (which has been accumulating for years), never mind having to put it all down to feed a troll.
2) T-L gets on his high horse over my comments about the “wonderfully crazy CFC hypothesis”, and insists that he “….didn’t posit that there was a “CFC Hypothesis”. The very fact that he stated emphatically that “We KNOW the ‘pause’ aligns with the Montreal protocol that banned certain CFCs” is the equivalent of positing a hypothesis that CFC’s cause global warming. And adding the qualifier “Doesn’t mean they are the explanation” doesn’t alter that fact. The seed is planted. What “we all know” is that there was NO pause, and that CO2 DOES correlate with temperature rise on Earth. (T-L thinks that we don’t know that 93+% of the heat has been going into the oceans).
Note too what SkS has to say about Lu’s work—-they’re not impressed. http://www.skepticalscience.com/CFCs-global-warming.htm
3) Notice also all the “messenger attacking” and “ad hominem-ing” that T-L is engaging in here. Not much science. Perhaps because the science is not with him?
And tell us before I go, T-L, how many toads have you licked today?
And is it true that all toads are lickable, but some are more lickable than others?
My words are in black and white, and I never stated CFC is a candidate hypothesis. I went further and stated outright that correlation does NOT imply causation. Your attempt to assert something else is classic strawman.
You neglected to explain how there can be causation w/o correlation. Failing that, you could explain why the IPCC is wrong when they state there has been no warming (0.04C per decade) for at least 15 years while co2 emissions rose sharply, and also when they say 111/114 climate models overstate warming.
This is actual data. Please, do explain how real world data is wrong, but the modeled hypotheses that overstate warming in 97% of cases are right.
Where is the messenger attacking or ad homs? Who keeps asking stupid, childish questions about my name as if that is relevant? Have you noticed your OWN handle?
This isn’t difficult. There are simple points you could address to clear this up stated above. But it seems you deliberately want to avoid that.
Again, I doubt you will respond to these points. If you could without betraying your adherence to dogma, you would have by now.
Toadliquor – After cherry picking tiny little portions of the IPCC AR5 report, you dismiss the organisation as a “political organization”.
Even if I dismiss the IPCC (which I certainly do not), the World Bank has just issued a report based on other studies which confirms our worst fears on Global Warming.
World Is Locked into ~1.5°C Warming & Risks Are Rising, New Climate Report Finds
“Today’s report confirms what scientists have been saying – past emissions have set an unavoidable course of warming over the next two decades, which will affect the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people the most,” World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim said. “We cannot continue down the current path of unchecked, growing emissions.”
I keep line charts of NASA’s monthly GISS data for both Land Surface and Land/Sea Surface, both charts are steadily rising on the way up to the 2°C bar (together with CO2 atmospheric concentrations), I understand the physics of the radiation blocking effect by GHG, there is no doubt about it. It is no longer debatable.
Your denial is endangering people across the world.
I am not ranting and raving, I have listened to learned scientists (such as Gilbert N. Plass, Richard B.Alley, Roger Revelle, Svante Arrhenious and many others) and LEARNT. That’s how humans work by acting on the latest and best of our knowledge available.
Please read this World Bank report:
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/11/23/climate-report-finds-temperature-rise-locked-in-risks-rising
You accuse me of cherry-picking, yet disregard the IPCC when the data disagrees with your preformed conclusion.
The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific organization. Period. It’s mandate is to investigate “human-induced” warming. This is a conclusion before they even begin. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
The World Bank? Isn’t this supposed to be about science? What degree of confidence do you suggest is appropriate for ‘science’ decrees from a ‘bank’?
As posted earlier, satellite data from UAH and others disagrees with models. And this is the whole point: Real world measurements contradict models. So which is wrong, the real world or the models? If the models are wrong, the hypothesis is wrong. And this raises doubts that in a rational world require further investigation.
This blather about something not being debatable is an explicit display of bias, and an attempt to shutdown discussion. In what other area of science would this be acceptable? When is it ever acceptable to say “We know enough. Stop trying to find answers.”? This smacks of religiosity. Your questions are dangerous… Such unbridled hypocrisy!
What is dangerous is trying to shutdown discussion while forcing a vision that is not backed by science. And no amount of name dropping makes bad science good.
Quick, throw T-L a nice juicy toad! If his mouth is busy licking, maybe he won’t be able to spout so much DRIVEL.
The licker of toads makes another of his moronic bald assertions (note the finality and irrefutable nature of the “Period” he inserts).
“The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific organization. Period. It’s mandate is to investigate “human-induced” warming. This is a conclusion before they even begin. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf”
A look at the link that supposedly will prove that there was a “conclusion before they even began” shows this statement of the “role” of the IPCC, first stated way back when and reaffirmed several times since:
“The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies”.
I’m sorry, but I fail to see how the licker of toads can interpret that to mean that the IPCC is “a POLITICAL organizatiion, not a SCIENTIFIC organization”. The word “scientific” appears three times in that statement, while “human induced” appears only once, and then in the context of assessing and understanding its scientific basis. Politics and political are words that appear not at all, are not even implied, and cannot be inferred (other than that the UN is a body made up of “political” entities who live by “policies”).
How about some real evidence, T-L. Yes, the group WAS formed to investigate “human-induced” climate change, and it keeps reaching ever-more frightening conclusions base on the unfolding science. How is that “political”? What IS “political” is the efforts by people like you to deny the truth of AGW.
Yep, this is all just more denier horsepucky thrown against the wall by T-L, and it’s so weak that it bounced right off. T-L is losing it—-watch for him to become even more frenzied and frantic in his efforts to deny truth.
O.K ToadLiquor – You reject the advice and warnings from the IPCC and World Bank, plus scientists like Richard B. Alley and David Archer.
You dismiss the obvious signs from NASA, NOAA and JMA.
Admit it you are in denial and what comes after denial – Anger, please direct it away from me and at yourself when it comes.
Points already responded to previously.
No, you didn’t “respond” to redsky or address his points or anyone else’s, you merely threw BS against the wall.
And you refuse to accept that we all know it won’t stick, now or ever, but you just keep parroting the same denier “talking points”. Get real or go away, you waste our time.
ToadLiquor
“The World Bank? Isn’t this supposed to be about science? What degree of confidence do you suggest is appropriate for ‘science’ decrees from a ‘bank’?”
The World Bank report is based on a study by the Potsdam Institute for Climatic Impact Research a highly reputable scientific organisation funded by the German Federal government.
“As posted earlier, satellite data from UAH and others disagrees with models.”
I am very sceptical of the UAH data – John Raymond Christy is a well known contrarian and speaker/ member of the Marshall Institute – a conservative thinktank with a highly anti AGW agenda.
My own spreadsheet program shows a clear upwards trend to a +2°C using the NASA GISS data later on this century, and unlike (UAH) I trust this organisation and data.
If you think spreadsheets are not appropriate for climate science, then have a word with the UAH and Roy Spencer (who favours simple one dimensional EXCEL climate models.)
Just for once put yourself in the place of an Alaskan or Pacific Islander that is going to lose their land by you “debatable science”.
“I told them once we build the sea wall, everybody’s going to get comfortable and say we don’t need to relocate anymore,” said Tony Weyiouanna, Clifford’s cousin and president of the Shishmaref Native Corp. “But they don’t see the other problems. The sea level’s rising. It’s going to happen eventually.”
http://www.trust.org/item/20141124154744-idpec/?source=fiOtherNews2
ToadLiquor
“The World Bank? Isn’t this supposed to be about science? What degree of confidence do you suggest is appropriate for ‘science’ decrees from a ‘bank’?”
The World Bank report is based on a study by the Potsdam Institute for Climatic Impact Research a highly reputable scientific organisation funded by the German Federal government.
“As posted earlier, satellite data from UAH and others disagrees with models.”
I am very sceptical of the UAH data – John Raymond Christy is a well known contrarian and speaker/ member of the Marshall Institute – a conservative thinktank with a highly anti AGW agenda.
My own spreadsheet program shows a clear upwards trend to a +2°C using the NASA GISS data later on this century, and unlike (UAH) I trust this organisation and data.
If you think spreadsheets are not appropriate for climate science, then have a word with the UAH and Roy Spencer (who favours simple one dimensional EXCEL climate models.)
Just for once put yourself in the place of an Alaskan or Pacific Islander that is going to lose their land by you “debatable science”.
“I told them once we build the sea wall, everybody’s going to get comfortable and say we don’t need to relocate anymore,” said Tony Weyiouanna, Clifford’s cousin and president of the Shishmaref Native Corp. “But they don’t see the other problems. The sea level’s rising. It’s going to happen eventually.”
http://www.trust.org/item/20141124154744-idpec/?source=fiOtherNews2
What your opinions are don’t matter. You are claiming absolute knowledge. I’m pointing out flaws and contrary evidence. If you choose to discount evidence solely because you disapprove of the source, that is prejudicial AND cherry picking. And you may want to read up on Pascal’s Wager.
https://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/201econfronting-the-new-normal201c-world-bank-launches-pik-climate-report
Let’s peck away some more at T-L’s BS. Let’s look at this small bit.
“As for 2014 being “warmest” on record, you need to define what “record” is. It has been much warmer than it is now in the past. And it has been much cooler.
And with both lower and higher co2 concentrations. Even the medieval warm period was likely as warm as now. There is no such thing as a stable climate. There never has been. We’ve had 5 million years of ice ages with interglacial warming periods between. And all without industrialization and a large human presence, other than the last couple of hundred years. And satellite data, such as that from UAH shows 2014 is eclipsed by ’98 and ’10, and roughly equal to ’07”
All that BS can be found on page 289 of the Handbook for Denier Trolls. It has been warmer, it has been colder, CO2 is up, CO2 is down, glaciers come, glaciers go, tide comes in , tide goes out—-all of this can be heard in the denier echo chamber at any time, and the only words of any significance in the whole pile of BS are “the last couple of hundred years”, and more specifically the decades since WW2, and particularly the past couple of decades where the effects of AGW have become more extreme and obvious. Deniers love to take us all over the historical landscape with their “but-but-buts”, even millions of years into the past, but the fact is that the RECORDS are piling up on us right NOW, and the only explanation for them is AGW. Hey, T-L. You never did address the question of Arctic sea ice decline. What do have to say about my favorite video clip on that topic?
http://youtu.be/qUO23Y179pU
“the DATA shows no correlation, hence causation can not be asserted.”
1) you’re not referring to global warming, but atmospheric warming. Since global warming is ocean warming, when the ocean hiccups, the atmospheric catches pneumonia. Here is what the climate models look like when the El Nino effect is added back in:
http://skepticalscience.com/pics/Schmidt2014.gif
2) you’re referring to data less than 30 years old, so why are you making conclusions about climate on that basis?
“any claim that human emissions of co2 are responsible for warming climate is NOT supported by… observation”
Umm, OK
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files/2014/02/CO2_and_temperature_since_mid_19th_cen.gif
Say, since you’ve ‘demonstrably’ upended global warming as a cause of recent warming, what does your Ouija board say is causing warming? Because we’ve been warming dramatically since around 1880:
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Marcott.png
Is it the Sun? Cow farts? Cosmic Rays?
Here are all the hockey sticks since 1880: human fossil fuel emissions. atmospheric CO2 content. climate forcers (solar+CO2+aerosols). Surface temperature.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-stick-or-hockey-league.html
You were saying something about ‘no correlation’?
Models. See previous posts re: 111/114 climate models overstate warming. Once again, as previously stated, I’m highlighting uncertainty. And you can’t claim the answer is co2 with any degree of certainty with so many apparent inconsistencies.
It isn’t up to me to present an alternate answer any more than it is your call to mandate a decision. And to frame it such again displays bias and a complete disregard for science. Research continues precisely because the answers are NOT known.
And we DO want answers… don’t we? Isn’t that the whole point, to continue learning more about the myriad of inputs and their interactions?
There is mountains of evidence.
Your wearisome list of the usual standard thousand-times-falsified denial-for-beginers myths and cherry-picks have been debunked, disproved and shredded so many hundreds of times now that they have reached a dropping consistancy.
I doubt anyone here will have the energy or inclination to go through the whole tedious process yet again.
By the way – why is 2014 the hottest year for 8,000 years?
Why did the slow cooling of the last 8,000 years suddenly slam into reverse as CO2 levels began to rise?
Did you like the video?
How many toads do you lick on a daily basis?
Do you know your raving comes across as near insanity now that man-made climate change is simply an obvious everyday reality all over the world?
You obviously didn’t read previous posts or you wouldn’t post such drivel.
Drivel? DRIVEL???!!!
T-L has apparently licked some bad tasting toads today and it’s making him forget his manners.
Way to go, L-T! That’s how to get people to believe your BS! Insult them!
(and, by extension, insult all who agree with them, and they are many).
Drivel because it is repetition of what YOU had already said earlier. In case you aren’t aware of what drivel is, and it seems you aren’t, here’s the link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/drivel
It is a reference to the content of the post. Surprise, surprise… it isn’t an ad hom or an insult. If that was my aim I could certainly do much better.
But I leave those childish tactics to you… Carry on.
As expected, the toad licker doubles down on his “feigned superiority” ploy. Dumb is as dumb does, I guess. I wonder if E-Pot left behind the perfumed sleeve hankie for T-L to sniff in feigned disdain?
Yes, he will most certainly win friends and influence people here by defining “drivel” for us and accusing us of spouting same. And he boasts of being able to do “much better” at ad homming and insulting? Bring it on, T-L! Show us how big a flaming anal orifice you really are! We know you are one—-it’s obvious—-but we can still be convinced that you are a far bigger one than you have shown us to date.
This licker of toads (yuk!) has thrown all his horsepucky against the wall and hopes it sticks. He is trying to help it stuck by distracting us with his insults and ad homs, and trying to ignore redsky, jpc, lesliegraham, and others who see him for what he is—-another lying POS denier troll that wastes our time. Will he respond to them? I doubt it (other than to insult them). He has shot his load with his original parrotings from the denier troll handbook—all he can do now is repeat them (endlessly) until they magically become truth.
PS T-L, In case you aren’t aware of what a “flaming anal orifice” is, here’s the link. http://www.GFYS.com
“Flaming anal orifice”? Really? So you are going full rabid ad hom now? No need to refute anything I said when you have a witty retort like that in the toolkit… Well I guess that’s settled. Can’t fight that kind of logic. You win.
When dealing with the depradations of flaming anal orifices like you, “full rabid ad hom” is the only way to go. Anything else gives you a legitimacy that you don’t deserve. (And in this virtual world we spar in, we can’t shoot you). It’s time to trot out Alice and the Duchess (You’re the Duchess and all Crockers are Alice, in case that’s not clear)
“I quite agree with you,” said the Duchess; “and the moral of that is–‘Be what you would seem to be’–or if you’d like it put more simply–‘Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.'”
“I think I should understand that better,” Alice said very politely, “`if I had it written down: but I can’t quite follow it as you say it.”
“That’s nothing to what I could say if I chose,” the Duchess replied, in a pleased tone.
“Pray don’t trouble yourself to say it any longer than that,” said Alice.
(Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Chapter 9)
And the message there to you is that we would be glad to refute your “logic” if you ever displayed any. We are instead forced into the tedious task of pointing out that there is no logic and no truth to the convoluted and dishonest denier horsepucky and drivel you spout in such quantity.
(PS I eagerly await your response to my “refutation” of your drivel about the IPCC not being a scientific organization)
Stop dodging the question.
How many toads do you lick on a daily basis.
This is the only thing of interest to us in your “posts”.
“The current record-breaking temperatures indicate that the 14-year-long pause in ocean warming has come to an end.”
Say what??
Looks like sloppy reporting. This reporter throws the words “ocean temperature” around pretty casually without clearly specifying whether it is “surface” or not, and either doesn’t relate it to (or confuses it with) atmospheric warming or deep ocean warming. An earlier passage in the full Science Daily article that is also not too clear.
“From 2000-2013 the global ocean surface temperature rise paused, in spite of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. This period, referred to as the Global Warming Hiatus, raised a lot of public and scientific interest. However, as of April 2014 ocean warming has picked up speed again, according to Timmermann’s analysis of ocean temperature datasets”.
Posted by FrankLee on another CAGW-related topic:
Global temperature DECREASED in the periods from 1879 to 1910, 1942 to 1972 and from 2002 to now corresponding to the 60 year Jupiter / Saturn Tri-Synodic cycle. The 60 years cycle was recognized 5,000 years ago by the Chinese.
All global temperature variations track to the following natural cycles:
The 9 year Soli/Lunar tidal cycle, the 11.2 year Wolf sun spot cycle, the 60 year Jupiter / Saturn Tri-Synodic cycle, the Milankovitch cycles of 26,000, 41,000, and 100,000 years. We are now well into the third 30 year cooling phase since 1879.
A 1979 tree ring study of the last 500 years predicted a warming until the year 2000 and then a drop of 2C to 4C by 2045 accompanied by a drop in agricultural productivity. So far temperatures match this prediction. They do not match any of the CMIP5 climate models.
And what you say about the warming in 1922, http://bit.ly/14P1vRV, documented in the Library of Congress.
“Again, I doubt you will respond to these points. If you could without betraying your adherence to dogma, you would have by now.”
Begging the question much?
Read this, toad:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998-surprise/
When you think you’ve understood it, and why it refutes your small sample size, statistically insignificant notions of lack of correlation, get back to us.
A simple analogy: The flight of the typical dandelion seed does not correlate well with the force of gravity. This does not prove that gravity does not act on dandelion seeds.
This seems to be addressed to me.
Some observations about your blog post:
1) You accept climate models are incomplete
2) Expected surface warming hasn’t happened
3) The missing heat is claimed to be found in deep oceans
NASA says: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/06oct_abyss/
It seems we at least we agree we need to keep working on refining the science… and this is because there are still questions. Science is still trying to understand the relationships between the myriad of inputs required to come up with a functional system for ACCURATE predictions. As it should.
And this is all I’ve tried to make clear; that making assertions of knowledge is both premature and counterproductive.
And once again, Feynman captured it brilliantly: “If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make a difference how beautiful your guess is. It doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it is WRONG”
None of your observations reflect anything I can discern from my post.
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/uah.jpg?w=500&h=270
1. All models are incomplete. That doesn’t make them useless.
2. Warming in the nineties was was more than expected. Less warming in the 21st century, if one ignores the obvious cherry-picking, averages out to be much the same as what was expected.
3. One hypothesis was that warming was going into the ocean deeps. Newer evidence is that the ‘missing heat’ is an artifact of underestimated heat content of the southern oceans.
https://www.llnl.gov/news/livermore-scientists-suggest-ocean-warming-southern-hemisphere-underestimated
Again, you seem to be in agreement. Models are incomplete… new hypothesis… And this logically leads to a conclusion that there are unknowns. If there are unknowns you can’t subsequently claim we have answers that are somehow magically beyond any further discussion or investigation.
licker
Don’t pretend that because you distort the meaning of a headline on a news item that you apparently did not read, that somehow NASA research supports your views. The article quotes Josh Willis. I know Josh, he’s a friend. I’ve interviewed him numerous times. There is no doubt in his mind about climate change and human caused warming, and he would call you out for being either a liar, an ignoramus or both.
The article plainly resolves the supposed issue you are trying to create.
“Coauthor Felix Landerer of JPL noted that during the same period warming in the top half of the ocean continued unabated, an unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up. Some recent studies reporting deep-ocean warming were, in fact, referring to the warming in the upper half of the ocean but below the topmost layer, which ends about 0.4 mile (700 meters) down.
Landerer also is a coauthor of another paper in the same journal issue on 1970-2005 ocean warming in the Southern Hemisphere. Before Argo floats were deployed, temperature measurements in the Southern Ocean were spotty, at best. Using satellite measurements and climate simulations of sea level changes around the world, the new study found the global ocean absorbed far more heat in those 35 years than previously thought — a whopping 24 to 58 percent more than early estimates.”
Josh Willis here:
Who is arguing that climate doesn’t change? I question whether you are building a strawman, or are you that thick? Nobody is arguing that climate doesn’t change. I am pointing out that failures in models and contrary data mean the hypothesis that co2 is THE primary climate driver is questionable. You are claiming absolute knowledge that evidence contradicts. Try a little humility.
Yes, Greenman, try a little HUMILITY!! After all, Toad Licker sets us such a good example in the humility category that he is entitled (no, actually, in his mind he is REQUIRED) to give you orders on your own blog.
Stop building those pesky STRAWMEN!!
Stop being so downright THICK!!!
I have just finished reading a 14 comment back-and-forth between Toad Licker and Boxing Pythagoras on R-L’s blog. It was fun, because B-P was beating T-L’s brains in just as we do here on Crock. Suddenly, Toad Licker spewed a huge ration of BS in the last comment in the string and BANNED BOXING PYTHAGORAS for having the temerity to make T-L look bad. LOL
Toad Licker’s exact words to Boxing Pythagoras:
“….you can pat yourself on the back over being the first waste of time so annoying as to be blocked from further comment. Good show, good bye, and good riddance”.
http://toadliquor.wordpress.com/2014/09/03/no-gods-no-evidence-stop-saying-there-is/
So beware, Greenman. If you continue to be “a waste of time so annoying” to T-L, he night just ban you from your own blog.
How would you address this apparent disconnect: http://nws.mx/1vwRGY2
Where’s Toad Licker? We haven’t heard from him for a while. Can we hope that we’ve driven him off and he will now sow his confusion and denial on some other site?
In case Crockers are unaware, toadliquor has a website on which you can really explore who he really “is” http://toadliquor.wordpress.com/
I posted a comment there but it’s “awaiting moderation”. We shall see if he has the (parts of the toad he licks most) to allow it to appear.
As suspected, he’s just another narcissistic self promoter with few original thoughts that merely posts excerpts from other folks. His “climate change” page is particularly revealing. The following list appears in one of his posts there:
“Additional sources of information:
Dr. Tim Ball – http://drtimball.com
Dr. John R Christy – http://nsstc.uah.edu/aosc/
Professor Ian Clark – http://mysite.science.uottawa.ca/idclark/clark.html
Piers Corbyn – http://www.weatheraction.com/
Judith Curry – http://judithcurry.com/
Richard Lindzen – http://www.cato.org/people/richard-lindzen
Patrick Moore – http://ecosense.me/
The Great Global Warming Swindle – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ”
Yep, our friend T-L really wants us to look at things in a fair and balanced way. That’s why his “sources of information” list consists of nothing but the biggest deniers on the planet. Hypocrite and liar!