Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: This is a good one for the memescape.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Cephus0

1
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
You understand maybe that people currently chipping ice off their bloodless eyelids might take a jaundiced view of being told that what they are experiencing is pure luxury compared with earlier lower co2 times and that they should spend trillions of dollars in a trivially demonstrable futile effort specifically in order to go back to those cryogenic epochs?

Well go ahead if you must but do remember to duck as you make that ultimate killer argument.
2
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
It snowed again in the Sahara

Heaviest in living memory apparently and a fabulous sight.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
3
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
Monty Python would have been proud of that.
4
Science / Re: NH winter cooling

We're talking about the arctic which is warming at double the global rate, so there's plenty of warming to support greater specific humidity, therefor greater snow accumulations.  There's also more open ocean in the vicinity rather than sea ice, so that's going to contribute to greater specific humidity. 

Yes I don't disagree.  It's a potential ice age trigger which has long been postulated.  Warming arctic ocean results in less ice cover and greater humidity which dumps more snow in high latitudes.  Arctic ocean albedo is probably increased since specular reflection from water at low solar incidence angles is greater than for irregular ice.  Increased snow cover over continental masses does increase albedo and forces cooling.  The support for any of this is sketchy at best but the glaciations happened anyway.
5
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
Second, there's no plausible natural forcing that would drive the observed warming.

The data says otherwise. Over the turbulent Pleistocene climatic conditions switched very fast indeed.  Have a look at http://www.pnas.org/content/99/25/16117.full.pdf and http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007PA001457/full

Meanwhile they're still growing stuff on the banks of the Nile as they were at least 4,000 year ago in this unusually stable interglacial period where we obsess about tenths of a degree.
6
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
Some problems with all that.

First, if there was a hiatus, it's over.


That's SST - not global temp.  Not that I care about the unphysical concept of average global temp anyway but sometimes you have to talk to the lunatics in their own language.
7
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
When ice cores are analyzed for ocean content, the SMOW (Standard Mean Ocean Water) data tells the story of both seasonal and long term changes in the ocean temperature  that was the source of the snow.  If they tested these ice cores for this (and they really should), we might know something about the changes in the ocean water that was the source of the snow.  (or we might not)

If the SMOW data shows the snow came from warmer water then we might know something about the source of the snow.  If the data shows it is ocean effect snow, not tropical moisture, then we might actually know something about the cause of the snow increase.  The problem with so much research is simple enough.  If you are only looking for one thing (global; warming signals), you won't actually be doing science.

Ya they did that

Quote
The secular increase in Denali and Mt. Logan ice core sea salt Na+ concentrations over recent centuries has also been interpreted as an extratropical response to warming Pacific SSTs, has a dramatic increase in the Mt. Logan δ18O record at 184037
Quote
Moore et al.15 found a positive and accelerating trend in Mt. Logan annual accumulation after the middle of the nineteenth century, and interpret it as indicative of a progressively more positive PNA. This was supported by Rupper et al.38 who confirm that high accumulation years on Mt. Logan are associated with a stronger wintertime Aleutian Low. Furthermore, the composite Mt. Logan and Mt. Hunter sea-salt Na+ calibrated Aleutian Low proxy similarly supports a progressive strengthening of the Aleutian Low over recent centuries to its strongest levels of the past 1500 years36 (Fig. S5).

They make the case that the Aleutian Low is being deepened through atmospheric teleconnections to the tropical Pacific and that semi-permanent weather system pulls in moisture from the Gulf of Alaska so the mix is a complex combo of tropical and extratropical signals.  What is ultimately being claimed is that an approximately 0.5°C rise in tropical SST is driving the whole show.  And maybe it is but the attempt to link that to the industrial revolution is childishly stupid.  Their chart shows the increase beginning over a millennium ago and a remarkably smooth acceleration to present with nothing to mark the industrial age as having any effect whatsoever.
8
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
Cephus, perhaps you can see the trace of the AMO superimposed on the trend, but that signal is swamped by the magnitude of the increase in trend.  The increase in trend, that would be the AGW signal. 

First thing to note is that no trend is any sort of AGW signal until you refute the null by demonstrating that the trend cannot have a natural cause.  Warming following Maunder and Dalton minima does not fall into that category.  For an example of the quite breathtaking hyperbole and arrogance of modern climate science the Dartmouth article says

Quote
"It is now glaringly clear from our ice core record that modern snowfall rates in Alaska are much higher than natural rates before the Industrial Revolution,"

Oh noes!  Natural rates before the industrial revolution also include mile thick ice sheets grinding over much of the northern hemisphere and everything in between.  These masters of irony might also like to note that it was 'ice core records' which demonstrated conclusively that carbon dioxide is not a driver of temperature.

Second thing is you can put whatever curve you like through your SH data but there is no upward trend at all from '97 onwards.  It doesn't correlate with the Alaskan snowfall data.



I agree that it is unlikely to be a result of AMO but is highly likely to be well correlated with the temperature hiatus.



Third noteworthy point is that air will carry about 7% more water for each °C temperature rise.  Even using NASA GISS figures



gets you an outside edge of 10% increase in water vapour over the period in which snowfall increased by well in excess of 100%.  In reality if we look only at tropical sea surface temperature anomalies it will likely be half of that or less.
9
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
w/e, as long as it's clear the trend is to more total atmospheric water vapor, not less,

:stare:  Except it isn't.  You've shown what looks like a cyclical trend in SH which has a reasonable correlation to AMO over a third of the period of increasing snowfall and which does not correlate at all well with the snowfall data.  You've also shown some unidentified RH curves which are recently decreasing and indicative of reduced precipitation.

Meanwhile further down the coast your 'clear trend to more atmospheric water vapour' was apparently resulting in permanent drought conditions.  Until it wasn'tAnd then was again.

How strange.  How can that be?  Water vapour, much like carbon dioxide, is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere and if as you appear to believe - although you only supplied a small 30 year cyclical data segment - there has been continuously increasing SH over the last hundred years or so which accounts for increasing snowfall in Alaska then we would surely expect to see that reflected in global precipitation levels.



We don't.

Now you could try and make the case that the reason we don't see increased global precipitation is that global warming is keeping RH fairly constant despite your proposed monotonic SH increase.  So then the only way you can account for increased snowfall in Alaska is to postulate cooling there.  But that doesn't fit with the NH global warming meme with which F X and others disagree.



Which is why this paper is forced to reach for bizarre and unevidenced mechanisms in order to account for it while keeping the global warming narrative alive.  They postulate that water vapour is being miraculously sucked from tropical oceans and preferentially squirted into the semi-permanent weather system known as the Aleutian low via. an atmospheric bridge and the magic of Rossby waves.  Moreover this arrangement has apparently been operating stably over more than a century.  The magical parts of this argument are supported as ever by models.

While we are told that humans are causing the atmosphere to be whipped into a vicious maelstrom of ever increasing extreme weather and the polar vortex is mangled beyond all recognition we are here asked to believe that amidst the fury and chaos there is an exquisitely delicate system stretching halfway across the globe which is seemingly as stable at least as Jupiter's Great Red Spot and which is dumping snow on Alaska's mountains.  And why are we asked to believe this unbelievable thing?  Because we must in order to maintain a religion which holds that each and every feature of the climate is controlled by a trace atmospheric compound.  I love global warming - it's the comedy gift that never stops giving.
10
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
Compare and contrast.



Well ok, let us compare - and not only that - contrast!  The first graph shows changes in land and sea specific humidity anomaly over the period 1970 - present.  At first glance it looks like some sinusoidal approximation over a half wavelength.  If I compare it with the oceanic temperature fluctuations governed by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation I get a pretty good fit.



 I don't find it surprising that ocean temperatures affect atmospheric water vapour content.

Are you presenting this graph as support for the increased snow in Alaska being due to oceanic warming in the tropics?

The second relative humidity graph with two curves which are not identified shows ...  well I don't know.  Looks flat from 1970 until 2000 then a bit of a down blip.  What significance does the second graph hold for you in terms of Alaskan precipitation?
11
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
My immediate reaction to this alarming news was that the glaciers in Alaska must surely be advancing at a furious rate.  They would have to be.  Until I remembered that the rich and famous keep going to Alaska to weep great salty well documented tears over receding glaciers there and it is almost as much of a poster catastrophe as dead polar bears.
The large glaciers in Alaska of course have been "growing", which isn't as simple as it sounds.

The mountains in the study never melt at high altitudes, which is why they chose them to do ice cores.  While the idiotic deniers of evidence like to imagine all the glaciers are melting away, they are certainly not.  What is happening is down near sea level the foot of the glaciers (not the large ones, the smaller ones) are melting due to a climate shift to warmer summer temps, while the ice fields that feed the glaciers, up high, are showing a drastic increase in ice (from increasing snow).  If you just look at small glaciers down low you might think they are "shrinking", even when the source of the glacier is showing a massive increase in ice.

This study and the ice cores it is based on show the bigger picture, which is an increase in the glacier mass.  This won't show up at the foot of the glacier for a long time.  The same thing was found in other regions.  The increased calving for tidewater glaciers is assumed to mean the glacier is in trouble, when in reality the glacier is growing.  The problem for the simple minded is the assumption that more ice calving means trouble, when it just might mean there has been more snow, and it takes a long time to show up down where it is easy to observe a glacier.

In fact, that is exactly what this study shows.

Agree with all of this.  So then the ice core data is unequivocal and snowfall in the mountains of Alaska is indeed currently increasing and has been for some time.  The article is redolent with the customary hyperbole and uses lots of emotionally charged terminology with the finger of fate of course being unwaveringly pointed at anthropogenic global warming as the villain of the piece and this time the vector is heating of tropical waters.

The hypothesis is that downwelling longwave radiation from increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations is resulting in additional evaporation from tropical oceans and this is the source of the increasing precipitation in the highlands of Alaska.  Stepping over the physical plausibility of that mechanism for now the next obvious question is can we find a correlation between snow volume and atmospheric humidity to support the hypothesis?  I'm currently struggling to find any such correlation and if anything relative humidity has been slightly decreasing over the same time period as increasing snow in Alaska.



The paper attempts to forge a link between tropical sea surface temperature increases and deepening of the Aleutian low via. an atmospheric bridge and hence to the increased precipitation in Alaska.  Sadly this critical part of the hypothesis is supported only by General Circulation Model output and some arm-waving about Rossby waves.  No data is presented to support the hypothesis that the Aleutian low has been deepening over the period in question or that humidity in that area has been increasing
12
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
.......
"The research not only finds a dramatic increase in snowfall, it further explains connections in the global climate system by attributing the record accumulation to warmer waters thousands of miles away in the tropical Pacific and Indian Oceans."

You see the word 'accumulation'?  What it means is that the snow, umm, accumulated you know and did not in fact seasonally melt and run off.  A massive shock for the high glacier-forming regions of Alaska I know but still.  Did you give much thought to how they worked out that the snowfall had doubled if it melted and ran off each season?  What do you think they measured to determine the increase?  Did you have too many egg nogs?
This makes me wonder about several ways to interpret brief descriptions.  When I read the words "record accumulation", I assumed this referred to "annual snowfall".  So I suppose this would be measured from some stable point at the first snowfall of the season, to the new snow depth at the end of the snowy season.  Did not think about whether anything was implied about snow conditions at the beginning of the next snowy season, whether it was ascertained that additional snow depth remained compared to the same time one year prior.

If snow melts substantially during the snowy season, between storms, how would you know what the real "record accumulation" is unless you measure snowfall immediately after each storm and keep a record?

Admission - I don't know squat about a "snowy season" up in the NH.  Maybe there are snowfalls on occasion year round?  So would we use some consistent standard such as "beginning of October to end of March" to define the season?

Yes I should have been plainer.  The measurements of snow accumulation are taken using ice cores - as F X points out above - from the high corries or cwms or whatever word you use for the depressions in high mountainous regions which are the birthing sites of glaciers.  There isn't much of any melting going on at those sites in Alaska so the ice core accumulation data is pretty much a straight record of precipitation as snow.  In fact the article goes on to say:

"According to the research, wintertime snowfall has increased 117 percent since the mid-19th century in southcentral Alaska in the United States. Summer snows also showed a significant increase of 49 percent in the short period ranging less than two hundred years."
13
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
Unlike most of the other big theories, global warming theory isn't rock solid, like the theory of evolution, or the theory of plate tectonics.  While even a little modern scientific learning allows us to define, explain and appreciate a theory, AGW is nebulous, often misunderstood, poorly defined and certainly contentious.

Global warming [anthropogenic] is not a 'big theory'.  It isn't a theory at all.  It is a politicised zombie hypothesis with a hugely funded theological 'research' spectrum attracting quasi-religious devotion.  It is the Western version of Lysenkoism.  As opposed to being 'rock solid' there is zero evidence in support of this hypothesis and over the half century course of its complete failure to predict anything at all it has gradually morphed into the fundamental standard of unfalsifiability we see today.
14
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
My immediate reaction to this alarming news was that the glaciers in Alaska must surely be advancing at a furious rate.  They would have to be. 

Guess what: your immediate reaction is wrong. Glacial advance is promoted by accumulation season-upon-season. Snow that falls, melts and runs off in the same season doesn't contribute to net accumulation.


:facepalm:

I don't think you read the article did you.  From the second paragraph

"The research not only finds a dramatic increase in snowfall, it further explains connections in the global climate system by attributing the record accumulation to warmer waters thousands of miles away in the tropical Pacific and Indian Oceans."

You see the word 'accumulation'?  What it means is that the snow, umm, accumulated you know and did not in fact seasonally melt and run off.  A massive shock for the high glacier-forming regions of Alaska I know but still.  Did you give much thought to how they worked out that the snowfall had doubled if it melted and ran off each season?  What do you think they measured to determine the increase?  Did you have too many egg nogs?
15
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
....
My immediate reaction to this alarming news was that the glaciers in Alaska must surely be advancing at a furious rate.  They would have to be.  Until I remembered that the rich and famous keep going to Alaska to weep great salty well documented tears over receding glaciers there and it is almost as much of a poster catastrophe as dead polar bears....
Hi everybody.  I don't want to enter the climate debate,

And few would blame you for that Mike.


Quote
not taking sides here, but I thought there should be a simple answer to glacier growth rate.  I'd propose this:

Growth of a glacier is dependent on the net rate of addition of snow.  If accumulation over a season outweighs the loss due to melting (into the soil or runoff) and sublimation, glacier mass is added.  So increased snowfall would have to outweigh the potentially increased losses in the warmer part of the season.  Over years, added glacier mass will gradually move downhill with more mass added uphill, normal glacier movement.

For a glacier to grow, do we look for it to extend its downhill reach?  If so, for a stable (non-extending) downhill reach, mass does have to be added each year higher on the glacier to compensate for the mass melted off at the downhill reach.  For extension of downhill reach it seems that a greater rate of mass growth is needed, or it needs to become cooler on average at lower elevations.

I'd guess that all of these factors are in play and will vary over extended periods of time, they did in the past, right?

Yes I agree with what you're saying here.  What is being reported in the paper is that there is an effective doubling of precipitation as snow in the mountains over the last century.  Yet when I look at temperature records for Alaska over that same period there is little to no warming.  So then I would expect that the doubling of snow volume would be the dominant factor controlling glacier evolution and the glaciers ought to be advancing.  Yet the second article says they are in fact receding.  Hubbard glacier is indeed advancing and has been for more than a century but others nearby are apparently retreating which is difficult to reconcile with a doubling of snow volume coupled with fairly steady temperatures.
16
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
In a year-end Winter's Tale the snows came early for me - despite CRU Dr. Viner's pitiful predictions from 2000 about little children not knowing what snow was anymore - and there's no white Christmas here this season.   Much of the rest of the country is still having snow though and it's an official white Christmas since there was snowfall in some parts of the country on Christmas day.  Hardly the full deep and crisp and even though so it's away to Alaska for some off-piste fun.  There's something strange happening in the high places there.  Apparently snowfall in the mountains of Alaska has doubled since the beginning of the industrial revolution and has done so because of man-made global warming.

https://www.dartmouth.edu/press-releases/warming_seas_double_snowfall-north_around_north_americas_tallest_peaks.html

Quote
The research not only finds a dramatic increase in snowfall, it further explains connections in the global climate system by attributing the record accumulation to warmer waters thousands of miles away in the tropical Pacific and Indian Oceans.

My immediate reaction to this alarming news was that the glaciers in Alaska must surely be advancing at a furious rate.  They would have to be.  Until I remembered that the rich and famous keep going to Alaska to weep great salty well documented tears over receding glaciers there and it is almost as much of a poster catastrophe as dead polar bears.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/alaska-s-glaciers-are-retreating/

Difficult to know what to make of these diametrically conflicting phenomena in a world of settled science.  I don't have time to figure it out so will ask at the next scheduled meeting of the Flat Earth Society instead.
17
Doesn't seem silly to me. Science constrains these things.  Usual skool definition is :

1)  Observation and description of phenomenon.
2)  Formulation of a testable hypothesis to explain the phenomenon.
3)  Use the hypothesis to predict other phenomenon or results.
4)  Perform an experiment or experiments to ensure that results predicted based on hypothesis are achieved in the experiments.

Phone cancer junk science:

1)  No observation or description of any phenomenon.
2)  Invent an untestable hypothesis without any kind of theoretical physical support to explain the imaginary phenomenon..
3)  Fail to predict any other phenomena.
4)  No proposed experimental validation.

It's junk science.


See: epidemiology study design.

That's actually interesting.  What is the root cause of the mass junk science outbreak and how does it propagate?
18
Doesn't seem silly to me. Science constrains these things.  Usual skool definition is :

1)  Observation and description of phenomenon.
2)  Formulation of a testable hypothesis to explain the phenomenon.
3)  Use the hypothesis to predict other phenomenon or results.
4)  Perform an experiment or experiments to ensure that results predicted based on hypothesis are achieved in the experiments.

Phone cancer junk science:

1)  No observation or description of any phenomenon.
2)  Invent an untestable hypothesis without any kind of theoretical physical support to explain the imaginary phenomenon..
3)  Fail to predict any other phenomena.
4)  No proposed experimental validation.

It's junk science.

19
Better left filed under 'junk science'.  The Time link is to the abysmal level of cheap scare journalism they sank to long ago.  They get in fast with the usual nothing statements "some laboratory experiments and human health studies have suggested the possibility that long-term, high use of cell phones may be linked to certain types of cancer and other health effects." using the usual spray of meaningless alarmist words 'some' 'suggested' 'possibility' 'may' which ought to immediately flag this as junk science.

Followed up with "studies have not established any definitive links between health problems and radiofrequency (RF) energy".  And there you have it.  There's zero science to report here.  Which isn't all that surprising since microwave photons have energies six orders of magnitude too low for molecular ionisation effects.  The only effect microwaves can have on organic tissues is heating through polar molecular oscillations with water accounting for nearly all of that.  A typical cell phone antenna pressed against the head radiates power sufficient to raise the temperature of a small patch of adjacent skin by around 0.4 C.

It's a great gig for grant funding though with two major trigger words 'radiation' and 'cancer'.  Researchers have been searching for the mythical but lucrative 'non-thermal microwave effect' for decades now.  There is no physical theory which predicts such an effect but never mind that - on the search goes anyway.  If you are a health worrier there really are more pressing issues.
20
Seems to be a molecular parallel of the macroscopic ecological interventions everyone is familiar with - rabbits, cane toads, rats etc.  Protein space is all but infinite and you can monkey around in it through DNA modifications towards what you perceive to be an advantageous result.  You cannot of course ever have full knowledge of all of the ramifications of that change.  It isn't like you are going to create some Frankenstinian monster since everything is still subject to the same selection pressures in the wild but you may well wind up with unforeseen and disadvantageous consequences along with your intended and realised advantages.
21
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
My favorite bits...

The new paradigm is to look at the actual observations and compare them with the individual ensemble outputs.

They're doing what now? Testing their models against empirical observations? Tell me more about this crazy "new paradigm"!

They then identify which models are closest to the observations and give those model outputs a higher weighting in computing the grand canonical average.

They what? Refine their models based on their observations? What kind of crazy nonsense is that?

Obviously enough If you arrange for some algorithmic procedure to generate a combined output whilst weighting those which are currently running closest to the observations then you can in effect never be wrong.

Obviously enough, if you refine your theories to match your observations, your theories make accurate predictions. What a dastardly trick!

Ben you didn't understand a single word.  You're regressing ever further into some dementia-like state of incoherent rambling.  Couldn't even begin to unscramble this level of world-decoupling without fmri.  Really don't want to witness another human mind unravelling in this way so with regret you're on ignore.  Take it easy and good luck with the coming planetary conflagration :wave:
22
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
Lolz.  Your link was an evidence-free opinion piece without even so much as a reference to any paper or data.  The paper it's opining on - when I found it - is paywalled.  I gave an opinion on your referenced opinion.  Maybe try posting some evidence if you want evidenced refutation but since I've been asking you for any evidence at all for years now without success it looks that isn't going to happen.
23
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
By the fact that you're babbling a hysterical defense before I've even read it I'm going to assume it's even more retarded than your usual stuff.

I'm also going to assume that it's more junk science modelling.  Just because it always is.

Aaaand ...

:facepalm:

It is both of those things.  Firstly you link to a bunch of cheerleading from Carnegie about a paper they had published in Nature which doesn't even contain a reference to the paper.  Nevertheless I found the paper - paywalled - but here's the abstract.

Quote
Greater future global warming inferred from Earth's recent energy budget
Patrick T. Brown & Ken Caldeira
Nature 552, 45-50 (07 December 2017)
doi:10.1038/nature24672

Abstract
Climate models provide the principal means of projecting global warming over the remainder of the twenty-first century but modelled estimates of warming vary by a factor of approximately two even under the same radiative forcing scenarios. Across-model relationships between currently observable attributes of the climate system and the simulated magnitude of future warming have the potential to inform projections. Here we show that robust across-model relationships exist between the global spatial patterns of several fundamental attributes of Earth's top-of-atmosphere energy budget and the magnitude of projected global warming. When we constrain the model projections with observations, we obtain greater means and narrower ranges of future global warming across the major radiative forcing scenarios, in general. In particular, we find that the observationally informed warming projection for the end of the twenty-first century for the steepest radiative forcing scenario is about 15 per cent warmer (+0.5 degrees Celsius) with a reduction of about a third in the two-standard-deviation spread (−1.2 degrees Celsius) relative to the raw model projections reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Our results suggest that achieving any given global temperature stabilization target will require steeper greenhouse gas emissions reductions than previously calculated.

The abstract appears to be pointing towards the latest modelling paradigm shift designed to slither over the abject failures of the models to date.  You probably already know that climate models form an ensemble and the simulated climate is generally deemed to be the average output over the ensemble.  A strange thing you might think, although probably don't, but in alarmist climate science the average of false = true - apparently.  Why don't they simply throw out the more obviously dud of the current ensemble of duds?  Seems to be a reasonable question to ask.  The answer is that the total ensemble is effectively outputting the full spectrum of what is mostly feasible in a warming world but the problem is the average over the spread of possible climate behaviours doesn't really represent the real climate and it's no surprise that this absurd approach has been failing.  They have no earthly idea why one model outperforms the other at some point nor why it stops doing so at some other time.  They just go with the absurd idea that an average of them all has some sort of physical meaning.  It doesn't.

The new paradigm is to look at the actual observations and compare them with the individual ensemble outputs.  They then identify which models are closest to the observations and give those model outputs a higher weighting in computing the grand canonical average.  Obviously enough If you arrange for some algorithmic procedure to generate a combined output whilst weighting those which are currently running closest to the observations then you can in effect never be wrong.  Unless it becomes a cooling world of course.  What they are doing is constraining their averaged ensemble model output to track the real climate by inputting the actually measured climate into the total climate model phase space and forcing the output to follow it by applying weightings.  Then they run with the models closest to the real climate for their future projections.  Rinse and repeat but next time it most likely will not be the same models which are closest to the real climate.  They call this procedure "observationally informed warming projection".  It appears to be nothing more than the usual trivially idiotic modelling charade which everyone is now thoroughly accustomed to.  This time it attempts to place the modelling effort on the same forever unfalsifiable footing as the 'human caused climate change' hypothesis itself.  The alarmists are busy attempting to put statistical lipstick on this abject nonsense of a climate model pig and informing us all that it's the 'sophisticated' thing to do.
24
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
we see the unmistakable signs of desperation beginning to peep through
25
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
Oh well, you know, that's how it goes.  But that level of fuckwittery cannot last indefinitely of course and there are signs that the hegemony of those pushing the fraud is starting to slip.  Here https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/bix133/4644513 we see the unmistakable signs of desperation beginning to peep through.  In this 'paper' they are attempting to blame the 'denier' blogosphere for the fact that public acceptance of and concern about the trivially absurd pseudoscientific climate alarm meme they've been pushing for nigh on half a century now is on the wane.

Never seems to even cross their minds that just maybe it could be the fact that not a single one of their demented predictions without end has ever come to pass - as the alleged climate 'tipping points' zip by like railroad sleepers with the square root of fuck all happening and they are now reduced to pointing wild-eyed at perfectly ordinary storm systems as the dread fingerprint of man's industrial meddling with the climate.

The public are just bored to tears with their rapture-level lunacy but nevertheless the fear-brokers must have their Dr. Evil and this time around it's not Big Coal or the Koch Bros. or whoever but <drumroll ...> the Blogosphere!  So then this 'paper' is a clarion call to the climate faithful to rally the troops and exhorts them to hunt down fiendish bloggers in their sleazy cyberspace lairs and do righteous battle with them there.  General 'hockey stick' Mikey Mann is describing it as 'trench warfare'.  How the once mighty are fallen and apparently reduced to unseemly brawling in the dirt.

What these nitwits will never comprehend is that there is no denier command centre or GHQ.  They are a ghost army of unpaid guerrilla volunteers.  The alarmists quite pitifully yearn to believe that deniers are all in the pay of Exxon, Kochs, Peabody blah blah but they aren't.  There is nothing to hit and they will never stop as long as the alarmist morons continue with their butchery of science.

Meanwhile the alarmists are all guzzling at the bottomless climate 'science' funding trough and if that funding starts to dry up I seriously doubt those people will be expending their own money, time and effort in promoting something as quacking insane and evidence free as cagw. The concept of Mann and his band of lying data-mangling Climategate pseudoscientists taking down the blogosphere in righteous online combat is hernia-inducing funny.

The alarmist mountebanks refuse debate in every other sphere - muh 97% consensus and settled science donchakno - so exactly why these tools think they're going to venture into a realm outside of their customary censorship where they will have their butts carved into finest wafer-thin pastrami and handed to them on sold silver salvers is a bit of a mystery.

But anyway, my but how the times do change.  Every Western government - bar one of course - and almost every scientist in the world - or so it's claimed - and every academy and august scientific institution and every high-impact learned journal and all but the entirety of the World's legacy media and untold billions in funding cannot stop the public from wandering off-piste on this one.  Yet apparently the Machiavellian blogosphere has insinuated its corrupting tentacles directly into the frontal cortices of a gullible public.

We are asked to believe that a few online heretics have achieved this.  Well we can only hope but whatever, it appears that it's alarmist boo-hoo time.