Do you believe the 97% consensus among scientists?

[Accountability Now]

oh, have I touched a nerve? I see you're back to labeling me as dishonest. Again, please stop this. Again, I've given you no basis for you to continue your most juvenile accusations.

in your claimed honest discussion, in my most recent post I've simply extended upon your implied consideration of the natural cycles you now explicitly state/claim as the causal tie to warming and impact on the mountain pine beetle life cycle/range expansion. Is asking you to qualify your claimed consideration... dishonest to you?

Nope...no nerve at all. I simply let you know that I won't be engaging you because of your dishonest approach. You consistantly deflect from direct questions which numerous MLW members have called you on but yet you persist. If you continue to respond to my posts I will respond in turn letting you know that I don't engage dishonest members.

[Michael Hardner]

Michael... is it or is it not forum policy to provide a citation after it has been requested to back up statements that you make?

Yes, absolutely - anybody should provide this.

Do you consider it honest to refuse that claim four seperate times only to then on the fifth time claim that the reference was there all along and all I had to do was Google it?

That sounds more like an error than a purposeful misdirection.

And you consider this honest?

No, but you can just reiterate that a cite was requested and not followed up on. I have several examples that I have asked for, and never received.

I'm not surprised by you missing out on KeepitSimple's repeated requests, or TImG's comments as I know where your true left wing allegiances lie especially after your big left wing rant against WWWTP.

What is WWWTP ? I have been accused of being right wing and left wing, which is fine with me.

[Accountability Now]

Yes, absolutely - anybody should provide this.

Then call him on it.

That sounds more like an error than a purposeful misdirection.

An error???? ROTFL!!! Four very obvious and direct requests were made to waldo requesting him to back up his quote. But you think it was an error when I blantently posted in caps that he needs to back up his post on the third or fourth attempt? Was it an error when he refused to answer KeepitSimple? Come on Michael.....don't play stupid...its not like you.

No, but you can just reiterate that a cite was requested and not followed up on. I have several examples that I have asked for, and never received.

I did....three times after the intitial request. Do you know who you are talking about here? And you wonder why people have him on ignore!

What is WWWTP ? I have been accused of being right wing and left wing, which is fine with me.

WWWTP is that member who was posting all sorts of nonsense stuff about global warming which made you quite upset. In turn you chastized the right wing members of the board for not calling him out assuming that he was right wing too. He wasn't but you certainly showed your left wing agenda there.

Edited March 4, 2014 by Accountability Now

[waldo]

Michael... is it or is it not forum policy to provide a citation after it has been requested to back up statements that you make?

absolute BS. You trotted out a "it's mostly theoretical" reference in regards environmental consequences... member 'eyeball' immediately called you on it by highlighting the actual (non-theoretical) impact of ocean acidification, an impact he's personally observant to and affected by. I followed up with another, anything but theoretical example, with a reference to mountain pine beetle damage/destruction..... as follows, the relevant posts/exchange:

eyeball! A bit more of that "theoretical", as mentioned by another poster... mountain pine-beetle damage, anyone?

The current mountain pine beetle (MPB) outbreak started in British Columbia in the early 1990s. The insect has since killed about 50% of the total volume of commercial lodgepole pine in the province. While isolated records of MPB had been noted in Alberta before, it was the massive migration of beetles into that province from outbreaks in British Columbia during 2006 that fuelled the spread eastward.

Today the MPB occurs well beyond its historic range, extending into northern British Columbia and eastward in the boreal forest of north-central Alberta. Not just limiting itself to lodgepole pine any longer, the beetle is also reproducing in jack pine, the dominant pine species of the boreal forest.

.

As always.....your post says NOTHING as to how this is related to AGW. NOTHING!!! You don't even provide a link either. Scared of something?

if you'd like to contest the fact that warming is impacting the life-cycle of the mountain pine beetle... and not resulting in the widespread destruction of commercial lodgepole pine (and now also moving into the boreal forest jack pine) trees in western Canadian provinces and U.S. states..... please, proceed Governor!

you made a statement/claim with your "it's mostly theoretical" environmental consequences. You were called on it twice; once over ocean acidification and once with the mountain pine beetle damage/destruction example. Where is your citation to back up your statement that environmental consequences are mostly theoretical? With all your nattering bluster and ongoing junkyard dog act with your juvenile accusations of lying/being dishonest, where is your citation? Where is your citation? Where is it?

as you can see in the related quote stream (above), in regards the mountain pine beetle damage/destruction example, you were asked/invited to support your apparent contention of the established and accepted understanding that increased warming is the causal impacting tie affecting the mountain pine beetle life-cycle [and range expansion]. And, in that regard, in response to your subsequent shifting claims from, 'you don't accept the impacting warming is human influenced'... to, 'you maintain the warming is natural variability', you have been laid bare with this post. A post that has you now facing the inevitable quandary of fake-skeptics/deniers... like you; it has you now facing the requirement to support your stated "natural variability cycles" position as the causal tie to warming. You're welcome!

[waldo]

yes, eyeball... fake-skeptics/deniers have a most peculiar interpretation of "theoretical".

They're amongst the stupidest people on the planet. I don't know why you waste so much time on them.

eyeball... it takes a special kind of perseverance, motivation and a few available cycles here and there!

.

[jbg]

For the specific area that Squid is talking about (Cariboo-Chicolton....using Quesnel as the data point) I see that the temperautre dipped down 21 times below -40C from 1893 to 1991. Nothing since 1991. Again...this is for that specific area that Squid is talking about. Looking at other areas in BC, they never reached -40C and therefore this is nothing new to them and perhaps would explain why their pine population is not as high as further north.

Keep in mind that the "warm phase" of the PDO peaked around 1997-8. Thus the particular area and temperature mile-post may not represent all that much. I wonder if the swing with regard to -35F days (I pick F because the degrees are smaller) is as drastic.

[Accountability Now]

you made a statement/claim with your "it's mostly theoretical" environmental consequences. You were called on it twice; once over ocean acidification and once with the mountain pine beetle damage/destruction example. Where is your citation to back up your statement that environmental consequences are mostly theoretical? With all your nattering bluster and ongoing junkyard dog act with your juvenile accusations of lying/being dishonest, where is your citation? Where is your citation? Where is it?

Your honesty has been brought into question on this thread and now you choose to address that by issuing yet another lie? The whole chain that started this topic of 'theoretical' came from my post 186 as below:

You realize that even the IPCC attributes low confidence that the actual events like hurricanes and tornadoes are changing. Even with droughts they say medium confidence that some areas are increasing but then go on to say other areas are decreasing.

At this point it's mostly theoretical.

You remember....the post that you didn't want to touch!!! Not just this time but also the last time when I posted the information in your BS thread about Harper stifling innovation (you know the one where you lied about using GDP by PPP for your equation.....do you ever tell the truth?). I introduced this information in post 64:

As for the IPCC....you never had the courage to respond to my claim so I never presented it. Have a chew on this.....right from the IPCC themselves.

https://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/

Quote

There is low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e.,

intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. It is likely that there has been

a poleward shift in the main Northern and Southern Hemisphere extratropical storm tracks. There is low confidence in

observed trends in small spatial-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and

inadequacies in monitoring systems. [3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.4.4, 3.4.5]

Quote

There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and

frequency of floods at regional scales because the available instrumental records of floods at gauge stations are

limited in space and time, and because of confounding effects of changes in land use and engineering. Furthermore,

there is low agreement in this evidence, and thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of

these changes. [3.5.2]

____________

When I called you out for your lack of citation or backup for your weak pine beetle example I responded with this actual quote (and not the deceptive crop job that you pulled above):

As always.....your post says NOTHING as to how this is related to AGW. NOTHING!!! You don't even provide a link either. Scared of something?

More notably....I see you didn't come close to touching my notes from the IPCC about the low confidence in extreme weather events. This one really bothers you especially after you blabbed on in a thread that you created called Increasing weather extremes. That one really hurt....didn't it!!

Your only argument at this point was that I should have posted this in an appropriate thread....because a thread about the global warming consnesus wasn't the right place to talk about extreme weather from global warming but its surely the right place to discuss a pine beetle which you made no reference or citation as to how it is even affected by global warming. Hypocrisy? Dishonesty? Most likely both.

I then addressed my source when you yet again refused to acknowledge the points in post 217.

It is a little nugget. One that you ran from before and one that you are running from now. In the previous attempt to ask you to answer it I provided you with the SREX report outlining this so as per usual your cliams on not putting forward an actual post with cited quotes is COMPETE BS.

Ironcially immediately after my post 217 is your request for me to back up my claim about the theoretical in your post 218.

So lets recap:

I provided the points about extreme weather and how there is no proof in actuality that global warming is causing it but yet the IPCC models still claim that theoretically this will happen with future warming.....and that is not back up of my theoretical claim? You even acknowledged my source below:

as always, I am encouraged when anyone affirms the authority of the IPCC... good on ya!

Are you now saying that I didn't provide a link or a source for the informaiton I provdied? Are you saying that you are completely unaware of the SREX report? Of course you're not because you provided that same report to start off your whole blabbering thread about Increasing Weather Extremes.

So it can't be ignorance of my citations, rather it is once again dishonesty. I have engaged you a number of times on MLW on various topics with each time me showing you the door. I enjoyed those conversations because despite your constant defection I never thought you'd lie. Your first lie came as of late with your erroneous usage of GDP using PPP. Your second one came with saying your citation for the pine beetles was there all along. And now this most recent lie of you saying that I never posted by links or backup for my claim on it being mostly theoretical.

How many times do you need to be dishonest before it is well know that you are a dishonest member of this forum. For me....this is all I need. I will not engage you in future topics. Any posts in my direction will be responded with a reminder of your dishonesty.

[Accountability Now]

They're amongst the stupidest people on the planet. I don't know why you waste so much time on them.

eyeball... it takes a special kind of perseverance, motivation and a few available cycles here and there!

.

Apparently us skeptics are still a few steps higher on the intellectual scale than the alarmists though. And no amount of cycles will fix that.

[Accountability Now]

Keep in mind that the "warm phase" of the PDO peaked around 1997-8. Thus the particular area and temperature mile-post may not represent all that much. I wonder if the swing with regard to -35F days (I pick F because the degrees are smaller) is as drastic.

I cant remember if this was from the article or from something else I read but if the effect of the PDO can be negated or enhanced by the ENSO. As such you can't just look at one or the other and have an linear effect all the time. The other reality is that it takes many years after the phases happen to account for what phase its in. Ultimately the swing in minimum temperatures is strongly affected by both as per the article.

[waldo]

So lets recap:

again, you've repeatedly been asked/challenged to take "whatever you really want to say" about the IPCC extreme weather/climate change to an appropriate thread. Again, as below... as recently stated:

no - there was no deflection. As is your penchant you continually bring up this same reference to the IPCC, yet it is never accompanied by an actual cited quote. Each time you've done it, each time you presume to dangle it before me, I suggest you take whatever point you want to make to an appropriate thread... because you always do it in other unrelated threads. In this particular case, it was most noteworthy in that you've been continually trumping up claims of the thread being derailed. As I've said repeatedly, as I said in this latest case of yours, take it to an appropriate thread, one related to weather extremes/climate change... you know they exist, as I keep pointing out to you.

let's make this clear for you again: take it to an appropriate thread. Detail what statement/position I've relayed in terms of particular extreme events... there are many, although you continue to collectively refer to "extreme events". Take my personal statements/positions, as expressed, and provide your presumed countering IPCC statements/positions to what I've stated. Additionally, add in any other extreme events you believe I haven't spoken to and/or you feel pertinent. And while you're affirming the authority of the IPCC, as I've just pointed out to again, feel free to reinforce your own rationale for selective affirmation of that authority; i.e., why you presume to cherry-pick from the IPCC yet you deny the main tenets of the IPCC summation/positions.

perhaps you will finally... finally... take up the challenge. As I said, please proceed, Governor!

[waldo]

Apparently us skeptics are still a few steps higher on the intellectual scale than the alarmists though. And no amount of cycles will fix that.

given your posting history on this board and within this thread, your claimed skepticism is not legitimate. If you'd really like to speak to cycles:

in regards the mountain pine beetle damage/destruction example, you were asked/invited to support your apparent contention of the established and accepted understanding that increased warming is the causal impacting tie affecting the mountain pine beetle life-cycle [and range expansion]. And, in that regard, in response to your subsequent shifting claims from, 'you don't accept the impacting warming is human influenced'... to, 'you maintain the warming is natural variability', you have been laid bare with this post. A post that has you now facing the inevitable quandary of fake-skeptics/deniers... like you; it has you now facing the requirement to support your stated "natural variability cycles" position as the causal tie to warming. You're welcome!

[Accountability Now]

again, you've repeatedly been asked/challenged to take "whatever you really want to say" about the IPCC extreme weather/climate change to an appropriate thread. Again, as below... as recently stated:

Good you acknowledge that I had cited it. You also then acknowledge that you lied about me not citing it. Good job.

[waldo]

I cant remember if this was from the article or from something else I read but if the effect of the PDO can be negated or enhanced by the ENSO. As such you can't just look at one or the other and have an linear effect all the time.

good to see schools in and you're doing some homework! Of course, the same can be said with respect to La Nina, right? Don't forget about transitioning, right? Don't forget about degrees of intensity... of El Nino/La Nina, right? Do you have all those cycles mapped out to correlate with the actual warming trend, as correlated with the mountain pine beetle life-cycle and range expansion?

.

[waldo]

Good job.

no - your good job awaits:

[Accountability Now]

good to see schools in and you're doing some homework! Of course, the same can be said with respect to La Nina, right? Don't forget about transitioning, right? Don't forget about degrees of intensity... of El Nino/La Nina, right? Do you have all those cycles mapped out to correlate with the actual warming trend, as correlated with the mountain pine beetle life-cycle and range expansion?

.

no - your good job awaits:

I won't engage a dishonest poster.

[waldo]

I won't engage a dishonest poster.

again, please stop your juvenile accusations. If you're not prepared to take up the challenges presented to you, just say so. Again, I have given you no cause within this thread for your repeated accusations of lying/being dishonest. Again, please stop.

.

[Accountability Now]

again, please stop your juvenile accusations. If you're not prepared to take up the challenges presented to you, just say so. Again, I have given you no cause within this thread for your repeated accusations of lying/being dishonest. Again, please stop.

.

I have outright told you a number of times that any response to me with be met with the reminder that I will not engage you because you are a dishonest poster. If you choose to not have this said then you just have to not respond to me.

[waldo]

I have outright told you a number of times that any response to me with be met with the reminder that I will not engage you because you are a dishonest poster. If you choose to not have this said then you just have to not respond to me.

you seem to be doing a lot of very selective engagement... the kind that avoids the challenges put to you, hey?

[Accountability Now]

you seem to be doing a lot of very selective engagement... the kind that avoids the challenges put to you, hey?

Engaging someone on a topic is furthering the discussion to further points. I am simply illustrating how you are a dishonest poster and explaining why I won't engage you any further.

[waldo]

let's not forget these fact facts, along with a new one I'll add; one particularly noteworthy in regards a most definitive attachment to increased warming:

- milder winters and/or slower advancing 'fast freezes' allow the pine beetle's natural produced "anti-freeze" coating to support a sufficient mortality level to support life and expansion

fast facts concerning the mountain pine-beetle - studies have shown that:

- in certain locales, warmer temperatures have enabled beetles to produce 2 generations/year rather than in the past where 1 generation was the norm.

- in certain locales, also linked to changing climate, drought stress is reducing trees inherent abilities to attempt to resist infestation.

- in certain locales, warmer temperatures extend upon the beetle range by opening up expansion to higher elevations and more northerly locations.

- dead trees killed by beetles cause more/quicker ambient snow melting, further exacerbating drought impacts relative to runoff dependencies.

- dead trees killed by beetles exacerbate the shift from forests acting as carbon sinks to those acting as carbon sources (via decaying/burning).

[waldo]

Engaging someone on a topic is furthering the discussion to further points. I am simply illustrating how you are a dishonest poster and explaining why I won't engage you any further.

any further? Good. An open canvass awaits!

[waldo]

mountain pine beetle fast facts... further additions, now all collectively grouped:

- milder winters and/or slower advancing 'fast freezes' allow the pine beetle's natural produced "anti-freeze" (glycerol) coating to maintain a sufficient mortality level to support life and expansion.

- in certain locales, warmer temperatures have enabled beetles to produce 2 generations/year rather than in the past where 1 generation was the norm.

- associated with more vulnerable stages of the mountain pine beetle life-cycle, in the early fall or late spring, sustained temperatures of -25 Celsius can freeze mountain pine beetle populations to death.

- in certain locales, also linked to changing climate, drought stress is reducing trees inherent abilities to attempt to resist infestation.

- in certain locales, warmer temperatures extend upon the beetle range by opening up expansion to higher elevations and more northerly locations.

- cold temperatures are more effective before snow occurs to sufficient depths around a tree base, affording an insulating blanket for pine beetles within the base of a tree.

- sustained wind chill, if long enough, may affect increased winter mortality.

- dead trees killed by beetles cause more/quicker ambient snow melting, further exacerbating drought impacts relative to runoff dependencies.

- dead trees killed by beetles exacerbate the shift from forests acting as carbon sinks to those acting as carbon sources (via decaying/burning).

=============================================================================

again, further to those claimed "mostly theoretical" environmental consequences... a reinforcement of the strange view that fake-skeptics/deniers hold on the word "theoretical"!


BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations:

Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation: animation => cumulative percentage of pine killed:

- observed: 1999 to 2012

- projected: 2013 to 2020

Edited March 5, 2014 by waldo

[jbg]

I cant remember if this was from the article or from something else I read but if the effect of the PDO can be negated or enhanced by the ENSO. As such you can't just look at one or the other and have an linear effect all the time. The other reality is that it takes many years after the phases happen to account for what phase its in. Ultimately the swing in minimum temperatures is strongly affected by both as per the article.

Actually, the major impact of the PDO is to influence the prevalence of ENSO stages. La Niñas are more common and longer during "cold-phases" of the PDO and El Niños are more common and longer during "warm phases."

For example, 1947-77, which was the last completed "cold phase" featured La Niña conditions in (when I give end year early those years) 1948-51, 1954-6, 1958-60, 1961-2, 1964-5, 1966-8, 1970-2, and 1973-6. El Niños were 1952-3, 1957-8, 1963-4, 1965-6, 1968-9 (or very early 1970), and 1972 - (very early) 1973. During the "warm phase" which ran from about 1977-2007 (with the last 9 years of it being closer to neutral PDO) we had a strong El Niño from 1982- (late) 1983), 1986- (early) 1988, 1990-1993, 1994-5, strong El Niño from 1997-8, 2002-5, and 2006-7. The only strong La Niña during the heart of this period was 1988-9, infamous for the "greenhouse effect" summer of 1988. There were weak La Niñas from 1983-5 and 1995-6. The post-1997 part, which was more PDO neutral, did feature a long-running, strong La Niña from 1998-2001.

Since 2007 we have been in cold phase, with La Niñas from 2007 to early 2009 and 2010 to present. We had a fairly strong El Niño, but very short one, from September 2009 to March 2010.

[waldo]

hey now... if you can't argue the science, try for the consensus!

[Accountability Now]

Actually, the major impact of the PDO is to influence the prevalence of ENSO stages. La Niñas are more common and longer during "cold-phases" of the PDO and El Niños are more common and longer during "warm phases."

For example, 1947-77, which was the last completed "cold phase" featured La Niña conditions in (when I give end year early those years) 1948-51, 1954-6, 1958-60, 1961-2, 1964-5, 1966-8, 1970-2, and 1973-6. El Niños were 1952-3, 1957-8, 1963-4, 1965-6, 1968-9 (or very early 1970), and 1972 - (very early) 1973. During the "warm phase" which ran from about 1977-2007 (with the last 9 years of it being closer to neutral PDO) we had a strong El Niño from 1982- (late) 1983), 1986- (early) 1988, 1990-1993, 1994-5, strong El Niño from 1997-8, 2002-5, and 2006-7. The only strong La Niña during the heart of this period was 1988-9, infamous for the "greenhouse effect" summer of 1988. There were weak La Niñas from 1983-5 and 1995-6. The post-1997 part, which was more PDO neutral, did feature a long-running, strong La Niña from 1998-2001.

Since 2007 we have been in cold phase, with La Niñas from 2007 to early 2009 and 2010 to present. We had a fairly strong El Niño, but very short one, from September 2009 to March 2010.

Yes...you are right. I found the exact quote from the study.

The PDO amplifies or dampens the effects of ENSO (Mantua et al. 1997, Newman et al. 2003). For example, during the warm phase of the PDO, El Niño years tend to be warmer than they are during the cool PDO phase, and La Niña years are coolest during the PDO cool phase. Similarly, El Niño events that occur during warm phases of the PDO are drier during winter.