Matt Ridley’s first response to my post about his failed prediction was denial:

I did not write for the Globe and Mail in 1993 let alone about climate!

Then he moved onto stage 3, bargaining:

global av temp (ignoring pinatubo drop) is about 0.2C above 1991 level after 22 yrs – so I was spot on so far!

UAH_LT_1979_thru_Dec_2012_v5.51

As you can see, the graph he cites shows 0.5 degrees of warming since he made his prediction, so it seems that he is applying a 0.3 degree correction for Pinatubo.   Which brings us to Ridley’s next column, published in The Sunday Telegraph on 30 Jan 1994 (one month after his column with the failed prediction):

The satellites, however, tell a very different story about the 1980s (their data do not go further back). Orbiting the planet from north to south as the Earth turns beneath them, they take the temperature of the lower atmosphere using microwave sensors. By the end of 1993 the temperature was trending downwards by 0.04 of a degree per decade.

The satellite’s masters explain away this awkward fact by subtracting two volcanic eruptions (Mount Pinatubo in 1991 and El Chichon in 1982) and four El Ninos (sudden changes in the circulation of the water in the Pacific).  Since they assume that all these would have cooled the atmosphere, they conclude that the 1980s did see a gradual warming of the air by 0.09 degrees: still less than a third of that recorded by the old method.

Even with this sleight of hand (and when I was a scientist I was trained not to correct my data according my preconceptions of the result), the startling truth remains that the best measure yet taken of the atmosphere has found virtually no evidence of global warming.

So according to Matt Ridley in 1994, Matt Ridley in 2013 used a “sleight of hand”, something that he was trained not to do.   If we hold Matt Ridley to the standard he declared at the time of his prediction there has been 0.5 degrees of warming since he predicted that there would be just one degree by 2100.

But if we do want to know what the long term warming trend is, it is not a “sleight of hand” to remove the short term effects of volcanoes and El Nino/La Nina. It is, however, a sleight of hand for Ridley to just correct for Pinatubo and not El Nino/La Nina.  Here is the graph from Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) that shows what temperature records look like if the short term effects are removed:

figure05

Using Ridley’s preferred UAH data set we see that there has been 0.4 degrees of warming since he made his prediction.

Any way you slice it, there has been much more warming that Ridley predicted.  I hope this information will help him reach stage 5, acceptance.

Comments

  1. #1 Lionel A
    February 1, 2013

    Bananas again!

    It should be noted that others of that team have had cause to move against certain parties since e.g. Wegman & Said of GMU. Look out articles by John Mashey and Deep Climate for the trail there.

  2. #2 Lionel A
    February 1, 2013

    cham:

    According to your own arguments re ‘professional experts’, we should be paying attention to Judith Curry.

    Now where are these ‘arguments’ to be found? Come on be specific for a change.

    Is your vagueness (note one definition of that is ‘lacking substance’ which applies too) symptomatic of laziness to backtrack and look up the specific items you have in mind?

  3. #3 Lotharsson
    February 1, 2013

    Now where are these ‘arguments’ to be found?

    She’s misrepresenting one of my arguments – directly to me. She either doesn’t realise it, or hopes I won’t notice.

  4. #4 Lotharsson
    February 1, 2013

    According to your own arguments re ‘professional experts’, we should be paying attention to Judith Curry.

    It’s interesting that Brad isn’t calling this out, seeing he appears to insist on claiming that appeals to the evidence underlying the scientific consensus are anti-scientific or pseudo-scientific or the worst corruption of the scientific method for 250 years … or something.

    But when Chameleon wants to “pay attention to” the un-peer reviewed and unpublished speculations of Judith Curry and Humlum…Brad see no evil.

  5. #5 chameleon
    February 1, 2013

    It’s indeed very interesting that Chameleon is in fact the one who linked the PROFESSIONAL INFORMATION and the PEER REVIEWED PUBLISHED information of Humlum and Judith Curry.
    Lotharsson et al are in fact the ones who repeatedly link to and/or refer to the UNPUBLISHED and UN-PEER REVIEWED speculation of JC and Humlum and also unpublished and un-peer reviewed web site articles ABOUT them.
    So the only place to find Lotharsson et al assertions about these people are via unpublished and un peer reviewed articles on websites.
    Go back and check the linked info if you wish.
    What’s even more peculiar still is that Lotharsson et al are making these claims from a post at a website that is yet another un-peer reviewed and unpublished speculation about yet another person.
    Humlum, Tim Lambert, Judith Curry, Rabbet, Marohasy, Tamino, Jonova and numerous others do also have websites.
    They are interesting and informative and all of them do refer to published , peer reviewed work as well as to the accessible data.
    But the argument that Chameleon was referring to Lionel is the argument from Lotharsson et al (and I believe that does include you) that ‘we should only listen to the professional experts’ and ‘we should only pay attention to peer reviewed and published work by real scientists’ or variations of same.
    So according to that argument Judith Curry and her PUBLISHED and PEER REVIEWED work should be considered.
    Judith Curry is most definitely a ‘professional expert’ in the field of climate science.
    But, like Tim Lambert (who isn’t a climate scientists BTW) and others, she also has a website where she comments on issues that are outside of ‘her corner’ (to borrow Lotharsson’s terminology).

  6. #6 chek
    February 1, 2013

    Cammy, putting this in the most direct and to the point form possible, you’re both boring and stupid beyond excuse.

    Any further expoosition is unnecessary as you own words speak for themselves. Which may come as a shock to you, as you imagine you’re being clever.
    But you aren’t.
    Just boring and stupid.
    Type, type, type.

  7. #7 chek
    February 1, 2013

    Fuck.
    “Expoooooosition” = exposition.
    For Cammy’n’Brad’s benefit.

  8. #8 bill
    February 1, 2013

    The ‘poo’ seems, somehow, apt…

  9. #9 Lotharsson
    February 2, 2013

    Lotharsson et al are in fact the ones who repeatedly link to … the UNPUBLISHED and UN-PEER REVIEWED speculation of JC and Humlum…

    Sheesh. Not content with lying about what Richard Simons said and what Delingpole said, now you’re lying about what I and others “repeatedly link to”! Why do your “arguments” rely so much on lies? Have you forgotten that you introduced Humlum’s unreviewed work here at Deltoid?

    …and also unpublished and un-peer reviewed web site articles ABOUT them.

    You seem to be under the illusion that those who insist on minimum scientific standards such as peer-reviewed claims, cannot legitimately point out that something violates those standards without having the “pointing out” of the violation be peer-reviewed.

    Do you have any idea how ludicrous that is?! (My guess is “no”.)

    It’s indeed very interesting that Chameleon is in fact the one who linked the PROFESSIONAL INFORMATION and the PEER REVIEWED PUBLISHED information of Humlum and Judith Curry.

    It would be, if Chameleon was in fact (a) arguing claims from that peer-reviewed published work – more particularly the parts of it that have survived scrutiny post-publication, and (b) ONLY arguing from that peer-reviewed published work that survived scrutiny.

    But she’s not. (And she’s not fooling anyone – except maybe yourself and Brad.)

    You are transparently engaged in an attempt to elevate the scientific status of un-peer reviewed claims to something approaching the same stature as peer-reviewed claims that have survived scrutiny in the literature, by appealing to the authority of those making them based on their publication record.

    This is like saying that we should all take seriously a successful racing car driver when he says that attaching a device containing crystals and magnets to your car engine will make it perform better, without having any objective evidence for the claim.

    Sure, he’s got a great racing record! And that means he knows a lot about making cars go fast! But that doesn’t mean every claim he makes about racing performance should be uncritically accepted – or even seriously considered, if it goes against the great bulk of existing scientific knowledge – especially if he can’t show that his claims have cleared the lowest bar for such claims.

    The first time you mentioned Humlum’s claims, it was his website and his website “reports” which are not published in the peer-reviewed literature and have thus not cleared the lowest bar for such claims. When this inconvenient fact was pointed out, you tried to elevate his claims via appeal to authority by pointing out his peer-reviewed publications. The fallacy in that appeal is obvious to nearly everyone – but not to you. And if I’m not mistaken, you or someone else tried the same fallacy on with respect to Curry and her website.

    You have been repeatedly pointed to the difference between arguing from the evidence, which does not require another round of peer-review for those arguments because it is already rooted in the evidence, and arguing against what we know from evidence which most certainly does require peer-review and post-publication scrutiny.

    But the argument that Chameleon was referring to Lionel is the argument from Lotharsson et al (and I believe that does include you) that ‘we should only listen to the professional experts’ …

    No, you’ve simplified it thereby changing it.

    Yes, we should generally avoid those who aren’t professional experts because they generally get it wrong a lot more often than the experts. But no, we should not listen to anything the experts say just because they’re an expert. If they are making claims that aren’t already supported by the peer-reviewed literature, and they can’t get their claims into a peer-reviewed publication, the claims most likely aren’t valid.

    You clearly wish to avoid answering the key question: why would professional scientists whose reputations live and die by the strength of their research records AVOID publishing new insights in the peer-reviewed literature?

    (Never mind the corollary – why are YOUR arguments so frequently unable to show that they are supported by the peer-reviewed literature? And does that explain why you try over and over again to elevate non-reviewed claims to the same status as the literature?)

  10. #10 mike
    February 2, 2013

    Hy Dltds!

    Pls dn’t tk ths wrng, gys,– mn, lk, my cndr hr s tht f cncrnd frnd–bt, nd t pns m t sy t, y gys, lk, ttlly cm crss s nthng mr thn crp-t , wn bnch f wnkr-rjct, cmplt-drk, hv-bz bgr-phgs. Srry, bt ‘v gtt b hnst hr.

    nd thnk th “rt” f yr prblm s yr lfty-brnwshd; hv-xpltd; nscr; rrstd-dvlpmnt; spld-brt nd fr th nrnd, ffsv prs nd cddlng f sm dmnrng, smthrng, kss-th-b-b’s, mtrrchl thrty fgr, whch th hv sppls, lk drg-dlr sppls drgs t n ddct, n th frm f th fntsy, mmm-drst G frd, y gys hv bght nt, s lng s y, n trn, rcprct wth sll-t, tdy, flnky, gd-cmrd, wtrmln-brn, Pvlvn-rflx hv-lylty. mn, lk, yr hv-mstrs hv rlly, lk, fgrd t jst whch bttns t psh wth y Dltd wrds, nd ll, s tht y nvr-lckspttls prbbly dn’t vn rlz tht y’r “bng hd”.

    S wht y gys nd t d–gn, sy ths s cncrnd frnd–s t th jst g cld-trky nd chck th whl CGW hstl, y r bsssd wth, nd tk p, n ts plc, hlthy, lf-ffrmng, rglr-gy, jn-th-hmn-rc st f ntrsts. Y knw, lk, plr-br trphy-hntng. r, lk, twkn’ yr bb-mgnt mnstr-trck s tht y gt th mx hrs-pwr t f ths thrstng, lng-strk pstns pwrflly ht-pmpn’ wy thr ndr th hd n yr hm-ght! r, lk, y knw, gnsmthng nd mm r-ldng r prfctng yr chl-ck-ff rcp nd ll. Tht srt f thng. Y knw, Dltds, mnly, dmrd-std, lph-ml, vctnl gd-stff lk tht.

    Y knw wht mn, Dltds?

  11. #11 bill
    February 2, 2013

    mike, do you imagine anyone bothers to trawl through your dense – in every sense of the word – contentless, spittle-flecked Tea-Partyite rants? It’s hard to imagine an opinion more inconsequential than your own.

  12. #12 Latimer Alder
    February 2, 2013

    Hi there Deltoids!

    Who won the sweepstake?

  13. #13 Latimer Alder
    February 2, 2013

    Looks like all the King’s Horses and All the King’s Men couldn’t persuade Mr. Lambert to ban me……..

    Thought you’d love this quote from Byrne et al (2010) inadvertently brought to my attention by an alarmist:

    ‘Recent changes in seawater pH induced by ocean–atmosphere gas exchange are thought to be substantial, with far-reaching chemical and ecological effects yet direct observations are sparse’

    Note the words ‘…are thought to be…’ and ‘direct observations are sparse’

    My point exactly. Nice to see the literature and I are in complete agreement.

    ftp://soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate%20Articles/Acidification%20Pacific%20Byrne%202010.pdf

  14. #14 Jeff Harvey
    February 2, 2013

    I am going to demand that the asylum Mike is in removes computer access for all of its patients…

  15. #15 Jeff Harvey
    February 2, 2013

    Chameleon has a wonderful interpretation of how science should function.

    That is: give equal weight to a small coterie of climate change deniers or down-players and a dozen or less peer-reviewed papers as to many hundreds of equally or more qualified climate scientists and thousands of peer-reviewed papers.

    This is the standard mind-set of a contrarian. Note that Curry has frequently strayed well outside of her field in discussing her views on climate change effects on the environment. I have read some of those comments and they are mind-numbing over simplifications.

    The problem with Chammy and those who think like her is that they don’t read the primary literature. They don’t pour through the pages of peer-reviewed scientific journals, or even try and access them. Its so much easier to scan the blogs. And of course, the deniers have cornered that market for the most part because their piffle is not published in scientific journals. As I said before, they are like creationists, who do little of their own research but spend most of their time trying to poke holes in evolutionary theory. They think that enough holes will bring down the theory as a hole.

  16. #16 Wow
    February 2, 2013

    Look, chubby, if you’re unhappy with accepting claims from the peer reviewed literature your ONLY course of action is to stop posting here and go and read ALL of the stuff on climate research in the journals and check their workings.

    Verify EVERY LAST ONE of them.

    THEN you can come back here and explain what you got.

  17. #17 Wow
    February 2, 2013

    Looks like all the King’s Horses and All the King’s Men couldn’t persuade Mr. Lambert to ban me……..

    a) what does that have to do with your insane witterings being right?
    b) it’s not a validation of you, it’s a black mark for Tim

  18. #18 Wow
    February 2, 2013

    Jeff, chubby gives NO weight to the accepted science and therefore only weight to the crank science.

    Because the accepted science tells her she’s wrong. And she don’t like that.

  19. #19 Latimer Alder
    February 3, 2013

    @wow

    I’m sure that Mr Lambert will give your award of a black mark to him the due consideration it deserves.

    He will also note, no doubt, that the peer-reviewed literature (on which you place so much store in your comments immediately above) completely vindicates the position you spent so much time,bile and vituperation arguing against.

    And having given due weight and consideration to both those points, I wonder what his conclusion will be? Will he think that discussing science really what you are interested in..or is it just a poorly disguised excuse to repetitively vent your huge capacity for misanthropy?

    ”ftp://soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate%20Articles/Acidification%20Pacific%20Byrne%202010.pdf

  20. #20 Olaus Petri
    February 3, 2013

    Science discourse Imelda Harvey style:

    1. Claim that your opponent denies the CO2-hypothesis (or anything else along those lines) even if he doesn’t.

    2. Call him names.

    3. Invent that he is a right wing nut hating science (and a part of a fossil fuel illuminati obstructing climate science)

    4. Be adamant about that a CV in bug-collecting is cruical to waive in front of you in almost every sentence. Otherwise you are not making sense.

    5. When asked to comment on a scientific claim seek strength in 1, 2, 3, and 4. And of course talk about something else.

  21. #21 Lotharsson
    February 3, 2013

    He will also note, no doubt, that the peer-reviewed literature (on which you place so much store in your comments immediately above) completely vindicates the position you spent so much time,bile and vituperation arguing against.

    Almost predictably, you have misidentified what happened.

    Turns out you were arguing against the idea that it was “a 100% certainty”, but it only seemed to be you that knew that because you were too busy ducking and weaving to clarify yourself.

    That means Wow and others weren’t arguing against what you now claim was your position. (And what Wow and others were arguing against is in line with the peer-reviewed literature – a point that you conveniently elided.)

    Furthermore, Wow and others were ALSO arguing against your refusal to draw your best inference from what we know about chemistry. That argument is also inline with the literature.

  22. #22 Latimer Alder
    February 3, 2013

    @lotharsson

    Please check back to post #486 where I stated my position. Then compare it with Byrne et al (referenced above).

    What position was I advocating? How does it compare with the remarks of Byrne et al? Or did you really completely misunderstand a chain of 600 posts on the subject?

    For reference, here is the substance of post #486. My position did not change during the subsequent discussions, nor has it since.

    ‘@guthire

    Sorry – missed your post above in all the other crap.

    ‘ No, it’s a scientific certainty that it is a consequence of increased CO2. No if’s but’s or maybe’s, it’s been scientifically proven that the acidification, that is, becoming more acid, of the ocean, is due to CO2.’

    Please show the observational data that proves that this theoretical effect is actually occurring. in practice in the oceans.

    No argument that if you increase the partial pressure of CO2 over a jar of pure water, you will end up with a solution of carbonic acid that will be slightly acidic. Basic physical chemistry.

    But pure water is not at all the same thing as seawater – a not very well mixed solution of all sorts of inorganic ions surrounded by huge quantities of rocks of CaCO3 and others. It is not at all obvious that the weak carbonic acid like carbonic will overwhelm the buffering effect of the solution and surrounding rocks

    For such a complex and varied system. the only way to show that the pH is actually decreasing is to go out and make the measurements over a long period of time.

    By analogy, to show that the GAT was actually increasing took the analysis of somewhere between 10 and 100 million temperature records taken from thermometers all over the world (and later by satellite ) over a period of several decades..

    Can you show me a similar set of observations of ocean pH that will hep to turn a lab based theory into the same ‘scientific proof’ that you claim?’

  23. #23 Lotharsson
    February 3, 2013

    Latimer, you have reliably missed my point.

    Your request to “show the observational data that proves that this theoretical effect is actually occurring. in practice in the oceans” is NOT obviously a request to “prove to me with 100% certainty that it’s happening ocean wide”, because as I have already pointed out “scientific certainty” when used by guthrie refers to the cause of observed acidification, not to the fact of ocean-wide acidification.

    You may have thought you were asking “prove to me with 100% certainty that it’s happening ocean wide”. You may have continued to think so as people asked you over and over and over again to clarify your position in any number of different ways with you refusing pretty much all of them.

    But it wasn’t taken that way by other people so people weren’t arguing against what you claim you meant. Your allegation is clearly false.

    This is simple English comprehension.

  24. #24 Jeff Harvey
    February 3, 2013

    I see Olaus is trying to contaminate other threads with his usual ignorant discourse. I hope Tim takes appropriate actions.

    The simple facts are these:

    1. His hero, Jonas N, makes some pretty outrageous assertions with respect to the relationship between atmospheric C02 and climate warming. His views are at odds with the IPCC and the vast majority of climate scientists. Because of his nauseating attacks on just about everybody who disagrees with him, he is banished to his own corner.

    2. In attacking his opponents, he repeatedly claims to be smarter than his opponents, whilst impugning the credentials of scientists he doesn’t like or tend to agree with. When asked repeatedly what qualifications he possesses, eh gets all uppity and lashes out even more. He steadfastly refuses to say what those qualifications are, whilst sticking with the “I am smarter than all of you” riposte. His aversion of the question indicates quite clearly that he has no formal scientific education; if he did, all of those on Deltoid; heck everyone on the blogosphere for that matter, would know about it.

    3. He is supported by a small band of right wing bozos who also have no formal scientific qualifications. One of them (Pentaxz) is a conspiracy nut; another (Olaus Petri) veils his lack of scientific knowledge with non-sequiters and witless remarks (much like another infamous Deltoid troll, TimC, used to do). Neither of his 2 Swedish supporters offered anything remotely scientific in defense of their hero; instead, they simply parroted whatever he said.

    4. I have repeatedly said that I have no formal training in climate science and thus leave that field to people trained in that endeavor. My views on AGW are based on the prevailing wisdom in the field; that provides compelling evidence that humans are the main forcing agent. I also strongly believe that people who lack the specialist training in climate science and whose admit they are deniers or contrarians are doing so on the basis of inherent ideological and/or political bias and not on science, since they have not been trained in the field.

    5. The reason I have presented my scientific qualifications – which lie outside of climate science but in another discipline, is to reveal that someone with a PhD and a lengthy list of publications and citations is also honest enough to know that he is walking on thin ice when he or she ventures into another field in which they have not been trained. I do not know much about the complex ways in which human activities alter climate patterns, but I do know that the vast majority of experts agree that humans are the main culprit.

    6. Bearing that in mind, I can say with confidence that I know a lot about the ecological and biological effects of climate change which are already well documented. Part of my research involves intra-continental range-expanding plants, and its clear that some of these recent range-expansions are the result of warming. We are also seeing that communities are changing in response to warming. When it comes to population and evolutionary ecology, I am qualified, and can say that the bozos constantly attacking me do possess about 0.0000000000001 % of my qualifications. That is clear when they ill-advisedly stray into this field with discussions about ecological threats caused by a rapidly warming climate.

    Essentially, people like Olaus are pig-ignorant of any field of science. On the other hand, we have self-trained people like Jonas who think they know a lot more than they do about complex fields.

  25. #25 Vince Whirlwind
    February 3, 2013

    Latimer tries the argument from ignorance angle:
    “Can you show me a similar set of observations of ocean pH that will hep to turn a lab based theory into the same ‘scientific proof’ that you claim?’”

    Why would anybody want to show you that?
    Who imagines such a thing is necessary?
    The experts on ocean chemistry do not agree with you.
    If you tink all the relevant experts are wrong, and you are correct, then it is up to you to show us the theoretical and practical base for your beliefs.

    As you have failed to explain any mechanism or observation that casts the slightest doubt on the well-known and observed ocean acidification, we can only conclude you are wasting everybody’s time with your ignorance.

  26. #26 Wow
    February 3, 2013

    Latte could try showing that pH doesn’t change in ocean water.

    It’s not difficult to try.

  27. #27 Wow
    February 3, 2013

    remember the argument from ignorance is also probably better understood as the lazy fuckers’ argument.

    YOU have to do all the work, THEY don’t have to do squat.

  28. #28 Wow
    February 3, 2013

    I wonder what the hell frothing boy here is getting out of this?

  29. #29 GSW
    February 3, 2013

    @jeff

    Thanks for the opportunity to reply to your points jeff, perhaps we can sort this out once and for all. Your points,

    1. Jonas has repeatedly asked to see the science in the support of the AR4 IPCC attribution claim. You and others tried hand-waiving about 1,000′s of papers without being able to produce a single one that was in any way relevant. 1-0 Jonas.

    You deltoids then proceeded to try and prove how “sciency” you all were by challenging Jonas to a physics “pissing-contest”. Your game, your rules, Jonas executed flawlessly, you lot had a “Roy Scheider on the beach jaws moment” when you realised that collectively you didn’t have a metaphorical dick between you- (don’t push for a “pissing competition” if you haven’t got one)

    2-0 to Jonas.

    2. Jonas’ claim to be better educated and smarter than you lot was amply demonstrated in 1. Just how dumb do you have to be to a) not understand the physics taught to 12yr olds and then b) based on that, think you would win a “pissing competition” on it. Divine intervention perhaps, Hansen would descend from the heavens to part the waves?

    3. Well this is what you do jeff, again and again and again. You know nothing about the credentials of those you are talking too, you just “assert” these things. no evidence or corroboration required- very much “your way”, you just stop listening and go off into your own little world thinking happy thoughts. ;)

    4. It’s fairly obvious to all Jeff that you have no formal education in Climate Science. You use that as your excuse for not knowing, or even having the education to read, or comment on anything relevant.

    5. The reason you present your scientific credentials is you have nothing worthwhile to say, yet wish to participate anyway. As for your education, I don’t know who paid for it, but there is certainly a case to be made for some sort of refund. You’re an embarrassment to all.

    6. Yeah, Yeah, we’ve done that, camp fires. kumbaya and prizes for the best “imploding foodweb” story, very impressive Comrade Zooligist.

    For someone who keeps harping on about education, you’re overly keen to demonstrate the obvious deficiencies in yours at every opportunity.

    I make that Jonas 7, Jeff 0.
    ;)

  30. #30 Lotharsson
    February 3, 2013

    remember the argument from ignorance is also probably better understood as the lazy fuckers’ argument.

    Yep. It’s a favoured tactic. They don’t do any homework, just allege that you need to do it before they will reconsider their “skepticism”. If you actually do it, as has been demonstrated here time and time again, they shift the goalposts and demand that you jump through more hoops, or they Gish Gallop to the next talking point.

  31. #31 Wow
    February 3, 2013

    1. We SHOWED Joan 1000 papers and they were all relevant since they came from the section that gave the attribution quote. However YOU handwave it away as “not one relevant paper”.

    The rest of the bollocks you posted makes me wonder how you manage to pass each day without being put in an asylum.

    #2 is handwaving. since it wasn’t demonstrated by his antics it wasn’t proven by them.

    #3 is entirely reasonable for actual human beings. Joan has already admitted that he has no education whatsoever. That you think he has shows that there’s something wrong upstairs with you.

    #4 is bullshit.

    #5 too

    #6 is rubbish

    your counting is as underwhelming as your rhetoric.

  32. #32 Wow
    February 3, 2013

    Or, as Joans live-in-lover here does, completely ignore it and pretend it’s never been done.

  33. #33 Wow
    February 3, 2013

    Hey, slug, why don’t you try some science.

    Prove your statement: “You’re an embarrassment to all.”?

  34. #34 Wow
    February 3, 2013

    Slug-Boy: “Just how dumb do you have to be to a) not understand the physics taught to 12yr olds and then b) based on that, think you would win a “pissing competition” on it.”

    I don’t know, how dumb are you?

  35. #35 Wow
    February 3, 2013

    Hey, slugs, AGW is real. You were wrong.

    Get over it.

  36. #36 Lotharsson
    February 3, 2013

    Latimer, instead of your “p=0″ strawman, let’s discuss a more real-world scientific p value via a hypothetical.

    Specifically, let’s hypothesise for the moment that there exists a global scale mechanism that will have prevented CO2 in the kinds of atmospheric concentrations we’ve had over the last few decades from causing significant global average ocean acidification over the last few decades.

    Let’s further hypothesise that this mechanism is not uniform in strength over the entire globe. As a starting point for discussion, and noting for future reference that it’s an oversimplification even as a hypothetical, let us imagine that (say) a 2-decade time series sample at a random location has a 50% chance of showing significant acidification despite the global anti-acidification mechanism due to the effect being locally unusually weak or non-existent. (These seem like generous odds for the anti-acidification hypothesis – it is plausible to expect that in most cases where a global scale effect is in force that it is detectable over well over 50% of the globe. And of course it’s an over-simplification since any particular location may show results somewhere in between “no acidification” and “significant acidification”, and effects that are very strongly geographically skewed may be evident over less than half of the globe, but let’s stick with the oversimplification to start with.)

    Suppose further that you monitored a set of randomly sampled locations over the last couple of decades. If all of them showed distinct acidification over that timeframe, how many such locations would you need to have monitored before you reject the “anti-acidification hypothesis” at p=0.05 purely on that evidence? (Yes, yes, we know – it’s a hypothetical that diverges from the real world in several important ways. But it gives us an initial way to get a rough sense for the statistical dynamics of the problem.)

    If you don’t like that formulation feel free to turn it around and formulate an equivalent simplified hypothetical using a null hypothesis that “recent” CO2 levels will have caused “recent” ocean acidification and do some quick stats to see how many locations with evidence of no acidification are required to reject that.

  37. #37 Olaus Petri
    February 3, 2013

    Right on the money GSW. :-) 7-0 in Jonas favor is a bit on the lower side, but it speaks volume abut the scientific emptiness in the Jeffie-barrel. The only substances in it are self idolatry, intorance, hate and methane.

    And poor Wow tries to protect his loving master with some high pitched barking.

    Ergo nothing new at Deltoid. ;-)

  38. #38 GSW
    February 3, 2013

    @Olaus
    ;)

    methane?

  39. #39 Olaus Petri
    February 3, 2013

    By the smell of it GSW, I reckon it stems from Jeffie´s favorite orifice, you know the one he unplugs when he’s cornered and wants to eloborate on climate scareology. It situated right in the middle of his impressive hemispheres, the lowere ones that is.

    I’m sure you are familiar with the scent. ;-)

  40. #40 GSW
    February 3, 2013

    @Olaus

    Ok, got it. The orifice he talks out of.
    ;)

  41. #41 Jeff Harvey
    February 3, 2013

    1. Jonas has repeatedly asked to see the science in the support of the AR4 IPCC attribution claim. Bernard, me, Lionel and I have provided several hundred papers which constitute part of that chapter. We asked him to go through those papers, or at least a few of them, point by point, showing where the science is incorrect. Given the fact that every major scientific body on Earth is in consensus over the issue, its up to Jonas to point out where they are wrong.
    1-0 for IPCC and for climate science.

    2. Jonas repeatedly claims to have a better education than his critics. He bases this on his rank dismissal of the aforementioned papers without going through a single one. When asked what his bonafides are, he repeatedly responds by attacking others, accusing us of hand-waving, scoring own goals, various other insults and dismissive comments. Its Jonas who is opposing the majority of scientific opinion and not the other way around. Its up to him to prove they are wrong. 2-0 for IPCC and for climate science.

    3. Jonas has clearly no formal education in science, as point 2 above proves. Yet he routinely attacks the likes of scientists with many years of experience in the field. But he refuses to take this wisdom the big, bad world. Instead, when asked over and over again why he doesn’t, he says ‘ because its obvious that I am correct’. The real reason is because he’s a big fish in a small pond on a blog, and is well aware that if he went out there with his crazy ideas and his lack of any formal training he’d be either ignored, laughed at, or both.
    3-0 IPCC and climate science.

    4. I have repeatedly admitted that I don’t know much about anything to do with climate. The reason, GSW and Olaus, is because, unlike you pair of bozos, I am professionally trained in another field of science and that area keeps me very busy. I am supervising 3 PhD students, writing grants., publishing lots of papers (15 last year, 128 since 1993), lecturing at conferences and universities, and reviewing grant proposals and other publications. In my field I am happy to say I am a leading authority. In climate science I am most certainly not. Sure, you and Jonas probably know a little bit more about atmospheric science than me. Before you start doing high fives, let me put that into context. It means that I know very little about the field because I do not study it, never have and don’t have the time to now. But it doesn’t instantly elevate you or Jonas to authorities. I simply do not trust a guy who seems to intimate that he dropped out of education at an early stage or else never formally studied a field but who also tries to convince everyone that he is a major league authority on the issue. As I have said before, the reason people study for degrees, go on to do postdoctoral research then enter the tenure-track system is that this is the way to become recognized in specific fields and to gain the necessary acumen to be called a knowledgable expert. Commenting on a blog with a large number of other non-climate scientists, then claiming the intellectual high ground, does not make the grade. If Jonas is the brilliant scholar he always claims to be, then he would take on the real experts in the field of climate science face-to-face or in the empirical literature. As I have said time and again, he won’t do that because he knows his allegedly brilliant ideas would be cut down to size. So he sticks with blogs, where he is anonymous and safe, and can also count on the unbridled support of like-minded simpletons like you and Olaus who support him not because of his scientific brilliance (how can you? You have no formal training in the field either) but eb cause you both share his view that AGW sis not a serious problem. You do so not because of any scientific reasoning, but because when that thin veneer is stripped away it fits in with your political or ideological views.
    4- IPCC and climate science.

    Re: my education, I could blow all of you out of the water in environmental science, population and evolutionary ecology. Being insulted by a gang of science wannabes is not insult to me. My career has been approved by my peers in many different ways – through my degrees, research positions, publications, collaborations and other relevant criteria. If you and the other few nitwits who write in here had any real scientific standing, I’d be tempted to hear you out. But you don’t. None of you.
    5-0 IPCC and climate science

    The rest of your post has no substance at all. Just the usual vacuous bullshit. I am used to it by now.

  42. #42 Jeff Harvey
    February 3, 2013

    Given the complete lack of substance in any of Olaus or GSWs posts, think its fair to say that both of you couldn’t debate your way out of a sodden paper bag.

    And Olaus accuses me of ‘self-idolatry’. Ha, ha, the irony. Just read about 20 of Jonas’s “I am smarter and better educated than any of you” posts and one gets the picture.

    Seems like the Swedish meathead can say it a billion times (whilst providing no evidence at all) and it isn’t ‘self-idolatry’. Speaking of orifices, it just shows you how far up Jonas’ butt Olaus has stuck his head.

  43. #43 GSW
    February 3, 2013

    @jeff

    More methane jeff?

    It’s the sheer volume of bollocks you post that marks you out.
    All you’ve done is confirm every criticism made of you in the earlier post. You’re a jumped up, know nothing, can’t contribute, activist/parasite and to top it all, you actually think all that is something to be proud of!

    Well Comrade Zoologist, nobody listens to your pathetic pleadings of impending “Doom” and “feelings” about the “transnational elites” elites you harp on about. It’s all just eco-balls.
    ;)

  44. #44 Lotharsson
    February 3, 2013

    From what I’ve seen Jonas is just doing the rap artist thing of endlessly proclaiming how superior they are to everyone else – all bling and attitude, zero substance. He seems entirely mystified as how to handle people who don’t believe him on his own recognisance.

  45. #45 Jeff Harvey
    February 3, 2013

    GSW (or Mr. Hypocrite),

    First of all, your vapid insults mean nix. Just because you are brain-dead ignorant about the way the world works is nothing to be proud about. Take your kindergarten-level crap back to Bishop’s Hill, where you belong. To be honest, when I get under the skin of people like you and your like-minded cement heads here, it proves that I am getting somewhere. This is an excellent blog, were it not for a few stains like you and the Swedish meatballs. On several occasions you had the stupidity to try and downplay various ecological threats – and I demolished them every time. No wonder you came back here irate after licking your wounds. You can and never will have any knowledge in that field.

    Furthermore, its up to you and the other clowns to show us where the IPCC is wrong and NOT the other way around. Jonas and you seem to think you hold the intellectual and scientific high ground. Well, I’ve got news for you: you don’t. Your opinions are not shared by the vast majority of climate scientists who know thousands of times more than you and your self-righteous hero. So bugger off with your garbage. It is noted that the only time you appear back here is when your hero is in serious trouble – as when cornered over his ‘ esteemed’ education and qualifications. He doesn’t have any.

  46. #46 Jeff Harvey
    February 3, 2013

    An insightful comment from our resident Swedish genius – (hats off to Chek and Stu for this little gem):

    “I have proved it it superior to everyone who even thought of challenigning me … You’ve already have provend that!”

    I rest my case. No more left to say in response to this.

  47. #47 GSW
    February 3, 2013

    @jeff

    Jeff, again your post is all about your “imaginings”; arguments you have “demolished”, “licking wounds”, what a guy- all that is just wishful thinking!

    As has been remarked on before, you seem to be grossly ignorant on even your own area of so-called “expertise”, the papers you reference are often out of date and “debunked” by later publications. You just trawl what’s there for things that sound bad. There’s no intellectual rigour applied to any of it.

    The more you’re pushed, the more you retreat to your happy place, where the demolishings happen in private and everyone agrees what a complete star you are, then jeff feels good about himself.

    As for climate scientists, it’s a very weak field, there’s not much evidence of great intellects lurking there either. So much for Climate Alarmism.
    ;)

  48. #48 Olaus Petri
    February 3, 2013

    GSW, I have to admit that Jeffie is beyond anything I have encountered during my years in Academia. He’s something extra. Can you believe it, he even felt it necessary to brag about his bug collecting merits and his students – again – instead of arguing his case (in a civil manner).

    Even though sphincter control isn’t his thing, the frequency and speed his CV come out of his ass is uncanny.

    – “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the grandest conspiracy theorists and most intolerant human being in the ant and bug collecting kingdom?”

    – “You my Jeff is the grandest conspiracy theorists and most intolerant human being in the ant and bug collecting kingdom!”.

  49. #49 GSW
    February 3, 2013

    @Olaus

    “Jeffie is beyond anything I have encountered during my years in Academia”

    Agreed. Usually the dumb ones learn to keep quiet pretty quickly, it’s the lack of self awareness of his “category” that’s more of surprise than anything. Still it wouldn’t be much fun if he didn’t surface every now and then to give us an update of the “transnational elites” situation.
    ;)

  50. #50 Jeff Harvey
    February 3, 2013

    “As has been remarked on before, you seem to be grossly ignorant on even your own area of so-called “expertise”, the papers you reference are often out of date and “debunked” by later publications”

    [Citations needed] Essentially, GSW made this up on the spot. As usual. Just say something without proof and expect it to be taken as gospel. Of course this is nonsense.

    Olaus: if you have some academic or intellectual argument to make, then make it. Of all the bozos in Jonas fan club, you are the one who has never, ever ventured into science, except to link that odd WUWT posting. If anyone is challenged here, its your Swedish hero. Look at my last post which was cut and pasted from one of his own comments where he was trying to say in his wonderful English how smart he is. The comment, by contrast, looks like it comes from an imbecile.

    If all you have left is to belittle my research, line, then you have lost the argument well and truly. I note how you and GSW have followed Tim Curtin down that path. Its a real sign of desperation when you have to stoop to this level. Its proof positive that you have no arguments left (or ever did). So the last resort is to try and belittle me and my research. In a public forum, you’d be thrown out of the room.

  51. #51 Jeff Harvey
    February 3, 2013

    On that note I’d like to ask Tim Lambert to banish GSW and Olaus into the Jonas thread. Olaus was once banned anyway for being such an ignoramus, but the jerk seems to pop up where he does not belong. If the best these clowns can come up with is what they’ve put up in their last few posts, then woe betide the status of contrarian science.

  52. #52 GSW
    February 3, 2013

    @jeff

    “GSW made this up on the spot”

    No I didn’t jeff, you can start with your “Golden Frog” man, the one that claimed they all died because of climate change. Your were quite pleased with that if memory serves. Only when other researchers actually looked at the data, there hadn’t been any climate change! Just exposure to a rather deadly pathogen.

    Have you forgotten about that particular episode Jeff? didn’t happen in your happy place perhaps? You are an ignorant piece of work jeff.
    ;)

  53. #53 Olaus Petri
    February 3, 2013

    And now little Napoleon Harvey calls out for Tim to help him patch up his fragile ego, ergo make the infidels dissapear.

    :-)

  54. #54 Lotharsson
    February 3, 2013

    I thought Olaus was already banished to the Jonas thread. Play by the rules or don’t play at all.

  55. #55 Lionel A
    February 3, 2013

    Latimer cited:

    ”ftp://soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate%20Articles/Acidification%20Pacific%20Byrne%202010.pdf

    Quick on the uptake are you not for I pointed to this back here:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-sleight-of-hand/comment-page-13/#comment-145472

    But then with all that prolixity from BK I guess you missed it through lazily not going back to your last post and noting responses after. That is remiss of you. I suggest that you go back there and catch up before playing more sophist’s retreats.

    Whatever, how does that support your alleged ‘lack of data’ argument? Consider also the broader definition of data.

    @lotharsson

    Please check back to post #486 where I stated my position. Then compare it with Byrne et al (referenced above).

    Please catch up with the new post numbering and referral system now available.

  56. #56 Jeff Harvey
    February 3, 2013

    GSW.

    You are a profligate liar. I never, ever said that global amphibian declines were exclusively due to climate change. I said that it was one important factor, amongst others, and that it likely exacerbates other stressors such as susceptibility to pathogens.

    The way guys like you and Jonas make things up is legion. As for Olaus, I got news for you: if you think a brainless twerp like you can dent my confidence, think again. Twit. You and GSW belong Jonas’ asylum. You in particular: you’ve never made a single reference to a point of science since you arrived. Let’s see you go through a published scientific article and provide your ‘expert’ opinion as to its strengths and weaknesses.

    No, of course you won’t do that. You don’t know how.

  57. #57 chek
    February 3, 2013

    You really are an ignorant fool who’d rather take some wingnut assertions at face value rather than find out for yourself from those who make it their business to know, eh Olap?

    After 1980 ice loss and glacier
    retreat was dominant again. In Bhutan, Eastern
    Himalaya, an eight per cent glacier area loss
    was observed between 1963 and 1993 (Karma et
    al. 2003). Berthier et al. (2007) used remote sensing
    data to investigate glacier thickness changes
    in the Himachal Pradesh, Western Himalaya. They
    found an annual ice thickness loss of about 0.8
    m w.e. per year between 1999 and 2004 – about
    twice the long-term rate of the period 1977–1999.
    In China, the overall glacier area loss is estimated
    at about 20 per cent since the maximum extent in
    the 17th century (Su and Shi 2002). The area loss
    since the 1960s is estimated to about 6 per cent,
    and is more pronounced in the Chinese Himalaya,
    Qilian Mountains and Tien Shan, but with rather
    small recessions in the hinterland of the Tibetan
    plateau (Li et al. in press). Over the 20th century,
    glacier area is estimated to have decreased by
    25–35 per cent in the Tien Shan (Podrezov et al.
    2002, Kutuzov 2005, Narama et al. 2006, Bolch
    2007), by 30–35 per cent in the Pamirs (Yablokov
    2006), and by more than 50 per cent in northern
    Afghanistan (Yablokov 2006).

  58. #58 Jeff Harvey
    February 3, 2013

    Olaus,

    Get back to me when you’ve read a single published scientific paper and can discuss its results. Just one will do.

  59. #59 Marco
    February 3, 2013

    Can’t you guys leave the discussion of Jonas in the Jonas thread?

  60. #60 chek
    February 3, 2013

    Can’t you guys leave the discussion of Jonas in the Jonas thread?

    It seems team thread pollution is the new denier strategy in place of having no relevant knowledge or arguments, Marco.

  61. #61 chek
    February 3, 2013

    I’m still waiting

    And it’ll be a long wait because you will never allow your brain to develop enough to understand.

    You may recall I posted the high and low season flow rates of the Ganges–Brahmaputra delta on the ‘other’ thread. Reduced ice and snow pack and subsequent seasonal melt equals reducing outflow. Apart from yet more global ice loss, nothing has changed since then.

    I tell a lie. You’ve become even more ignorant and Jonarse approval dependent, Olap.

  62. #62 bill
    February 3, 2013

    Back in your box, Jonas.

  63. #63 Bernard J.
    February 3, 2013

    [I originally posted this yesterday but it didn't seem to stick. Repeated and updated.]

    GSW said at #29:

    Jonas has repeatedly asked to see the science in the support of the AR4 IPCC attribution claim.

    and ignores the fact that Jonas’ refusal to engage with the references and/or with the cited researchers effectively means that he can pretend that the work is not there. Effectively Jonas is relying on a permutation of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning in order to ignore the truth.

    To this end I sought to break the dead-lock that Jonas devised, by putting to him this challenge:

    I notice that Jonas seems to be emulating Brad’s penchant for very high numbers of posts with very low substantive content, if the recent-commentometer is any indication.

    I have no desire to enter the fray there, although it’s been the source of much mirth for a couple of colleagues who have spent their lunchtimes spraying lunch over my monitor (damn the cordless mouse), but I would like to make a point…

    Jonas was too scared to enter into any of several wagers with me on the most obvious near-term indication of rapid (human-caused) global warming – to wit, the melting of the Arctic ice cap. I have no illusions that Jonas will have battled his cowardice and now be prepared to stand up with his money, but perhaps he will accept a second challenge.

    I want Jonas to list the various climatologists whom he believes have not actually performed the attribution work that demonstrates the human caused of global warming. He can start with the people mentioned by Wyvern last year: by way of example, Jonas might say:

    1) Peter Stott has not done any work that determines the portion of observed warming that can be attributed to human activity

    2) Gabriele Hegerl has not done any work that determines the portion of observed warming that can be attributed to human activity

    3) …[Name + whatever phrasing rings Jonas bell]

    This is an important exercise, because I want Jonas to go on record detailing the scientists who he claims have not done the work that so many on this thread keep pointing him toward. Jonas is happy enough to claim that the attribution work has not been done – let’s see him list those people whom he claims have not done the work that is credited to them.

    Once Jonas has listed the scientists that he believes have not conducted attribution work, I would like Jonas to prepare a letter to be sent to these scientists. To date Jonas has, by all apparent measures, not actually contacted any of the scientists that he accuses of fraudulently attributing to human the observed global warming, so I would like Jonas to spell out for us (and for the scientists he claims have not done any attribution work) exactly what his grievances are – liberal use of references examples is encouraged.

    This lack of direct contact of climatologists is a grievous omission that needs to be corrected, so if Jonas can gather his thoughts and coherently and succinctly summarise his claims, I will send them on his behalf to the scientists that he lists as described above.

    Alternatively, we could post Jonas’ letter on a forum such as RealClimate or Skeptical Science, which most climatologists should be happy to visit in order to provide an authoritative response.

    This is not an exercise that requires Jonas to risk his money, nor is it an exercise that requires five hundred posts about how many angels may fit upon the point of a needle. It’s simply a way to clarify Jonas N’s exact claims about who has and has not done what work, and what work does and does not qualify as attribution of warming to human activity.

    The defensibility of Jonas’ claims way back at the birth of this thread will be tested by his response to this challenge.

    I realised afterward that because I don’t visit the Jonas thread I might not be aware if he’s taken up the challenge, but in the past he’s shown no respect for the boundaries to which he expected to contain himself (proven now at #61 above…), and anyway I know that others here would quickly tell me if Jonas has responded.

    I suspect that he has not, and it’s fascinating that he hasn’t. This challenge requires no reliance on his part for anyone else to prove that which Jonas denies, and it does enable Jonas to demonstrate exactly what his claim is, based on what he’s determined for himself.

    And if Jonas can’t address the components of this challenge, he exposes the whole of his exercise in earwaxing for the squirrel-spotting tactic that it is.

  64. #64 Wow
    February 3, 2013

    “I’m still waiting”

    Absolutely fine.

    You go wait over there.

  65. #66 chek
    February 3, 2013

    Oh dear indeed.

    Still banging on about the imaginary solar activity for which there is no evidence whatsoever regarding the current warming. In fact oh dear, it’s so bad williwatts daren’t even put his name to it and has one of his stooges byline it instead. Oh dear, oh dear.

  66. #67 Vince Whirlwind
    February 4, 2013

    Still accusing *others* of fraud, too.

    Anthony Watts needs to see a doctor.

  67. #68 Latimer Alder
    February 4, 2013

    @lotharsson

    ‘But it wasn’t taken that way by other people so people weren’t arguing against what you claim you meant.’

    If that is the case then it seems to me that a lot of people on his blog need to take some lessons in basic comprehension and reading.

    My position was absolutely clear and unchanging. And remains so to this day.

    That many chose to indulge in a bit of irrelevant ‘denier-bashing’ rather than bother to read what I actually wrote is merely a reflection of the poor quality of discussion on this blog.

    For those of you who do have a brain…get out more.

  68. #69 Latimer Alder
    February 4, 2013

    @lionel a

    How does Byrne et al support my position?

    Well this sentence from the introduction seems to nail it pretty much

    ”Recent changes in seawater pH induced by ocean–atmosphere gas exchange are thought to be substantial, with far-reaching chemical and ecological effects [Doney et al.,2009], yet direct observations are sparse’

    To translate:

    ‘We all think that ocean acidification is occurring, but we haven’t got much data to show that it is’

    Which is exactly my point.

    Please reread #486 if you failed to grasp this

  69. #70 Latimer Alder
    February 4, 2013

    @lotharsson

    Fine.I am glad to see that you are agreeing with me.

    Set up those monitoring stations, collect the data over a good few years and then do the stats to see if the effect is real. That is the way global warming was detected and I have consistently commended it to you all as an example of how ocean pH change needs to be investigated.

    But – and I don’t know how many times I have to say this – until you have got the data to work with, you are just dealing with an unconfirmed hypothesis. Those who claim it is more certain than that are being disingenuous.

    Observations and experiments rule OK!

  70. #71 Vince Whirlwind
    February 4, 2013

    Yes, Lionel, Latimer just ignored your links, AGAIN, so he could pretend the relevant experts do not have the data to support their opinion.

    Opinion which is completely divergent from Latimer’s ignorance-based bollocks, of course.

  71. #72 Vince Whirlwind
    February 4, 2013

    Here is what the USGS have to say

    The world’s oceans serve as a natural reservoir for CO2, but increasing CO2 in the atmosphere and the uptake of about 1/4 of human-produced CO2 emissions by the ocean is resulting in increased seawater acidity. This process, known as ocean acidification causes a decrease in seawater pH.

    http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/ocean-acidification/

    So, Latimer can explain to us what his expertise is that would indicate to us that his opinion on this issue.

    Oh….he’s had ample opportunity to do that, all he does is repeat his denialist bullshit ad nauseam.

    Any facts to bring to the party, Latimer?
    Or is it nothing but Denial?

  72. #73 Lotharsson
    February 4, 2013

    My position was absolutely clear to me, but not to almost everyone else.

    FIFY.

    You were relying on a very unusual definition of a particular English term. You then blame other people for using a more common interpretation of the term. Furthermore you spent a whole week absolutely refusing to clarify your position despite numerous requests when a couple of sentences would have made it clear where you were coming from. Hence:

    If that is the case then it seems to me that a lot of people on his blog need to take some lessons in basic comprehension and reading.

    Nope! You need to take some lessons in writing clear English. Speaking of which:

    I am glad to see that you are agreeing with me.

    About what? Are you like GSW trying to put words in my mouth or do I agree that we agree? There is no way to tell from what you wrote. Perhaps your writing lessons could include the concept of at least a passing reference to the context or concept you had in mind so that readers have maybe a 50/50 chance of guessing what you are referring to?

    More importantly I note that you haven’t touched my hypothetical. I bet you won’t dare to. It shows why claims like this:

    …until you have got the data to work with, you are just dealing with an unconfirmed hypothesis.

    …embody the fallacy of the excluded middle, or “black and white thinking” – which is not very scientific, just like your “100% certain” definition is not scientifically useful. It appears to be the same reason that you won’t give us your best inference of what is happening in the oceans with regard to acidification from the theory and evidence we already have (quite apart from the fact that you are determined to remain ignorant of some of the evidence).

  73. #74 Wow
    February 4, 2013

    Nope! You need to take some lessons in writing clear English

    No, that isn’t it.

    They were deliberately doing this. That’s why they never clarified. Just bad English comprehension on their part would have given a statement on what was meant. Whereas since this was merely to pretend it was all everyone else’s fault, this was not forthcoming.

    Of course the abuse of English may still have been accidental because, lets face it, this IS a moron we’re talking about here, but the continuation of its use would have been abuse of serendipity. And still not fixed by an adult education course so sorely needed.

  74. #75 Vince Whirlwind
    February 4, 2013

    No, Wow, he’s not a moron, he’s a genius – despite a failed career as a chemist and having to fallback on some sort of job fixing people’s computers, he knows better than all the world’s successful chemists.

  75. #76 Wow
    February 4, 2013

    Yeah, like I said, a moron.

    The extremely dumb ones always think they’re smarter.

    Probably confusion: “Nobody understands what I say, must mean I’m too smart for them!”

  76. #77 Jonas N
    February 4, 2013

    What a load of uninformed BS, Bernard J

    It seems that you still, 1½ years later aren’t even aware of what that AR4 claim actually claimed. (Pssst: It’s not the existence of ‘attribution studies’)

    And it seems my suscpicion of where ‘Wyvern’ came from where correct. He certainly sounded like someone who had ben ‘prepped’ by one of the ignorant shouters here. And he and his ‘arguments’ deteriorated quite quickly once I pointed out how inconsistent his comments were.

    Well no surprise there. And BTW he never claimed to have read the papers he forwarded either. As is the case with most of you trying to drown out your nagging fear that I might have been correct the entire time.

    I certainly have been correct in pointing out to all of you that none of you has ever seen any real science establishing that AR4 claim. (But admittedly, most of you are unable to read and understand such science and what it would take. Hence, all the noise and no substance)

    I also like to point out that (unscientific) Bernard J, believs that the arctic ice is “the most obvious near-term indication of rapid (human-caused) global warming”

    This guy really doesn’t even know what attribution is. And still he talks (ignorantly) about it, dropping some names … hoping that this impresses som of the other Deltoids.

  77. #78 Jeff Harvey
    February 4, 2013

    Help! The patient has escaped! He’s on the loose! Send out an APB!

  78. #79 Jeff Harvey
    February 4, 2013

    “…hoping that this impresses som [sic] of the other Deltoids”

    Well, certainly more than any of the crap you’ve ever written….

  79. #80 Wow
    February 4, 2013

    Seriously.

    THIS is why this retard needs banning.

    Not given enough love on his own thread, he demands whatever wherever he wants is what happens.

  80. #81 Jeff Harvey
    February 4, 2013

    Look Jonas, tight now I have bigger fish to fry… in other words my own research. Two chartered members of your fan club couldn’t quite fathom yesterday why I don’t spend weeks on end reading climate science papers and learn more about the field. I might as well say the same thing to others who don’t work in population ecology. I see Madame Professor Curry doesn’t hesitate to venture outside of her field into ecology, with quite often disastrous results. She ought to think before she opens her mouth in venturing into uncharted territory.

    If you want to think that the AR4 summary has little or nothing in the way of science in drawing the 90% attribution claim, then go with it. But the problem is that hardly anybody will hear you. I like Deltoid a lot, simply because Tim L aims to show the climate change deniers what utter hypocrites and cherry pickers they often are. But in the end, I have hardly ever met a scientist who has ever heard of most (if not all) of the climate change discussion blogs. Most are too busy doing their own thing to concern themselves with the views of every untrained Tom, Dick or Harry who ventures online.

    The only reason I do is to show that their are a huge number of biotic indicators which show that it is warming rapidly in many parts of the temperate world, that these responses did not end in 1998 or 2001 or whenever, and that the consequences for ecological communities and systems may be severe down the road.

    As for the causes for the warming, as I have said a million times, I defer to the climate science community by-and-large who have the necessary skills and experience to understand areas that I have never studied. I am sorry to disappoint you and your cheerleaders, but non-peer reviewed opinions on blogs may influence public opinion but in the halls of universities and research labs they mean diddly squat.

  81. #82 Jeff Harvey
    February 4, 2013

    PS If you or Olaus wants to describe my last post as ‘self-idolatry ‘then that’s your prerogative. I don’t think that at all, as I have said so many times that I am not a climate scientist and thus prefer to stick with biotic aspects. I certainly have a lot of knowledge and confidence in my own professional field, but not in physics or atmospheric chemistry. I wish some of the climate change deniers in blogs would be a little more honest and admit that they are untrained in these fields too, rather than trying to give the impression of having all of the same skills and training as professionals in the field.

    Fat chance, that. I get attacked from all sides by AGW deniers for being honest. What’s their excuse?

  82. #83 p jones
    February 4, 2013

    Say what you will about Jonas, but he’s a world-class troll. And I think he’s pretty clearly demonstrated the limitations of the give-them-their-own-thread method of troll-deterrence. He’s created a de facto denier denier blog out of a single comment thread, and his useful idiots pollute every other one. I’ve been a fan of Deltoid’s troll-fights for many years, but this is just getting silly. How many times do we have to see the black knight cut in half before you walk away?

  83. #84 pentaxZ
    February 4, 2013

    jeffie

    “I wish some of the climate change deniers in blogs would be a little more honest and admit that they are untrained in these fields too, rather than trying to give the impression of having all of the same skills and training as professionals in the field.”

    What kind of educated skills do you need to read thermometers? You know, the ones that shows no significant warming the last 16 years?

  84. #85 Jeff Harvey
    February 4, 2013

    So Pentax, please explain why Arctic ice continues to decline almost lineary for the past 16 years, and that all kinds of biotic responses to warming are also still being observed in the plant and animal kingdoms…

    Nature is a far better thermometer than anything humans can come up with.

    The answer is simple – warming has not stopped at all. End of story. You’ll have to try another one.

  85. #86 chek
    February 4, 2013

    “no significant warming the last 16 years”

    That’s denial for you. Despite at least two occasions I’m aware of where this erroneous factoid ha been exposed as a lie, PantieZ sticks to the meme come what may.

    Hey PantieZ – where did the heat come from to cause record Arctic melt in the sixteenth year of your ‘hiatus’?

    And for bonus points, why does ‘significant’ not mean what you think it means?

  86. #87 Jonas N
    February 4, 2013

    Getting better by the minute ..

    Now Jeff is disputing the recent temperature record

  87. #88 Jeff Harvey
    February 4, 2013

    Getting better by the minute…

    Now Jonas is disputing both biotic and abiotic indicators…

  88. #89 Jeff Harvey
    February 4, 2013

    Essentially what our dickwad Swede is saying is that biotic indicators don’t count. Forget the huge evidence showing continued poleward and elevations shifts in the distributions of plants and animals, changes in seasonal phenology and voltinism, lengthening of the growing season, and a wealth of other processes that are still being reported and published in the scientific literature. We have to ask ourselves this poignant question: are human thermometers more accurate proxies for warming that biotic proxies?

    Of course they aren’t. Jonas many think he can win a debate of attrition over on his own thread, but when we factor in a huge volume of natural responses to climate warming that are being recorded up to the very present, he doesn’t stand a chance.

    Again, Jonas, straying out of your myopic field of vision will undermine you….

  89. #90 Jonas N
    February 4, 2013

    Jeff … temperature is not measured that way … you really should know that. Some climate alarmism tag-along:ers say that phsycotic behavior will increase with temperature. But you still are not a thermometer ..

  90. #91 Ian Forrester
    February 4, 2013

    Please get rid of these dishonest trolls. They are just chasing decent people away from this blog. That is the only reason they continue to post their dishonest rubbish.

    Just to clarify, and to show how dishonest they are, there has been quite a bit of warming over the past 16 years.

    See here:

    http://tinyurl.com/aasw93f

  91. #92 GSW
    February 4, 2013

    @Jeff

    “Now Jeff is disputing the recent temperature record”

    Is this true jeff, do you dispute the recent temperature record?

  92. #93 Jonas N
    February 4, 2013

    Ian F, without the dishonest trolls, this blog would have hardly any commenters at all. You got it all wrong: It’s those trolls who are chasing away decent folks. Screaming and demanding they should be banned and their comments deleted ..

    Are you really telling me you weren’t aware of this? Honestly?

  93. #94 Jeff Harvey
    February 4, 2013

    So Jonas, you are saying that biotic indicators don’t matter? Hundreds of studies reporting the phenomena I described earlier, record Arctic ice loss this year, a linear trend that has continued unabated since 1998.

    This is the exactly why scientists don’t take contrarians seriously. Why do you think species and/or populations adjust their ranges? Why have some temperate species moved northwards hundreds of km since the 1980s? Why are these range advancements continuing to the present day? Why are plants budding or flowering many weeks earlier than they did 10 years ago? Why are some species still increasing the number of generations they produce in s single season?

    Nature does not lie; it responds. What you appear to be saying is that a huge number of biotic proxies don’t mean anything. Is that it? Its all a huge coincidence? Of course its still warming. 2010 was the warmest year on record. The USA has just experienced its warmest year on record. Australia’s last 6 months are the warmest ever. It may not be warming every where at the same rate – some places aren’t – but in temperate regions it sure as hell is. To repeat: studying natural responses to climate is the most accurate way of determining short to mid-term responses.

    I understand that you don’t read the pages of Global Change Biology, Ecology Letters, Ecosystems, Ecology, Journal of Ecology, Oikos, Oecologia, Biological Conservation, Conservation Biology, and many other rigid journals with high impact factors. But brazen ignorance is no excuse. Until you better equip with knowledge about natural proxies then I might as well be discussing this with a brick wall.

    Ditto GSW. Ian Forrester is correct. Tim needs desperately to send you back to your cave.

  94. #95 Jonas N
    February 4, 2013

    Jeff … you moron …

    It’s been warming for well over 150 years, some say 400 years. Slow indicators will be slow to react and adopt. And not beable to resolve shot time spans as 1½ decades. You can’t use those as temperature proxies for shot periods. You need thermometers for those!

    Must I really tell you every relevant part of science?

    You need to remeber one thing Jeffie: The hypothesis is that CO2 warms the (lower) atmosphere, and that other things will follow, not the other way around. It’s not the sea that heats the ice from below, and the lower torposhere (according to the AGW-hypothesis)

    And if the atmosphere doesn’t show any (further) increase in temperature … you can’t start looking for your AGW signal elsewhere.

    Remember what you are arguing. And please dont expect me to correct you every single time. Try to get it right on your own for one times sake ..

  95. #96 pentaxZ
    February 4, 2013

    “Arctic ice continues to decline almost lineary for the past 16 years,”

    And of course your’e talking about the summer ice. How about the winter ice? Any significant difference there? Or how about the Antarctic ice? Referring only to summer arctic sea ice is quite a cherry pick.

    “and that all kinds of biotic responses to warming are also still being observed in the plant and animal kingdoms…”

    Yeah, and? How many spieces has actually got extinct? Although I am not a biologist, I can tell you that the only constant in nature is change. Strange that a biologist with your CV don’t seem to know that.

  96. #97 Jonas N
    February 4, 2013

    Jeff #2097 .. I am saying what I am or was saying. Never ever what you wanted me to say … pleaste get that into your heard. Your incessant ivneting of strawmen is reallytiresome and boring.

    Nature doesn’t lie, and I agree with you. And sill you are relying not on nature and observations, but on rudimentary simulations for your beliefs …

    It just doesn’t make sense. As your previous comment about non-peer reviewed expert gossip never reached its mark …

  97. #98 pentaxZ
    February 4, 2013

    “Forget the huge evidence showing continued poleward and elevations shifts in the distributions of plants and animals, changes in seasonal phenology and voltinism, lengthening of the growing season, and a wealth of other processes that are still being reported and published in the scientific literature.”

    Now, if we set aside the whole CAGW issue, what do you mean is the danger with this?

  98. #99 chek
    February 4, 2013

    Why Jonarse – please elaborate on this new theory of climate change you’ve invented, why don’t you?
    I’m all ears.
    Radiative imbalance is for losers, eh?

  99. #100 Jonas N
    February 4, 2013

    chek .. I am teaching you about your pet-hypthesis that most of you don’t even seem to understand or be too familiar with …

    CO2, heating the lower troposphere, through a mechanism described as increased backradiation ..

    Now please don’t pretend to understnad physics, or you will look as Pid as Stu …

    Your by far most relevant comment here (since I arrived) was to realize that this AR 4 claim was an expression of (soc called expert-) opinion. Unfortunalely, it was not a ‘realization’ you managed on your own …