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 chek
    February 4, 2013

    I see. So those pesky ‘back radiating’ photons you speak of are very particular about precisely what they heat, then?

  2. #2 Jonas N
    February 4, 2013

    Yes, they are chek ..

    they cannot penetrate more than microns of the sea surface for instance … did you really not know that (either)?

  3. #3 Wow
    February 4, 2013

    And you know what happens when you have a solid or liquid with a thermal gradient over a short distance. Right?

    Conduction of heat.

    You have also just proven with your words that AGW is real, as you demanded was given to you before.

    Where did you think you were going with this, I wonder :D

  4. #4 chek
    February 4, 2013

    I see. And therefore Jonarse, ocean heating comes from…? Please continue. Don’t keep the suspense going – this is very exciting news.

  5. #5 Wow
    February 4, 2013

    “How about the winter ice? Any significant difference there?”

    Yup. Much much less of it.

    “Or how about the Antarctic ice?”

    Yup, melting there and dripping off the land into the ocean. You DO realise that land is the bit above the ocean, right?

  6. #6 chek
    February 4, 2013

    Aww shucks Wow – this coulda bin comedy gold. Physics according to 100 year old Oregon Institute home schooling.

  7. #7 Wow
    February 4, 2013

    The tit is out of his tree. Probably betting nothing more than deletion of posts (which is work for Tim) will be the result and meanwhile he gets to smear his shit all over the rest of the site.

    It wasn’t worth waiting to get him to nail himself to the ground even more.

  8. #8 Jonas N
    February 4, 2013

    And therefor ocean heating comes after atmospheriic heating. At least the part that is possibly due to AGW, and Jeff was arguing it the other way around …

    Yes, these things seem really difficult to you (who think that stopping to lie is part of the scientific method, and its self correcting mechanism)

  9. #9 Wow
    February 4, 2013

    “And therefor ocean heating comes after atmospheriic heating”

    Nope.

    How did CO2 become hotter?

    Seems you really find thinking difficult for you.

    That’s because you’re a retard, too thick to think, too dumb to read.

  10. #10 Jonas N
    February 4, 2013

    Wow .. CO2 doesn’t get hotter at all … the temperature gradient or profile through the lower troposhere is assumed to change ..

    You really think you, of al people, can teach me anything?

  11. #11 Wow
    February 4, 2013

    “CO2 doesn’t get hotter at all ”

    Yes it does.

    “the temperature gradient or profile through the lower troposhere is assumed to change”

    Which is the measurement that the CO2 is getting warmer.

    You said the proof of the fallacy of your own statement!

    :D

  12. #12 Wow
    February 4, 2013

    “You really think you, of al people, can teach me anything?”

    Of course not you’re too thick to think, too dumb to read and too ignorant to learn.

    Not even how to spell “all”.

  13. #13 chek
    February 4, 2013

    “You really think you, of al people, can teach me anything?”

    I think it can be readily seen what a fuckwit you are.

    You’ll never learn anything Jonarse, but whatever audience there is will.

  14. #14 chek
    February 4, 2013

    “Chek, thanx for confirming what I noticed many times before”

    That all the heating from the radiative imbalance isn’t being absorbed only by the atmosphere, perhaps?. Although I suspect you mean something else more personal, being the petty, vindictive little saddo you are.

  15. #15 Wow
    February 4, 2013

    “and that’s why the lower troposphere hasn’t been getting warmer for 1½ decades now”

    Since that isn’t the case, then why is there anything to be explained?

    You really don’t seem to be able to think at all. Even when you think you have it.

  16. #16 Wow
    February 4, 2013

    “The possible extra IR from CO2 backradiation is the entire issue.”

    Oh, yeat it’s entirely possibly the entire issue!

    “If youre starting to speculate that it disappears elswhere before heating the atmosphere”

    You just SAID it went elsewhere: THE FIRST MICROMETERS OF THE WATER SURFACE!

    But then again, you never know the meaning of the things you say, do you.

  17. #17 Wow
    February 4, 2013

    “Do you know what is the core of the AGW.hypothesis?”

    You’ve been told enough times.

    Weren’t you reading? It was in your special little thread.

  18. #18 chek
    February 4, 2013

    “Do you know what is the core of the AGW.hypothesis?”

    Umm – I think I might know this one.
    “That energy entering the Earth system exceeds energy leaving the Earth system?” Due to GHGs.

    Hey Wow – I guess it’s kinda cool that Jonarse chose to destroy his wingnut “reputation” out here in plain sight, rather than hidden away in his know-nothing backwater thread after all.

  19. #19 Wow
    February 4, 2013

    remember, the dumbass doesn’t understand what HE says, never mind what anyone else is saying, so he’s not going to understand how he’s killing his own denialist argument here.

  20. #20 Lotharsson
    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.

    Hear, hear!

    If you get confined to your own thread and break the rules, you should not only be entirely banned but your personal thread should get locked or even disappear – as incentive to abide by the rules, because these guys clearly don’t care about them.

  21. #21 Lotharsson
    February 5, 2013

    I guess it’s kinda cool that Jonarse chose to destroy his wingnut “reputation” out here in plain sight…

    There is that unintentional benefit, and he clearly doesn’t realise he’s doing it.

    After the first 20 comments the Comedy Gold wears a bit thin though.

  22. #22 Latimer Alder
    February 5, 2013

    @vince whirlwind

    ‘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.’

    I’m pleased to see the USGS’s opinion of what they think happens..

    But science doesn’t work on opinions. It works on data.

    Please just show all the data on which they base their opinion.

    You may recall that you were an active and enthusiastic participant in a search for such data a fortnight ago. And we didn’t find very much at all.

    Maybe a whole tranche has been published in the last 14 days and I have missed it. If so, please point me to it.

    Thanks.

    PS: As a reminder, Byrne et al said this (2010)

    ‘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’

    And all the discussions here seem to be illustrating their point once again. Lots of opinion, but not much data.

  23. #23 Jeff Harvey
    February 5, 2013

    Another Jonas gem: “pleaste get that into your heard”

    Um, er, whatever.

  24. #24 Jonas N
    February 5, 2013

    Lotharson .. You don’t really mean that, and neither do all those who here dare challenging me or commenting and asnwering ..

    Once more ‘the rules’ only apply one way.

    Jeff … you are now at Stu level, you “Stu [who] nailed it ..”

  25. #25 Vince Whirlwind
    February 5, 2013

    Latimer says:

    I’m pleased to see the USGS’s opinion of what they think happens..

    But science doesn’t work on opinions. It works on data.

    Please just show all the data on which they base their opinion.

    Here’s how it works, boy-wonder: if you disagree with what the world’s foremost authorities have to say on the subject, you do your research and publish your contrary findings.

    So far you have provided neither
    – any explanation of any kind of mechanism that would explain why they were wrong
    nor
    – any evidence of observations that contradict what they are saying

    In other words, your denial is based on neither knowledge nor facts.

    That’s called pissing in the wind Latimer. You’ve got nothing.

    Except wet legs.

  26. #26 Vince Whirlwind
    February 5, 2013

    Jonas opines:

    And therefor ocean heating comes after atmospheriic heating.

    Gosh, I bet Latimer is so glad to have you in his corner.

    Hahahahahahahahaha.

  27. #27 Lotharsson
    February 5, 2013

    You don’t really mean that…

    ROFL! Jonas thinks he can read my mind!

  28. #28 Wow
    February 5, 2013

    Well, his thoughts have to come from somewhere, he’s got nowt to do his own thoughts with…

    :D

  29. #29 guthrie
    February 5, 2013

    So, any word from Matt Ridley?

    I saw one of his old books in a shop last week, it had some nice plaudits on it. Shame he’s forgotten about science since then.

  30. #30 Lotharsson
    February 5, 2013

    ROFLMAO!

    Jonas thinks me pointing out that he is telling me I didn’t mean what I wrote is an own goal! He doesn’t understand the difference between disputing written claims and disputing authorial intent as embodied by written claims!

    You couldn’t make this stuff up – but Jonas can!

  31. #31 Lotharsson
    February 5, 2013

    It’s not surprising that Matt wouldn’t hang around here. Not enough easy marks for his kind of game.

  32. #32 Jeff Harvey
    February 5, 2013

    Jonas is rapidly dragging down any scientific discourse to Saturday Night Live comedy level. And he’s a guy who thinks he’s a modern day Galileo ( on blogs only).

  33. #33 Lotharsson
    February 5, 2013

    Yes Lotharson, your ‘arguments’ often are owngoals … while ‘arguments’ might be a trifle too flattering a term for it.

    ROFL! Jonas continues in his argument-via-assertion mode! Whodathunkit?!

  34. #34 bill
    February 5, 2013

    Um, since when did this become the Jonas thread?

  35. #35 Lotharsson
    February 5, 2013

    Since Jonas decided he wasn’t going to abide by the rules.

    Seems to me like he’s asking to be completely banned. I guess that’s one way out of honestly answering certain questions…

  36. #36 Jeff Harvey
    February 5, 2013

    Oh good grief Jonas, lighten up! And please stop using that stupid term ‘own goals’ over and over again. Its becoming nauseating.

  37. #37 Bernard J.
    February 5, 2013

    Ah, so you capitulate then Jonas.

    I knew that you would. You have nothing but spluttering distraction at your disposal, do you?

    My challenge was not a difficult one if you were sincere in your claims. You claim that scientists, referenced by the IPCC, made up their attribtion claims. When pressed to put your claims on the line by naming them, and what work they have and have not done, you’re too scared to do so.

    You were pressed to detail your grievances so that they could be put to the very same scientists, and you wiggled away from that too.

    P Jones is bang on the money. You’re simply a fulminating troll who hates science simply because it disagrees with your ideology, and you’d put the future of your decendants before truth and integrity. I told Wyvern that he was wasting his time, and I was right.

    Still, it’s delivered us no end of mirth at lunch times. If only you could deliver some scientific fact to compensate…

  38. #38 Lionel A
    February 5, 2013

    Latimer quoted:

    @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’

    Which is a cherry picked statement from a document which also contains this:

    Along 152W in the North Pacific Ocean (22–56N), pH changes between 1991 and 2006 were essentially zero below about 800 m depth. However, in the upper 500 m, significant pH changes, as large as 0.06, were observed.

    and this

    Precise spectrophotometric procedures for seawater pH measurement were developed between 1985 and 1993 [Robert-Baldo et al., 1985; Clayton and Byrne, 1993], and the first successful application on an ocean expedition occurred in March 1991 (WOCE P16N; 750 pH samples) along a cruise transect between Oahu, Hawaii, and Kodiak, Alaska (Figure 1). This transect was reoccupied in March 2006 (CLIVAR/CO2 Repeat Hydrography Program P16N; 1356 pH samples). Both datasets, obtained at 25C and reported on the total hydrogen ion concentration scale (pHT = log[H+]T), are available from the CLIVAR & Carbon Hydrographic Data Office (CCHDO, http://cchdo. Ucsd.edu/pacific.html).

    and this

    [12] In 2006 (Figure 1), large-scale patterns in seawater pH along P16N were similar to those seen in 1991. High surface values somewhat greater than 8.05 were encountered in the south, with values decreasing northward, falling to near 7.7 poleward of 50N.

    Each of those statement implies the use of measurement and the presence of data, but do continue reading.

    Now we come to your repeated refrain about a lack of data that show that ocean pH is dropping exemplified in this post:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-sleight-of-hand/comment-page-5/#comment-144169

    by:

    As far as pH is concerned the oceans are not well-mixed. Hence, to demonstrate a global effect, data must be collected from all over the globe …just like for temperature.
    And yes, I have read the IPCC reports. And lots of other stuff as well. I’ve been pretty assiduous over the years in trying to track down the observational data that shows that what is called ‘ocean acidifcation’ is actually a widespread occurrence in nature. And I ain’t found it yet.

    So because we lack as much data from measurement alone as you would like then we can consider this a non-problem. This in spite of the considerable body of evidence from stresses in the oceanic biota and a further considerable body of evidence from the calculations based upon the underlying physics and chemistry.

    Your line of argument is one used so often by the deniers of climate change, the ‘we need more research before we can take ANY action,’ gambit.

    You clearly consider yourself a capable ‘debater’, probably based upon experience in grammar school and university debating societies and are projecting a methodology we see so often used by politicians. Use ambiguity as a point scoring technique as will be exposed next.

    On the ‘go back and read what I wrote not what you think I wrote’ meme that you keep pushing with a dose of condescension then maybe you don’t always write what you think you write. Consider the ambiguity found in the following:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-sleight-of-hand/comment-page-2/#comment-143706

    and I quote:

    <Now its quite a long time since I worked as a proper scientist, but in our well-respected university chemistry research lab at least we learnt pretty quickly that Mother Mature or Gaia or The Universe – or whatever you want to call it – was absolutely no respecter of persons. He /she/it showed him/her/it self via experiment and observation, [1] not by the seniority or reputation of the person reporting it.[2] That was the old Aristotlean notion…and it started to go out of the window in the time of Bacon ..if not before.

    So what is the old Aristotlean notion [1] or [2]?

  39. #39 Olaus Petri
    February 5, 2013
  40. #40 chek
    February 5, 2013

    So Jonarse, just admit you have neither the chops nor the competence to answer Bernard J in anything approaching a rational – never mind scientific – manner.

    Then you and your support trolls can wrap up camp and disappear back to denierland from whence you came, secure in your self-inflicted ignorance.

  41. #41 Latimer Alder
    February 6, 2013

    @lionel a

    The ‘old Aristotlean notion’ was your number 2. That the matter should be decided by reference to the reputation, qualifications and seniority of the disputants. By contrast science is the idea that they should be settled by experiment and observation.

    Sorry if you found my sentence ambiguous…I felt that the use of ‘not’ adequately conveyed the contrast between the two ideas I presented. And that the reference to Bacon would have allowed the reader to have further understood.

    You can read more about these ideas in any introductory textbook on the History and Philosophy of Science.

    More later.

  42. #42 Latimer Alder
    February 6, 2013

    @lionel a

    Just some more observations.

    I’m sorry you don’t like my way of presenting an argument, but it’s the only one I know for a forum like this.

    FWIW I was never a member of either school or university debating society, but I have spent over thirty years learning the ropes of presenting a technical/scientific case clearly and concisely (I hope) both in academia and in commerce.

    I have absolutely no argument that Byrne et al collected some new data in their studies. They are to be commended for adding a little (1325 observations) to the ‘sparse’ direct observations they mention.

    But while they mention ‘However, in the upper 500 m, significant pH changes, as large as 0.06, were observed.’, they modify this headline grabbing point quite considerably in Fig 2 which shows that the area of change of +0.06 around 41N is pretty well counterbalanced by a similar sized area around 48N which showed no change at all (+/- 0.00).

    You note later

    ‘ This in spite of the considerable body of evidence from stresses in the oceanic biota’

    Careful…you are in danger of falling into a circular argument here.

    First you assume that ‘ocean acidification’ is actually occurring. Then you find some ‘strange’ phenomenon in the oceans, which you therefore attribute to ‘ocean acidification’. Finally you point to the strange phenomenon as evidence that demonstrates ‘ocean acidification’. But all you have actually done is ‘prove’ your original assumption.

    You then say

    ‘So because we lack as much data from measurement alone as you would like then we can consider this a non-problem’

    which may be your view of the required policy response to the lack of data, but is not something I have expressed a view on.

    ‘Your line of argument is one used so often by the deniers of climate change, the ‘we need more research before we can take ANY action,’ gambit.’

    I have expressed no view at all on this policy matter. But it would be highly wrong for our policy makers to be led to believe that definite proof of ‘OA’ exists when the work simply hasn’t been done.

    Yet again, I ask you to read what I have actually written, not what your stereotypes tell you that I should have/might have/could have written.

    A quick search on google for ‘lionel a’ does not show that you have made many contributions to the debate outside this blog. You – and your fellow contributors – really do need to get out more. You probably all view yourselves as fearless warriors out to ‘Bash the Deniers’. But your ‘enemy’
    is as much a work of your imagination as the bogeyman your Mum used to tell you about. Fighting a fictional opponent is just a waste of everybody’s time.

  43. #43 Wow
    February 6, 2013

    “I’m sorry you don’t like my way of presenting an argument, but it’s the only one I know for a forum like this. ”

    So you only know deniertroll.

    “I have expressed no view at all on this policy matter. But ….”

    Then express a view on the policy.

    Thinking isn’t for you, is it Latte.

  44. #44 Lotharsson
    February 6, 2013

    Careful…you are in danger of falling into a circular argument here.

    Careful…have you excluded the possibility that you are arguing from personal ignorance, in particular that there may be additional evidence above and beyond “hey, look, stress!” that drives the inference that certain stress indicators are partly or wholly due to ocean acidification?

    I only ask because you argued most strenuously from apparent personal ignorance that maybe buffering effects will somehow mitigate the expected acidification, even though some scientists have written in posts I pointed you at that buffering effects aren’t anywhere near large enough to hold back the acidification process.

    I note once more that you won’t touch my hypothetical example. (Anyone care to hazard a guess as to why not? ;-) )

  45. #45 Lionel A
    February 6, 2013

    Latimer,

    Your Aristotlean notion reference was ambiguous irrespective of the inclusion of ‘not’. I did pick up your meaning but that does not remove the fact that your statement was ambiguous and I was simply using this as an example of your use of language.

    Now, The History and Philosophy of Science – a little outside of my interests amongst which are studying texts on actual science especially Earth Sciences, Oceanography, Weather and Climate Science (Archer, Pierrehumbert, Broecker, Barry & Corley – long history with this one, Alley, etc., etc.) and any papers that that I can gain access to, outside of academia and with limited funds being retired and invalid.

    Your tilt at me because you couldn’t find much contribution elsewhere from myself was clearly inadequate and not a little bit the bully.

    Like the ‘Billy Ruffian’s’ bow wave, your arrogance goes before you.

    FWIW I was never a member of either school or university debating society,…

    I recall using the qualifier ‘probably’.

    Careful…you are in danger of falling into a circular argument here.

    You have been in one for a long time, always coming back to state something like this:

    which may be your view of the required policy response to the lack of data, but is not something I have expressed a view on.

    Ah but you have, by omission, why else pursue an argument about lack of data WRT OA? And, I don’t assume anything, as I stated the physics and chemistry, as described for example in ‘The Principles of Climate Science’ cited above, inform on the changing state of the oceans WRT pH change and observations support this.

    The fact that you do not care for this valuation is mere handwaving. Indeed, such a strong persistence by you in pedantic ambiguity can only be obfuscation.

  46. #46 Lotharsson
    February 6, 2013

    FWIW I was never a member of either school or university debating society…

    I see. So when you characterised my comments as

    …this level of 4th form debate…

    …you were applying a judgement grounded in personal incompetence.

    Noted.

    That adds to what appears to be a great deal more judgement grounded in personal incompetence from you.

  47. #47 lord_sidcup
    February 6, 2013

    Some news just in, Ridley is now a member of the House of Lords having won the farcical by-election in which only hereditary peers can stand and only hereditary peers can vote:

    In the by-election following the death of the Earl Ferrers, a total of 46 valid votes were cast. There were no spoilt ballot papers. 48 Conservative hereditary peers were eligible to vote. Of the 27 candidates, 16 received one or more first-preference votes. After 13 transfers of votes, the voting for the final 3 candidates was as follows:
    Earl of Harrowby 8
    Viscount Hailsham 11
    Viscount Ridley 24
    The successful candidate was therefore Viscount Ridley.

    That means at least 6 GWPF stooges now hold seats in the House of Lords.

  48. #48 Vince Whirlwind
    February 6, 2013

    Latimer says,

    it would be highly wrong for our policy makers to be led to believe that definite proof of ‘OA’ exists when the work simply hasn’t been done.

    You’re wrong. The relevant experts say you are wrong.

    You have provided absolutely no evidence of any theoretical or practical basis for doubting the relevant experts.

    Your contrary assertions, not based on any fact, are therefore clearly ideological in nature, as well as being worthless.

  49. #49 Vince Whirlwind
    February 6, 2013

    That’s “utterly worthless”, sorry.

  50. #50 Lotharsson
    February 7, 2013

    This came up elsewhere. Does this fallacy sound familiar to readers of this thread?

    There are a whole lot more that careful readers will recognise too…

  51. #52 Lotharsson
    February 7, 2013

    So now there’s an ACTUAL member of the House of Lords with access to media channels who can publish contrarian memes. Is that good news or not? Depends on your POV.

    For fake House of Lords member Monckton it may rather devalue his services to those who are interested in publishing contrarian propaganda – but fortuitously he already seems to have discovered a new set of unskepticals to tap for cash via his recently developed Birtherism ;-)

  52. #53 bill
    February 7, 2013

    Speaking of the Potty Peer – and that’s not you, mike – his current tour of Oz seems to have resulted in zip media attention, judging by a quick scan through the ABC, Farifax, and News Ltd databases.

    Perhaps he’ll try jumping out of a plane again?

  53. #54 Lotharsson
    February 7, 2013

    Hey, if you’ve jumped the shark, jumping out of a plane is no big deal.

  54. #55 Latimer Alder
    February 7, 2013

    @lotharsson

    I did not know of your invalidity.

    But you can ‘get out more’ on the web whatever your mobility or financial status.

    That is one of the big benefits it has brought to us all. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of blogs where you can contribute and interact with others on these matters, rather than just confine yourself to this one rather cyclopean view.

    No bullying or personal upset intended.

    Some specifics

    1. ‘there may be additional evidence above and beyond “hey, look, stress!” that drives the inference that certain stress indicators are partly or wholly due to ocean acidification?’

    Sure. Present the evidence. And show that it is not a circular argument.

    Be reminded that ‘coral bleaching’ was once presented to us as a dire warning of the dreadful ‘OA’ consequences awaiting us all*. Until it was discovered that perhaps the whole coral bleaching thing is a bit more complicated and it seems to have been quietly ‘retired’ from the OA discussions.

    2. That ‘History and Philosophy of Science’ is outside your interests is not a surprise…but a sadness to me.This whole blog seems to work on varying degrees of absolute faith in the pronouncements of ‘experts’, and not on any objective assessment of the evidence (or lack of it) behind their pronouncements.

    It also explains why you found my references to Aristotle and Bacon ambiguous. They were both central figures in the evolution of science from a ‘pronouncement by experts’ faith to an objective view by observation and experiment.

    Without some understanding of these concepts then any argument about ‘what constitutes proof’ will be futile.

    Try this for starters. Feynmann on ‘What is Science’.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

    * Here’s the argument again. ‘Something strange happened. It must be ‘OA’. Look at the strange thing. It is proof of OA’. Yippee..you have proved you initial assumption in a circular manner.

  55. #56 lord_sidcup
    February 7, 2013

    Like the headlines Matt Ridley is generating:
    “Ex-Northern Rock Chairman joins Lords”
    “Former Northern Rock Chief Voted into House of Lords”
    “A Former Chairman of Northern Rock…”, etc
    No mention of Ridley’s role in the Northern Rock disaster at WUWT.

  56. #57 Lotharsson
    February 7, 2013

    Sure. Present the evidence.

    You’re the one suggesting someone else’s reasoning is/may be circular, but once again you haven’t actually looked at the evidence to show that it is! I’m skeptical of your claim. If you don’t show me plausible reason to believe it, I’ll continue to reject it as being un-evidenced speculation.

    But then un-evidenced speculation, indeed studied ignorance of existing evidence, is essential to your M.O., isn’t it?

  57. #58 Lotharsson
    February 7, 2013

    … ‘coral bleaching’ was once presented to us as a dire warning of the dreadful ‘OA’ consequences awaiting us all

    Citation please.

    You’ve made so many claims that don’t stack up that I am skeptical of unsubstantiated assertions, especially when they embody your personal interpretations which so often seem to be arguments from studied ignorance of the evidence.

    You might also attempt to substantiate your claim that “… the whole coral bleaching thing is a bit more complicated and it seems to have been quietly ‘retired’ from the OA discussions.”

  58. #59 Lotharsson
    February 7, 2013

    It also explains why you found my references to Aristotle and Bacon ambiguous.

    You are addressing the wrong person.

    Here’s the argument again. ‘Something strange happened. It must be ‘OA’. Look at the strange thing. It is proof of OA’. Yippee..you have proved you initial assumption in a circular manner.

    Citation please! I am rather skeptical of your assertion that scientists are arguing in this fashion.

    This whole blog seems to work on varying degrees of absolute faith in the pronouncements of ‘experts’, and not on any objective assessment of the evidence (or lack of it) behind their pronouncements.

    Your lack of self-awareness remains a source of absolute astonishment. You have determinedly stuck your head in the sand regarding the evidence surrounding ocean acidification OTHER than the subset you deem valid, and have postulated large magnitudes for certain phenomena apparently without having gone looking for the research on the subject.

    This is decidedly NOT an objective assessment of the evidence on your part.

  59. #60 Wow
    February 7, 2013

    1. ‘there may be additional evidence above and beyond “hey, look, stress!” that drives the inference that certain stress indicators are partly or wholly due to ocean acidification?’

    Sure. Present the evidence.

    So you need evidence before you can accept there MAY be more evidence?

    You’ve obviously learned this phrase and never once bothered to understand it.

    I’d ask you to think again, but you’d have to have thought in the first place.

  60. #61 Lionel A
    February 7, 2013

    Latimer

    It was I that brought up invalidity not Lotharsson.

    As for your point about the internet, just where do you think I found some of the information that I pointed YOU at?

    It seems your reading is selective so don’t drop on me for not wishing to bother with a ‘History and Philosophy of Science’ book by yourself as I have plenty of other things I need to read, and do. Besides your tone here is not conducive to myself changing my mind on that. BTW it is not listed by Amazon, but then I know from other books in other specialist fields of interest going unmarked that this is not unexpected.

    BTW I have been using the Internet, as we know it now since the early 1990s and have had my own email for some eighteen years, remember USENET?

    Also, if you had bothered to read, you would have discovered that I am familiar with the works of Feynman, I have, and have studied, quite a number of his books including the three volume Lectures on Physics.

    I read widely, Dawkins, Dennet, Deutsch, Diamond and that is just some of the Ds, with Smolen, Hawkin and others in the fields of astrophysics and particle physics.

    I have been around a long time and continued study of many sciences throughout my life and philosophers too.

    I discuss chemistry aspects with daughter and husband both with chemistry firsts, the latter a PhD and fortunately have a range of excellent texts to draw from on organic, inorganic and physical chemistry from that direction.

    Dawkins should give you a clue that I am very interested in biology and evolution with a number of texts from that direction. I am getting to the point of lack of space for stowing books covering my interests and certainly the physical ability to prevent the increase in entropy of the collection.

    Now I may not have a book in print, nor a blog of mine own, but I assure you that I have been following this particular aspect of climate and other ecological problems for some time. Are you aware that the sex ratio of some species can depend upon temperature or pH?

    Now I have been looking for the reference I know I have around here somewhere to that latter sex ratio issue but without luck so far. I have found some info on the, surprise, INTERNET but will continue to look through my not in-extensive, and certainly not narrow, library.

    I have all but given up on local public libraries, they have shed most of the really interesting science and mathematics books and made such a fuss about an inter-library loan of Nuttal’s ‘Nuclear Renaissance’ , a book one wants to study at length not return after three weeks.

    It also explains why you found my references to Aristotle and Bacon ambiguous. They were both central figures in the evolution of science from a ‘pronouncement by experts’ faith to an objective view by observation and experiment.

    Without some understanding of these concepts then any argument about ‘what constitutes proof’ will be futile.

    I explain again, I did get your meaning but pointed out that your statement was ambiguous, which it was.

    But of course you being of the almighty race ‘that cannot be wrong’ refuse to acknowledge either of those points.

    Why I feel it necessary to defend myself in this way is a sad comment on your attitude. You seem to work on the premise that unless otherwise informed, others are ill-educated, ill-informed and rather stupid – this on the flimsiest of evidence.

  61. #62 Latimer Alder
    February 7, 2013

    @lotharsson et al

    Just popped back for a minute to post this transcript of th important part of Richard Feynman’s remarks, in case there were any copyright issues with YouTube in your country

    ‘”“In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation, to see if it works.

    It’s that simple statement that is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.”

    See you all tomorrow.

  62. #63 Wow
    February 7, 2013

    “In general we look for a new law by the following process.”

    In general doesn’t mean invariably.

  63. #64 Wow
    February 7, 2013

    And since models (and the IPCC) do stack up to reality and the measurements, they’re fine.

    Oddly enough, it’s the deniers whose “predictions” have failed time and time again.

    Like Matt Ridley’s prediction, the nub of this thread.

  64. #65 Lotharsson
    February 7, 2013

    If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.

    And thus far, despite all your obfuscation and kerfuffle, the expectation of OA is being confirmed by the observations and the scientists say your “guess” that maybe buffering will be enough to stop it … is not.

  65. #66 Lionel A
    February 7, 2013

    Latimer,

    quoting from ‘The Character of Physical Law’.

    I note that the Penguin edition includes Paul ‘Turtles all the way down’ Davies in the authorship, presumably a Forward or something. I’ll check it out next time in a book shop as I don’t have this particular title.

    In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it…compare it directly with observation, to see if it works.

    Now what do you think is going on, and has been for some time as many cited other sources from the, surprise, Internet?

    So we all agree with Feynman.

  66. #67 Latimer Alder
    February 8, 2013

    @lotharson

    re Coral Bleaching

    2008 ‘Ocean acidification causes bleaching and productivity loss in coral reef builders’

    http://www.pnas.org/content/105/45/17442.long

    2012 ‘What is Coral Bleaching?’

    http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coral_bleach.html

    No mention of ‘OA’. Heat, light and nutrients seen as major causes.

  67. #68 Latimer Alder
    February 8, 2013

    @lotharsson

    ‘You are addressing the wrong person’

    Apologies. That remark should have been addressed to ‘lionel a’

  68. #69 Latimer Alder
    February 8, 2013

    @lotharsson

    ‘You are addressing the wrong person’

    Apologies. That remark should have been addressed to ‘lionel a’.

  69. #70 Latimer Alder
    February 8, 2013

    @lionel a

    Thank you for the extensive biography.

    You ask

    ‘Are you aware that the sex ratio of some species can depend upon temperature or pH?’

    Yes. I am aware of that. Though its relevance to this discussion has escaped me.

    The Feynman reference was to the youTube video linked to immediately below, not to a book.

  70. #71 Latimer Alder
    February 8, 2013

    @lotharsson

    ‘And thus far, despite all your obfuscation and kerfuffle, the expectation of OA is being confirmed by the observations and the scientists say your “guess” that maybe buffering will be enough to stop it … is not.’

    And if and when you have a lot more observations than just the few thousand from a few places and they all show the same, then I’ll be happy to agree that the case has been proved.

    But until that work has been done it is still just a hypothesis.

    Which was the point I began with half a lifetime ago…..Glad you agree

  71. #72 Latimer Alder
    February 8, 2013

    @lionel a

    You seem to believe that I have written a book on the History and Philosophy of Science.

    I haven’t. No idea how you got that notion.

    But plenty of others have.

  72. #73 BBD
    February 8, 2013

    Still denying the predictive power of theory supported by experiment in chemistry I see, Latimer.

    You refused again and again and again to explain your reasoning for this rejection of the predictive power of theory supported by experiment in chemistry.

    Why does theory supported by experiment in chemistry have no predictive power in the matter of ocean pH and CO2?

    Explain in the necessary detail to convince a chemist.

    If you cannot, then accept (as you must, logically) that theory supported by experiment demonstrates *unequivocally* than ocean pH will fall as the atmospheric fraction of CO2 increases.

  73. #74 chek
    February 8, 2013

    BBD – don’t forget that Lati is only a blogchemist, the type of pseudo-scientist most favoured by denier blogs globally.

    He will therefore be unable to respond to your challenge and if seeking to remain marginally honest, can only continue to bleat “more data required”.

  74. #75 BBD
    February 8, 2013

    I think we should insist that Latimer responds to my comment above, in full detail, exactly as requested. I think it’s time to dig our heels in until this matter is resolved.

  75. #76 Lotharsson
    February 8, 2013

    2008 ‘Ocean acidification causes bleaching and productivity loss in coral reef builders’

    Yes…and so…?

    The abstract describes an experimental setup, and their findings include:

    Overall, acidification impacted more strongly on bleaching and productivity than on calcification.

    Has the work been rebutted? Is the paper in error? Is Ocean Acidification no longer considered capable of causing bleaching? The paper reports direct experimental observations of the kind that you claim to respect. Are you alleging that if you repeated their experiments you would get a different result?

    2012 ‘What is Coral Bleaching?’

    And…?

    Does the fact that warming also causes bleaching – and is one of the strong factors causing recent episodes of bleaching – mean that OA on its own CANNOT cause bleaching, and in concert with other factors won’t exacerbate bleaching?

    Surely you aren’t advancing that the transparent fallacy that because one factor is currently having a stronger impact, the other is of no consequence?

  76. #77 Lotharsson
    February 8, 2013

    And if and when you have a lot more observations than just the few thousand from a few places … then I’ll be happy to agree that the case has been proved.

    But until that work has been done it is still just a hypothesis.

    Bullshit!

    As I have pointed out, this is most unscientific black and white thinking. You only acknowledge two states of knowledge – “unproven” and “proven”. You point blank refuse to discuss the huge swathe of confidence levels between “we have no idea” and “we’re ’100%’ certain”.

    Actual scientists don’t do that. This is the key “tell” that indicates you’re not discussing science here.

    But you’re even more grossly unscientific than that. You say you’ll only accept the “case” as “proven” providing that more measurements are done at different locations:

    …and they all show the same…

    You are apparently even in denial of globally averaged measurements unless local conditions are the same everywhere!

  77. #78 Lotharsson
    February 8, 2013

    Ah, catching up I see BBD’s latest. I’ll stop until Latimer answers BBD.

    My bet is that he simply won’t. He earlier held up “buffering and rocks” as hypothetical reasons why OA may be countered. Despite insisting that observations are king, he refuses to even find out whether there are any observations that support or rebut his hypothetical, let alone reconsider the strength of his “case for doubt” if those hypotheticals are invalid.

  78. #79 BBD
    February 8, 2013

    Lotharsson

    Latimer doesn’t understand that the rapid increase in the atmospheric fraction of CO2 is much, much too rapid to be offset by weathering/buffering. He hasn’t distinguished between a geological perspective and the modern evolution of atmospheric change (see Hoenisch et al. 2012).

    But first, the core questions.

    No more skip, skip, skip from Latimer. If you want to stop this nonsense, then *stop it*.

  79. #80 Lotharsson
    February 8, 2013

    Latimer doesn’t understand that the rapid increase in the atmospheric fraction of CO2 is much, much too rapid to be offset by weathering/buffering.

    He doesn’t understand, but he’s also deliberately avoiding any exposure to evidence or papers or the like that might lead him to understand. Can’t tell yourself your doubts are plausible if you keep finding evidence to the contrary…

    BTW, your Hoenisch et al. 2012 link didn’t work. Was this the one you were referring to?

  80. #81 BBD
    February 8, 2013

    Lotharsson

    Sorry, and yes. Bad html.

  81. #82 Lionel A
    February 8, 2013

    Latimer,

    Yes. I am aware of that. Though its relevance to this discussion has escaped me.

    Clearly. The ramifications of the change to all one sex of a whole group of individuals of one species due to a change in pH does escape you.

    Your argument comes from the common theme in denier/delayer thinking which is that a single factor cannot be pulled out and examined against a background of a number of other factors. Have you never heard of controls?

    Another common theme is, as I stated above and to reiterate, that we don’t have enough information or data in order to take action to limit as exemplified by this:

    And if and when you have a lot more observations than just the few thousand from a few places and they all show the same, then I’ll be happy to agree that the case has been proved.

    But until that work has been done it is still just a hypothesis.

    I ask, what do consider to be ‘observations’?

    And don’t skate around this by trying to refer to earlier posts of yours because you have not SPECIFIED what you mean by ‘observations’ as yet.

    The Feynman reference was to the youTube video linked to immediately below, not to a book.

    Yes I know that!

    I was simply pointing out where your specific quote came from.

    Are you being deliberately obtuse?

    As for a history of philosophy of science (which I have looked at over the years) being as clever as you are perhaps you should write one. Your use of History of Philosophy of Science using upper case implied a specific title and linked to yourself.

    And BTW I did not present you with a bio’. You seem confused about , or are trying to confuse, that term too.

    Tell me do you design and manufacture the appliances that you use and the component parts thereof including the mining and refining of any raw materials? For example, maybe the computer you are using you made yourself – and I don’t mean putting together an array of components sourced from places involved in that sort of thing.

  82. #83 Lionel A
    February 8, 2013

    Climate effect from a weather double (or even triple) whamy threatens US NE . Jeff Masters Perspective.

  83. #84 BBD
    February 8, 2013

    When Latimer next looks in, be sure to direct his attention to #73 above, and insist that he answers those questions in full and exact detail before allowing him to continue wittering about *anything else*.

    If you want to stop this nonsense, you must make it stop. You must *insist*.

  84. #85 Lionel A
    February 8, 2013

    BBD

    Noted. But I am not hopeful.

  85. #86 lord_sidcup
    February 8, 2013

    Worth visiting Dr Connolley’s blog, where Viscount Ridley has been caught at it again:

    http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/02/07/the-sleepwalkers/

  86. #87 BBD
    February 8, 2013

    lord_sidcup # 86

    Re the ‘MWP’ warmer than today meme, a very long time ago, on this thread, I tried to make just such a point to Brad Keyes.

    Last time I looked, he’s still going on about it in his own private hell thread, but without exactly saying anything.

  87. #88 Lionel A
    February 8, 2013

    lord-sidcup

    The source of these Ridleyisms is a document once available through the front door of the GWPF site – (WARNING only visit if you have a strong stomach for the topics on the current page are VOMIT making) entitled A LUKEWARMER’S
    TEN TESTS pdf
    and still available through this last link.

    Some discussion occurred on SKS : Lessons From Past Predictions: Ridley vs. IPCC and Hansen.

    Posts up-thread here also pointed to this document that would have done the Beno proud.

  88. #89 Hank Roberts
    February 10, 2013

    Checked Spencer’s UAH temperature lately?
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Jan_2013_v5.5.png

    “UAH Global Temperature Update for January, 2013: +0.51 deg. C
    February 5th, 2013

    Our Version 5.5 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for January, 2013 is +0.51 deg. C, a substantial increase from December’s +0.20 deg. C. …”

  89. #90 JohnL
    February 10, 2013

    @ #89 How long before Spencer “corrects” that down half a degree?

  90. #91 Latimer Alder
    February 11, 2013

    ‘Tiny Marine Creature Spreading Through Ocean, Stabilizing Reefs and Islands With Calcareous Shells’

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130206190628.htm

    Bummer eh?

    Apocalypse postponed again.

  91. #92 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    Apocalypse postponed again.

    But wait, wait, I know this one!

    As the article says [my emphasis]:

    …where they might be able to mitigate the consequences of climate change.

    So it’s not a scientific certainty that they will be able to, eh?! Better essentially ignore it then!

    And even worse – those claims are the results of unproven models. Until you’ve got measurements showing they have survived and thrived under future conditions, you can’t claim that they will survive and thrive under those conditions!

    All satire aside, the sheer stupidity – or maybe just pig-ignorance – of holding up this as solving all of the significant issues that scientists have identified with warming and acidifying oceans is mind-boggling…

  92. #93 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    So, Latimer, are you scientist enough to tackle answering #73?

  93. #94 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    Of course he isn’t: he’s all froth and no coffee.

    PS Note how Latte here goes all alarmist and predicting there was going to be catastrophe…

  94. #95 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    Checked Spencer’s UAH temperature lately?

    Didn’t check it myself so take it with a grain of salt, but an RC commenter said many commenters at WUWT were attacking the methodology because it found so much warming.

  95. #96 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    And UAH including as it does lower atmosphere temperatures, and requiring a COMPUTER MODEL to change radiative intensity into a temperature profile, is not the same thing as a surface station network of thermometers.

    Therefore, though UAH is useful for where there are no thermometers, it is subordinate to the more direct measurement of the actual climate network sensor arrays.

  96. #97 Lionel A
    February 11, 2013

    Latimer,

    Oh what a tangled web you weave when you quote selectively missing out this (my emphasis):

    “Our models are forecasting rates of spread of up to eight kilometers per year,” says doctoral student Anna Weinmann from the Steinmann-Institut at the University of Bonn. Corals can spread into new territories at similarly high rates. They do, however, have problems with the acidification of the oceans that accompanies the increasing carbon dioxide rate in the atmosphere. The skeletons of corals consist of aragonite and are thus much more sensitive to acids than the fora-minifera’s calcite shell.

    What is more this says nothing about pelagic forms especially those which inhabit polar seas and which for the basis of the food chain there, a food chain which helps support life over a wider range of the globe.

    What is more just to the right under Related Stories we find this:

    Osteoporosis in the World’s Oceans: Bioeroding Sponges Are Threatening Coral Reefs.

    Due to the massive production of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, our oceans are becoming increasingly acidic. Scientists of Senckenberg am Meer in Wilhelmshaven studied the consequences of ocean acidification on sponges that bore into calcareous materials such as coral skeletons. Results show that these sponges will profit from global changes, while coral reefs are threatened in their survival.

    Hum! Who to believe?

    Now don’t forget answering #73. How many reminders is that?

  97. #98 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    See, maybe what we need is Latte’s posts held in moderation until he answers BBD’s questions in #73.

    Otherwise he can and will continue to ignore anything inimical to his faith.

  98. #99 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    I predict we’ll get to at least 73 reminders to answer #73 without an answer.

    Latimer, like adoring fan Brad Keyes on the Brangelina thread, isn’t going to risk any sort of actual scientific foray complete with best inferences and confidence intervals and sticking to established theory unless there’s a good reason to suggest it won’t apply to the current scenario…

  99. #100 Lionel A
    February 11, 2013

    Lotharsson:

    All satire aside, the sheer stupidity – or maybe just pig-ignorance – of holding up this as solving all of the significant issues that scientists have identified with warming and acidifying oceans is mind-boggling…

    Latimer reads more like Duff as his posts continue to roll trickle in.