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 Latimer Alder
    January 20, 2013

    @guthrie

    H’mm

    I checked the references you provided.

    The first is not to a research report, but to a project description.

    And the second says it provides a geologic scale record (300my) of previous ocean pH. But to be able to demonstrate that recent reeleases of CO2 have had such an effect it needs to be demonstrated over 30 -100 years, not 300,000,000.

    As to the miscibility of the oceans I fear I must take issue with the statement

    ‘The oceans are connected and will naturally equilibrate in condition over time; they are also complex with different layering systems based on temperature etc, but what was already known was that the layers move around the ocean over time, often years’

    Because even with what lttle we actually know about today’s distribution of ocean pH we see differences between different oceanic areas far greater than could be attributed to any recent CO2 induced effect.

    See, for example

    http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45556000/gif/_45556228_ph_levels_oceans_466in.gif

    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.

    If you know of some please give a link.

    @everybody else

    I hope you enjoy trolling through the archives and reading my wit and wisdom, And I hope you learn something useful from it.

    And if you ever want to debate the substance of my remarks, rather than just hurl abuse, let me know. ‘Guthrie’ at least seems to be happy to discuss the science occasionally.

  2. #2 Latimer Alder
    January 20, 2013

    @bill

    ‘Sorry, you’re claiming that you have a masters degree in atmospheric chemistry, and yet you deny the oceans are acidifying! ‘

    I’m ‘denying’ nothing.

    I’m just asking to see the observational evidence that the effect you all claim is occurring is actually doing what you say it is. I wrote earlier about the primacy of observations over theory, and here is a fine example.

    Guthire has claimed that it’s an ‘established scientific fact’. Surely, then, evidence is widespread, widely disseminated and easily to hand…

    For ‘global warming’ , somebody (*) described the temperature dataset (HADCRUTx) as ‘the most important data in the history of humanity’. No doubt the similarly valuable pH data is close behind?

    So please just point out where it is accessible for analysis.

    (*) From memory it was Tony Blair in his time as PM of the United Kingdom, but it might have been his successor, Gordon Brown)

  3. #3 Ian Forrester
    January 20, 2013

    Alder claims:

    I’m ‘denying’ nothing.

    That is a lie. You are denying some thing because you are either too lazy to look it up for yourself or you have in fact looked it up and discovered just how wrong you are. You have your head buried in the sand because you don’t want to find any evidence that disproves your dishonest anti-AGW rhetoric. Real scientists check the literature before spouting nonsense.

    I see from curry’s that you supposedly got your degree from a “Russell Group uni”. Why not mention the University by name since the “Russell Group” only formed in 1994, long after your claimed time at uni? Frightened that some one might actually contact the University and discover that you are not well acquainted with the truth? Seems to me that is a major problem with AGW deniers, they never appear to report honestly about their supposed academic backgrounds.

  4. #4 mike
    January 20, 2013

    Deltoid-land! The creep-pit where greenshirt, buddy-buddy, suppository-head hive-bozos cuddle-up and talk through their ass!

    Unlike Latimer you Deltoid cretins have no class and, worse yet, your pathetic, mouthy-dude-wannabe stabs at trash-talk have “geek retard” written all over them. What a bunch of losers!–Jeez.

  5. #5 Wow
    January 20, 2013

    mike, is there nothing to you?

  6. #6 Wow
    January 20, 2013

    “I’m ‘denying’ nothing.”

    You’re saying nothing.

  7. #7 Latimer Alder
    January 20, 2013

    @ian forrester

    ‘ You are denying some thing because you are either too lazy to look it up for yourself or you have in fact looked it up and discovered just how wrong you are. You have your head buried in the sand because you don’t want to find any evidence that disproves your dishonest anti-AGW rhetoric. Real scientists check the literature before spouting nonsense’

    You make some strong accusations there. And it would be so easy for you prove that there is some truth in them.

    Just show me a link to the dataset or datasets that show that ‘oceans are acidifying’

    And if you want then to show that I have deliberately ignored them. it might help if you could demonstrate that they are reasonably accessible to the non-academic and reasonably well publicised (eg IPCC report, or widely read journal)

    I’m quite content that lots of analysis of temperature records from around the globe has shown that there have been periods of ‘global warming’ in recent history. All I ask for is something similar to show that the pH of the oceans is decreasing.

    And I’d give extra credit for showing me the places in the literature that establish that it is the increase in atmospheric CO2 that causes this effect (if it can be demonstrated).

    Since ‘ocean acidification’ is one of the central tenets of the more alarmist messages, I imagine that you all have this data at your fingertips.

    Go for it!

  8. #8 Ian Forrester
    January 20, 2013

    Alder demands:

    Go for it!

    What gives you the right to demand that anyone do your work for you? You are typical of the AGW deniers, too lazy, too stupid, too dishonest to figure out things for yourself.

    You call your self a scientist and you can’t do even a simple literature search for yourself. No wonder you failed your MSc thesis. You obviously did not do a thorough literature search.

    You are pathetic.;

  9. #9 Anthony David
    January 20, 2013

    Ocean acidification(OA), while noted as an issue since the publication of the Ravelle and Suess paper in 1957, has not attracted the same level of funding and research as the wider climate change response to rising atmospheric CO2. That being said, The best publicly available data is the Hawaii Ocean Time Series project, which has data up to 2009. They provide an online set of graphs http://hahana.soest.hawaii.edu/hot/trends/trends.html which anyone can select and display. Work is underway to better present worldwide data, but I personally don’t expect anything soon. Anyone interested in leaning about OA should read “Ocean Acidification” 2011 edited by Gattuso and Hansen. It has excellent review chapters written by leading researchers in the OA field. Anyone with a background in chemistry should be able to follow it.

  10. #10 Latimer Alder
    January 20, 2013

    @ian forrester

    ‘What gives you the right to demand that anyone do your work for you? You are typical of the AGW deniers, too lazy, too stupid, too dishonest to figure out things for yourself’

    I’m not ‘demanding’ anything. But if you accuse me of not having done a proper literature search or ‘burying my head in the sand’ or ‘have looked it up and discovered how wrong [I am]’, then the easy way to prove it is simply to show how I should have done it and what I should have found..

    Example

    ‘Dear Latimer.

    The data you asked for is easily available at paper/website/citation xyz, and/or was published in journal abc some years ago [date].’

    Shouldn’t be hard … and you’d win the argument hands down. Public triumph and vindication for IF! Humiliation for LA! Laurel wreaths for having seen off the ‘denier’! Free drinks at Deltoid’s for weeks. General rejoicing all round.

    As to being an ‘AGW denier’, I suggest that you carefully re-read my last post. Especially this sentence

    ‘I’m quite content that lots of analysis of temperature records from around the globe has shown that there have been periods of ‘global warming’ in recent history’

    and then remind us all what you think I am ‘denying’

    ‘You call your self a scientist and you can’t do even a simple literature search for yourself. No wonder you failed your MSc thesis. You obviously did not do a thorough literature search.

    You are pathetic.’

    Fine, Prove your case. Show the world how incapable of doing a literature search I am by showing the link to the data needed.

    FWIW I have been having similar discussions with different bloggers over the last two years. Few of them are quite so vehement in their personal remarks, but they all make the same points as you do and then go strangely silent when they can’t find the published data either.

    Maybe some data has been published in the last couple of months and I have missed it. If so, yet more kudos to you if you are the first to draw it to our attention.

    Go for it!

  11. #11 guthrie
    January 20, 2013

    Ahh, there we go. This is where you genuinely lose the plot.
    You’ve not denied that CO2 is absorbed by water.

    Now, one link I gave demonstrated how the past history of CO2 is known about. If you genuinely understood chemistry you might be wondering why the pH of oceans is changing and what is causing that change.
    The graphic you give is typical of the dishonest arguing methods of denialists. It is a snapshot that tells you nothing about trends or local changes. It doesn’t tell you about the dangers to reefs or to high latitude food webs, because to you in that snapshot these areas look fine and hey look other areas have lower pH so surely these areas at higher pH can survive fine?
    The answer of course is that no, they can’t.
    Here’s a pdf of 2006 summary of research on the effects of oceanic acidification:
    http://www.ucar.edu/communications/Final_acidification.pdf
    There’ll be more newer stuff out there, that’s all I have to hand.

    Ah, but wait I hear you cry, what oceanic acidification?
    Well the BBC article from which you took that graphic:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7933589.stm
    sets it out simply enough.
    Here’s a review paper of the state of the science from 1009:
    It contains references which you can follow up, such as:

    Sabine CL, Feely RA, Gruber N, Key RM, Lee K, et al. 2004. The oceanic sink for anthropogenic CO2.
    Science 305:367–71
    http://www.unc.edu/~lbuckley/GCE/uploads/Main/Doney%20et%20al%202009.pdf

    Do let us know how you get on.

  12. #12 Ian Forrester
    January 20, 2013

    Alder, you are too lazy, too dishonest and too stupid to carry out a very simple literature search.

    Here is one which took me all of about 20 seconds (you can use Google and know about “Google Scholar” don’t you?):

    http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=%22ocean+acidification%22

    Has about 17,000 hits, let me know when you have read and disproved them all.

    You are pathetic.

  13. #13 Latimer Alder
    January 20, 2013

    @guthrie

    Thank you for your reply.

    I do understand the theory behind the idea of decreasing oceanic pH in response to increased partial pressure of CO2. As I said some time ago, this is pretty basic physical chemistry.

    But all I ask is that you present some data that demonstrates it to be actually occurring in the oceans.

    Surely this cannot be too hard a request. If I asked for data that showed that there have been periods of global warming there are many many datasets that have been analysed every which way you can think of – and took between 10 and 100 million measurements to prove. Where is the same level of data for’ pH decrease’?

    The BBC review article carefully skates around this point, describing ‘projections’, which are not the same thing at all.

    The ‘effects of acidification’ article does not appear to present any pH data at all beyond the standard two short datasets (Hawaii and Bermuda) that appear time and again. In total these are. say 300 observations only, and are presented without error bars. Compare and contrast with the 10 million + temperature readings from thousands of locations needed to demonstrate global warming.

    The Doney et al paper simply rehashes the same brief datasets from the same places.

    If you have any more data to present, please do so.

    And please drop the throwaway remarks like:

    ‘The graphic you give is typical of the dishonest arguing methods of denialists’ They are getting tedious and add nothing to the discussion.

    There is nothing dishonest about it at all. It just shows that the ‘background pH’ varies by about 0.25 points across the globe. To show a global variation which is claimed to be just about 0.1 over the last 30 years you need a lot of observations. Where are they please?

    PS – and given your earlier remarks about the oceans being well-mixed, how can you be sure that even the small effects seen at Hawaii and Bermuda aren’t a natural consequence of mixing the high alkalinity equatorial water with lower alkalinity polar water.? The effect would be to come to an equlibrium somewhere between the two starting values.

  14. #14 Vince Whirlwind
    January 20, 2013

    I already provided this link to help him adjust his naive beliefs about Ocean acidification:
    http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/14_4/14_4_feely_et_al.pdf
    Figure 2 on p20.
    pp 28 & 29 are also interesting.

    And NOAA have extensive datasets available with the results of modelling based on this data collection.

    And this link I already provided shows the result of continuous data collection at 3 locations for Ocean acidification:
    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/acidity.html

  15. #15 Vince Whirlwind
    January 20, 2013

    can you be sure that even the small effects seen at Hawaii and Bermuda aren’t a natural consequence

    Because it shows a trend, not variability, moron.

  16. #16 BBD
    January 20, 2013

    Latimer

    Getting people to run round doing the ‘show me’ thing is tedious. Arguing quixotically agin OA is counter-productive.

  17. #17 Latimer Alder
    January 20, 2013

    @ian forrester

    Thank you for your remarks.

    Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. Let me try again.

    I am not asking for references to articles that somewhere contain the words ‘ocean acdification’ There are plenty of those. And indeed you’ve found 17,000. It is a popular topic for people to write about, speculate about, and generally pontificate about..

    But I was asking for a very specific set of observational data – that which shows that ‘ocean acidification; is actually occurring. The analogy is with the various temperature datasets that – after a lot of data collection and analysis of millions of observations – showed that there have been periods of ‘global warming’.

    It may be that somewhere in those 17,000 hits is the data I;’
    I’d like to see – though as it has never been cited anywhere else, I begin to doubt it.

    But if it is there, my search skills haven’t been able to track it down after a couple of years of looking. Perhaps if you try again you will have better fortune.

    Do let me know how you get on.

  18. #18 chek
    January 20, 2013

    Aha – Lati pulls the Jonarse strategy.
    “I see nothing there”.
    And likely for very similar reasons.
    Ian F. is quite right. Pathetic.

  19. #19 Vince Whirlwind
    January 20, 2013

    My previous comment *still* answers your questions, you lying toad.

    Here’s an idea though – now that Koch Industries put their money where their mouth was by funding the BEST research which proved that Michael Mann’s “Hockey Stick” was correct, maybe Heartland could stop funding deliberate non-research-based disinformation and fund a Multi-Year Ocean Acidification Survey?

    Wouldn’t that be useful?

  20. #20 Vince Whirlwind
    January 20, 2013

    Then we could have some data instead of WUWT.

  21. #21 Ian Forrester
    January 20, 2013

    Alder said:

    my search skills haven’t been able to track it down after a couple of years of looking.

    Just goes to prove what I have been saying all along, his research skills are worse than useless.

    Pathetic.

  22. #22 bill
    January 20, 2013

    Hey Larchy: do you really possess the qualifications you claim? Because your claims and behaviour here make that rather difficult to credit. Could we have a name for the institution and a year, please?

    And DYObloodyR!

  23. #23 David Gould
    January 20, 2013

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2596240/

    Latimer Alder,

    The above is a link to an article on a dataset measuring recent changes in ocean PH.

    I found it by going to Wikipedia and then following their source links.

    If you need any further tips on how to use the vast resources of the internet, let me know. :)

  24. #24 Lotharsson
    January 20, 2013

    Funny how almost every “skeptic” that turns up here can’t actually manage the first task of scientific skepticism – understanding and being able to fairly represent the existing scientific case and the evidence it is based upon. Only then could they demonstrate that their own case is a superior inference from all the evidence.

    Of course, if you’re going to play the “well, we don’t really know enough to bother acting” card or the “my opinion is that we’re insufficiently sure” it really does “help” to be unaware of the scientific case – and of standard risk management principles that say you have to decide risk responses based on whatever knowledge you have, not wait until the danger is beyond all doubt.

  25. #25 chameleon
    January 21, 2013

    :-) :-)
    Chuckle:-)
    Lotharsson, you are my favourite deltoid.
    ” falsely assert what the other party is saying and then castigate them for it.”
    I draw your attention once again to that little epigram re pots and kettles.
    You have repeatedly gone out of your way to assert something that people have said and then castigate them for it.
    You however like to call it ‘nuancing’ or ‘ritual intellectual humiliation’.
    I prefer to call it a waste of time!
    Obviously by the sheer number and length of your posts you must have a lot of time to waste.
    I once again suggest that Latimer offered you some good advice.
    If you have that much time on your hands, why don’t you get out more and ‘do something’ other than wasting your time trying to ‘nuance’ nealy everything that is said at this blog?
    And because Vince hates me using ‘big’ words and assumes somehow that I use them without knowing what they mean:
    Epigram:
    pointed remark, saying or maxim, esp a proverbial one.
    Also Vince:
    I fail to see where you think I missed the ‘pl ‘in the definition of ‘illuminati’.
    JeffH did write ‘their illuminati’
    The ‘their’ in his comment definitely refers to ‘climate change deniers’.
    And hint Vince:
    Reread number 2 definition :-)
    Last time I checked ‘their’ indicated more than one which means ‘pl’ in a dictionary definition (plural)
    And Vince, why does it matter where the funding comes from?
    Why would one need to ‘prefer’ where funding comes from?
    And you still seem to be missing the point of disagreement in this instance.
    It was indeed JeffH who claimed that there was a group called ‘climate change deniers’ who believed in a ‘conspiracy theory’ about the UN, Global Governement and Govt Grants.
    Strangely, the only missing factual piece of evidence is this group called ‘climate change deniers’ with their illuminati.
    As I pointed out: the UN, The theory of Global Governance and Govt Grants can’t be a ‘conspiracy theory’ as they are easily accessible and well known. Even our own Australian Govt provides funding accross all those platforms.
    Do you believe they are a ‘conspiracy theory’?
    And finally Vince, Lotharsson et al.
    What does any of that have to do with anything regarding a discussion about ‘science and the environment’?

  26. #26 chek
    January 21, 2013

    “What does any of that have to do with anything regarding a discussion about ‘science and the environment’”

    Quite a lot, seeing as that’s where you get your preferred disinformatiom from. I can’t recall you citing an IPCC report to support any of your moronic notions, for example.

  27. #27 Vince Whirlwind
    January 21, 2013

    Uh-uh, Chameleon has done it again:

    I draw your attention once again to that little epigram re pots and kettles.

    It’s not an epigram. It’s an idiom.
    This is the second time I’ve told you this.

    You have repeatedly gone out of your way to assert something that people have said and then castigate them for it.

    So you don’t understand the difference between
    – somebody holding another to account for an assertion they have made, and
    – somebody who falsely asserts that another has made a particular assertion.

    I fail to see where you think I missed the ‘pl ‘in the definition of ‘illuminati’.

    In your own words:

    there is no organisation known as ‘climate change deniers’ so being an ‘illuminati’ of such an organisation would be a bit difficult

    You really are a bit of a hamper short of a picnic, aren’t you?

  28. #28 Brad Keyes
    January 21, 2013

    “Frightened that some one might actually contact the University and discover that you are not well acquainted with the truth?”

    That you ppl even threaten to do that is childish beyond belief. It’s not how adults argue, it’s not how scientists argue, it’s not how deniers argue, but it clearly passes for a legitimate argumentative tactic among believers. Telling.

  29. #29 bill
    January 21, 2013

    Larchy has come here of his own accord making extraordinary claims and claiming authority, which, given the nature of the extraordinary claims he’s making, seems a little incongrous to many of us.

    He continuously demands others do his research for him: the least he can do is back his own claims up.

    Since he also apparently claims to be in ongoing contact with ‘our’ reseach institution, perhaps he’d care to tell us how many other members of this academic community share his views. Particularly any atmospheric or ocean chemists. Ta.

  30. #30 Brad Keyes
    January 21, 2013

    Vince Whirlwind says:

    “Koch Industries put their money where their mouth was by funding the BEST research which proved that Michael Mann’s “Hockey Stick” was correct…”

    How did BEST prove that?

    My understanding (from the BEST paper that finally passed peer review) is that they only went back to 1750. They couldn’t possibly lend support to Mann’s abolition of the Medieval Warm Period, which, if you’ve been following the debate, is the part of the HS everyone cares about.

  31. #31 Ian Forrester
    January 21, 2013

    Another denier puts words in other peoples’ mouths.

    Keyes said:

    That you ppl even threaten to do that is childish beyond belief. It’s not how adults argue, it’s not how scientists argue, it’s not how deniers argue

    No one has threatened to do that. A question was raised that Alder, who does not appear to be very honest, might prefer to keep the University where he claimed to have failed his MSc thesis a secret because of the embarrassment it would cause for both himself and the University.

    Good grief, no wonder the deniers have such a hard time with science when they cannot comprehend and interpret simple English.

    Pathetic.

  32. #32 Vince Whirlwind
    January 21, 2013

    Still on about the mediaeval warm period eh?
    When Londoners could grow mangoes in their back yards and viking submarines could surface through the thin ice at the North pole?
    Got any data to go with your curmudgeonly fairytales?

    You people are a pathetic joke.

  33. #33 Brad Keyes
    January 21, 2013

    Vince,

    here’s my data, which should be simple enough for you to follow.

    The BEST analysis (unless I’ve misread it, which is possible—but you haven’t said so) goes back to 1750 AD. Michael Mann’s “Hockey Stick” goes back to 1000 AD.

    Now I’m not sure how much maths you’ve done, but the upshot of all this (given that 1750 > 1000, etc.) is that when you said the former “proved” that the latter “was correct”, you appear to have been speaking whereof you know not.

    Please either correct me or explain why your making things up should entail anyone’s being “a pathetic joke” but you.

  34. #34 zoot
    January 21, 2013

    Hate to disappoint you Brad, but that’s not data.

  35. #35 Brad Keyes
    January 21, 2013

    Ian Forrester,

    “No one has threatened to do that.”

    Threatened to do… what exactly? Can’t even repeat it? I don’t blame you. It was a childish enough threat the first time.

  36. #36 Vince Whirlwind
    January 21, 2013

    So you agree with me that BEST has just proven Mann’s hockeystick was correct then, Brad?

    Of course, they are only the latest of about a dozen individual research projects that have all shown the same thing.

    Mysteriously, nobody’s managed to put their hands on your data in order to prove Mann wrong.
    Perhaps they know, and don’t like, where your data’s been, eh Brad?

  37. #37 Vince Whirlwind
    January 21, 2013

    Don’t be such an idiot, Brad – Latimer’s been boasting of his science qualifications, and yet it turns out he is strangely and suspiciously coy about revealing where they were issued.

  38. #38 Brad Keyes
    January 21, 2013

    Zoot,

    You’re mistaken. 1750 and 1000 are (or if you like, “is”) data. One is the start date of the BEST analysis period. One is the start date of the HS graph.

    (Am I wrong about the data so far? I’ll assume not, unless you have anything to add here.)

    Viewed holistically—holding both numbers in the mind’s eye simultaneously, if you can manage such a feat—these data strongly suggest that Vince Whirlwind was merely dissipating cyclonic energy from out his inferior gastrointestinal meatus when he claimed that BEST “proved Michael Mann’s HS was correct.”

    This would be the case even without the fact (well-known among those who’ve been paying attention to the climate debate) that by far the dominant point of contention in Michael Mann’s work is what it asserts w.r.t. Medieval times, about which the BEST study can unfortunately tell us bugger all, given the first datum I mentioned (reminder: 1750).

  39. #39 bill
    January 21, 2013

    So tell us about the blad of the hockey-stick then, Brad.

    The party line is that BEST had to publish in a newly-minted journal, but, you see, the problem is that if publication in dubious or non-high-ranking journals are an issue then much of the [ahem] best of Denier (*cough*) science must also be inadmissable. Think E&E.

    Pretty corner you’ve all painted yourselves into. Wouldn’t expect Watts to be bright enough to figure it out; how about you, though?

    Begin your convoluted extrication now, please…

  40. #40 Brad Keyes
    January 21, 2013

    Instead of “this would be the case even without the fact that,” please read “Vince’s claim would be baseless even without the fact that…”

    Sorry for the ambiguity.

    By the way Vince, I’d be happy to raise the level of discourse above the proctological if you would.

    In any case, I’m curious about the assumptions that went into this statement by you:

    “Mysteriously, nobody’s managed to put their hands on your data in order to prove Mann wrong.”

    Did I say Mann was wrong, let alone that I had data to prove it?

    No, I just said you were full of, uh, imagination when you claimed to see some kind of vindication of Mann’s findings in Richard Muller’s.

    Since you’re still confused, let’s try it in the form of a rhetorical question:

    How in God’s name could the BEST study possibly “prove” the Hockey Stick when it only covered 1/4 the time span?

  41. #41 MikeH
    January 21, 2013

    Keyes – another wind bag from the denialati.

    There is now so many hockey stick graphs that it does not even make it into SKS’s top 10 climate denier myths.

    As to the claim that the MWP was the principal objection to Mann’s work, the first hockey stick MBH98 did not even include the MWP as it started in 1400.

  42. #42 Brad Keyes
    January 21, 2013

    bill:

    “Pretty corner you’ve all painted yourselves into.”

    Except that I didn’t voice what you call “the party line” so I can’t really help you here, I’m afraid.

    Perhaps if you could locate one of these climate confusionists, unicorns, climate change denialists or pro-pollution shills you’re always railing against, they might know the answer. (To be honest, I’m still trying to figure out what you’re asking.)

  43. #43 Brad Keyes
    January 21, 2013

    MikeH—

    “There is [sic] now so many hockey stick graphs that it does not even make it into SKS’s top 10 climate denier myths.”

    Funny, I don’t see anything about BEST on that page.

    Listen, why is it so hard to get a simple point across to you people?

    Vince W pulled out of thin air the idea that the BEST study proved the HS correct. It did no such thing. If you don’t understand why it couldn’t possibly have done any such thing, God help anyone who thinks reasoned discussion is the solution to the climate wars.

  44. #44 Ian Forrester
    January 21, 2013

    Keyes is still being dishonest:

    It was a childish enough threat the first time.

    Why does he continue to lie, is that all that AGW deniers are capable of?

    There was no threat made but he will continue to lie about it because that is all that anti-science people like him can do.

  45. #45 Lotharsson
    January 21, 2013

    Obviously by the sheer number and length of your posts you must have a lot of time to waste.

    Obviously, you haven’t considered that I may write a lot faster than your imagination allows. Or that this is my hobby. Or that I don’t consider it a waste. Or any number of reasons that you failed to consider in your haste to jump to what you are quite sure is your own clever conclusion.

    Need trolls with better mind-reading skills.

    You have repeatedly gone out of your way to assert something that people have said …

    …generally accurately, as it turns out, which is the key distinction that you apparently couldn’t bring yourself to directly deny. Instead you relied on an attemped cutesy folksy indirect invocation of the expression about pots and kettles to assert that I did not make that distinction in my argument nor was it evident in my practice.

    And doing that is exactly what I was talking about: misrepresenting what someone said and then castigating me based on the misrepresentation.

    Do you truly have a blind spot in your perception so large that you don’t realise when your own comments undermine themselves, and simultaneously illustrate my point by engaging in the very behaviour I was pointing out?

    (The smart money is on yes. But there’s a significant plunge on “mendaciousness”.)

  46. #46 MikeH
    January 21, 2013

    Did I say Mann was wrong, let alone that I had data to prove it?

    I see Mr Keyes has discovered that the nightcart of denialism that he is driving has a reverse gear.

  47. #47 Lotharsson
    January 21, 2013

    Last time I checked ‘their’ indicated more than one…

    It ain’t necessarily so.

    I contacted the dictionary company and their service representative assured me that wasn’t necessarily so.

    It was indeed JeffH who claimed that there was a group called ‘climate change deniers’…

    Ah, at least you’ve finally got the capitalisation right! Last time you checked what did the lack of capitalisation mean? Can you enlighten the rest of us?

    And did Jeff actually use the word “group” or is that your invention as well?

    And have you asked Latimer yet to enlighten you as to the difference between two terms that appear to use interchangeably – “governance” and “government”? Or are you already sure that the only difference is a teensy tiny little bit of unimportant nuance?

  48. #48 Lotharsson
    January 21, 2013

    Brad’s right that Mann’s hockey stick goes back further in time than BEST, of course. So the vindication of Mann via BEST needs to be caveated with the relevant time period which makes it a partial vindication at (ahem) best.

    Brad’s wrong on a far more important issue – that Mann “disappeared the MWP”. The MWP was not established prior to Mann’s work no matter how many times denialists assert it via the term “disappeared”. It was hypothesised on the basis of a handful of very local records but no hemispherical reconstruction existed. Heck, extending reconstructions back that far for the first time was pretty much the point of MBH98 and 99.

    But I’m sure he’s been told all of this before, and he’s still making the same claim…

  49. #49 bill
    January 21, 2013

    Ah, Brad, I forgot; context is hard, isn’t it?

    Firstly; it seems I can find unicorns.

    Sorry, that’s still a bit hard isn’t it? What I literally mean is ‘here’s the party line, as laid down by Denier-in-Chief Watts’.

    I assume you’re at least smart enough to know that ain’t going to fly with anyone other then the Winged-Monkey Army.

    So, do you believe that BEST confirmed the dramatic modern warming is anthropogenic?

    And please answer the question.

    Also: tone-trolling is just boring.

  50. #50 Brad Keyes
    January 21, 2013

    bill, are you still asking me about the “blad of the Hockey Stick”? Why? What does it matter to you whether I think the “blad” is “dramatic” (whatever that means) or merely blah?

    Lotharsson is infinitely better company than you because he at least concedes that the point I’ve been making all along is right before moving on to the (legitimate, if misguided) rhetorical trick of trying to play down that point in comparison with another issue he asserts to be “more important.” It wasn’t more important, of course, since it was entirely beside my point; nevertheless, the son of Lothar’s manoeuvre is within the bounds of polite trickiness that are (or should be) preconditions of entry in such fora as this.

    You on the other hand are desperately and tediously angling to get me to espouse some idea that my imagined leader, Anthony Watts, espouses. Why don’t you ball up and go argue with him? I’m not interested.

  51. #51 Brad Keyes
    January 21, 2013

    And Lotharsson, strictly speaking, you’ll find that what I said when describing the most controversial aspect of the HS was that Mann had “abolished” the MWP, not “disappeared” it. However, since that involves a chronological premise you object to, let’s split the difference—let’s just say he *denies* the MWP.

  52. #52 Lotharsson
    January 21, 2013

    It wasn’t more important, of course, since it was entirely beside my point; …

    It was so beside your point that you felt you had to mention it, and then argue that pointing out that it was a false claim is “polite trickiness”? Does that actually work on anyone who’s made it to high school?

  53. #53 Brad Keyes
    January 21, 2013

    Give it a rest, Ian. Someone dared Latimer to say where he went to university, “or are you scared we’ll contact your alma mater and make inquiries” or words to that exact effect. That is precisely what I called it: a childish threat. You know it, I know it, everyone reading this knows it. You’d be better off not drawing further attention to it.

  54. #54 Lotharsson
    January 21, 2013

    …what I said … was that Mann had “abolished” the MWP, not “disappeared” it.

    My mistake.

    …let’s split the difference—let’s just say he *denies* the MWP.

    Nope, your claim presumes facts not in evidence. As I pointed out no MWP had been established prior to Mann’s work which means that his work could not deny it. It could refute the hypothesis, or it could fail to find support for it – but that’s not what you’re claiming. Even if we limit ourselves to the hypotheses about an MWP in existence at the time, IIRC the most common hypothesised MWP temperature sketches pretty much fit within MBH99’s error bounds.

    This is even worse than your previous error. However I suspect you’ll find a way to be even more wrong.

  55. #55 chek
    January 21, 2013

    “let’s split the difference—let’s just say he *denies* the MWP”.

    No, let’s call you a trickster using loaded words instead. To be correct, the data doesn’t support a global MWP.

  56. #56 Lotharsson
    January 21, 2013

    Chek, the weasel words extend to the choice of “Mann abolished…”, rather than “MBH99 abolished…”. The former reads like Mann issued a decree – or created work specifically to achieve that outcome.

    The latter makes it clear that “abolition” (to the extent that “abolition” is accurate) is an implication of the work itself.

  57. #57 chameleon
    January 21, 2013

    Lotharsson,
    Nah!
    You may be a speed typist and have a brain that works at the speed of light but you’re simply wasting all those incredible talents by spending far too much time here boxing with shadows and arguing about irrelevant semantics.
    2 questions:
    1)Why are you making a fuss about capitals?
    2) How can we have governance (especially global governance) without some form of government?
    Trying to nit pick over capitals and splitting hairs over the form of a word and even arguing about the usage of ‘their’ is way off the point.
    It was actually Vince’s problem anyway.
    And JeffH wrote ‘climate change deniers’ which definitely implies more than one as does his usage of illuminati (which is a plural).
    So your silly little pick over ‘group’ and ‘their’ doesn’t prove anything other than the fact that you obviously like to argue.
    Vince,
    Idiom or epigram?
    Who cares?
    You are a master at missing the actual point.
    The little saying about pots and kettles is actually both idiomatic and an epigram.
    What does it mean though Vince?
    Think about what it means.
    BTW,
    If I had to choose between sitting in a govt office on the 4th floor and being compared to the pee wee, I’m very happy to be compared to the pee wee.
    I know you were attempting a witty insult, but you have made me laugh out loud.
    Pee Wees are demonstrably more adaptable than people who work in Govt offices, despite their tendency to attack themselves in windows and mirrors.
    Where I live there has been an absolute explosion of bird life, including the pee wees.
    You should take the time to study all their habits.
    They’re fascinating creatures and incredibly smart.

  58. #58 Brad Keyes
    January 21, 2013

    No, Lotharsson—as you understand perfectly well, your “trickiness” was in using the MWP in a bid to draw attention from the fact that I’d caught Vince out in a fragrant fabrication. Whether or not Mann’s MWP denialism is scientifically righteous, this is a controversy which the BEST project didn’t go back nearly far enough to answer, and Vince was trying to pull a swifty by implying it did.

    Since I gather you’re Australian, you ought to have no problem understanding this fragment: End of.

  59. #59 Brad Keyes
    January 21, 2013

    Chek, sorry and thank you so much for reprimanding me. Naughty me. I think both sides—cool pro-science pollutionists *and* anti-science young-earth warmists alike—need to remember that loaded terminology has absolutely no place in the climate debate. It’s a matter of basic respect. On behalf of all climate realists, I apologise to any believalists who were offended by my tricksy lexicon.

  60. #60 bill
    January 21, 2013

    Answer the question.

  61. #61 Brad Keyes
    January 21, 2013

    “Answer the question.”

    Huh?

    Ohh, when you say “the question,” do you mean *your* question? The one I didn’t come here to talk about and in which nobody else appears to be interested either? Lol. Would I be within my rights to call you a climate distractionist at this point?

  62. #62 bill
    January 21, 2013

    No, you’d be an evasive coward who won’t answer the question because he knows that will give the game away.

    Which, of course, you’ve already done, precisely by behaving as described.

    Arrives: trips over own feet. Yet another one. Next.

  63. #63 Latimer Alder
    January 21, 2013

    @david gould

    Thanks for your efforts and for posting the link to a fourth site with eight years worth of pH data.

    @everybody

    Thank you all for your efforts to track down the elusive observational datasets that show ‘as a scientifically proven” (Guthrie) that ocean pH is decreasing.

    We’ve managed to find just four sites around the globe that have recorded anything of value:

    Bermuda (N Atlantic) – 20 years
    Canaries – (N Atlantic) – 14 years
    Hawaii (Pacific) – 5+6 years = 11 years
    Tatoosh Island (Pacific) – 8 years

    Total observations = 53 location years.
    Number of observation sites = 4
    Number of oceans = 2

    and it seems that we are unlikely to uncover any more significant data – however good (or not) our Google scholar search skills may be.

    It is instructive to compare and contrast this quantity of observational data that was needed to demonstrate ‘global warming’.

    Assuming (not unreasonably – and using ‘ballpark’ figures) that we have 3000 observational sites on average and that each recorded 50 years worth of data (i.e from 1960 to today), then that gives us a total of 150,000 location years to analyse. Which is quite considerably more than 53 location years.

    I think we can conclude that – by comparison with the observational evidence for ‘global warming’ – the observational data for ‘decreasing ocean pH’ is scanty. And it hardly qualifies as a ‘scientifically proven’.

    Maybe eventually it will be..maybe it won’t. But it’s a heck of a long way from being ‘proved’ right now.

    Sideline:

    Ian Forrester’s Google Scholar search for ‘ocean acidification’ came up with 17,000 hits. If all four of the pH measuring locations made just one observation per day, that would total 19,350 observations. Is it sensible to conclude that we have just about as many scholarly articles as actual observations?

    If so, it seems that the cart is definitely before the horse on this topic.

  64. #64 Vince Whirlwind
    January 21, 2013

    Brad:

    By the way Vince, I’d be happy to raise the level of discourse above the proctological if you would.

    Nice of you to admit where you got your “data” from.

  65. #65 Vince Whirlwind
    January 21, 2013

    Chameleon:

    Vince,
    Idiom or epigram?
    Who cares?

    People interested in accuracy can note that you are incapable of it.

  66. #66 Vince Whirlwind
    January 21, 2013

    Brad:

    by far the dominant point of contention in Michael Mann’s work is what it asserts w.r.t. Medieval times,

    What a steaming load you’ve just dumped on us again Brad – By far the most interesting thing about MBH was the “blade” of the “hockeystick”.

    The whole “mediaeval warm period” red herring is a distraction invented by non-scientists (e.g. Anthony Watts) who are paid by a lobby-group (e.g. Heartland) to disseminate lies designed to confuse the ignorant.

    You’re coming across very confused there, Brad.

  67. #67 Brad Keyes
    January 21, 2013

    “No, you’d be an evasive coward who won’t answer the question because he knows that will give the game away.”

    “The game”?

    Ohh, you must mean *your* game. (I can now decipher one or two words of your idiolect, I think.)

    Latimer, anyone… Help an outsider out: What the hell is bill’s “game”?

  68. #68 Vince Whirlwind
    January 21, 2013

    …and “see nothing” Latimer, it’s here, just in case you missed it the first time:

    http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/14_4/14_4_feely_et_al.pdf

    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/acidity.html

    And, ooh, looky-here!
    Yet another site where acidification has been observed and professionally documented.
    http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/envs501/downloads/Wei%20et%20al.%202009.pdf

  69. #69 Latimer Alder
    January 21, 2013

    @brad keyes

    ‘ Help an outsider out: What the hell is bill’s “game”?

    No idea.

    After a few days here, I recognised that many pos(t)ers aren’t interested in discussing science at all…but just on venting their hatred of some imagined horde of ‘deniers’

    Best to ignore them. Concentrate instead on the few meaty chunks, not the froth, bile and spittle.

  70. #70 Vince Whirlwind
    January 21, 2013

    I say, facts.

    Latimer says,

    Best to ignore them.

    Everyone says, “Latimer is a slimy liar”.

  71. #71 Vince Whirlwind
    January 21, 2013

    Just two days ago, Latimer was saying he had spent years trying to find empirical evidence of ocean acidification, without success!

    You would think he would say, “thank you”.

  72. #72 Brad Keyes
    January 21, 2013

    OK thanks Latimer, gotcha. I think I’ll also ignore those stuck in scat mode, like Johnny Drama.

  73. #73 bill
    January 21, 2013

    Now we have two hobbled geldings tottering about and refusing to answer the questions they’ve been asked.

    And congratulating each other on their mutual brilliance. Of course.

    You’re doing a great job, guys, no; you really are.

  74. #74 Brad Keyes
    January 21, 2013

    I mean Vince whatever.

  75. #75 bill
    January 21, 2013

    Actually, Larch, since everyone here has probably already drawn their own conclusions as to why an ‘atmospheric chemist’ wouldn’t be familiar with the literature on ocean acidification, you can tell us about the blade of the hockey stick, too.

    BEST results. Stunning confirmation of AGW. Superfluous, perhaps, but this was Denial’s best shot – and all it got was its own foot! So – science triumphs, right?

  76. #76 bill
    January 21, 2013

    Aw, c’mon, Abbott, Costello: don’t be shy!

    The old double act not playing out like it used to? I mean, let’s face it, you’re dying here…

  77. #77 Brad Keyes
    January 21, 2013

    “some imagined horde of ‘deniers’”

    Actually Latimer, we can see in bill the next stage in the elaboration of the delusion—the horde has become undifferentiated and capitalised as Denial, presumably one of the lesser-known brothers of Belial. Tell us bill, what did the angel Moroni tell you “Denial” means in Hebrew?

  78. #78 Latimer Alder
    January 21, 2013

    @vince whirlwind

    Thanks for your links, good buddy.

    The second one you post just reproduces the same data (Canaries, Bermuda, Hawaii) as I documented above.

    The same short datasets and graphs from the same locations pop up in every article about ‘decreasing ocean pH’, and it was their remarkable ubiquity that first set me off wondering just how much other observational data there actually is.

    The first merely takes snapshots of some oceanographic data around the world. But since they did not visit the same location twice, it is not possible to discern any trends – and neither did they claim to do so.

    And pH does not seem to be one of the variables they have reported on. (please guide me to the reference in the paper if I have missed it).

    The third one is more interesting. The conclusions state

    ‘Coupled with this long-term variation, a significant
    acidification trend occurs from 1940s to present, with
    pH decrease of about 0.2-0.4, estimating using different
    a(B3–B4) values.’

    But this is an extremely vague statement and relies upon a proxy rather than any direct measurements.

    But – if you like – we’ll chuck in 60 location years for that one.

    So our new total of ‘pH location years’ is now 113, with the caveat that over half of them are now proxy-driven, not actual observations.

    And a reminder that the estimated amount of data needed to show ‘global warming’ was 150,000 ‘temperature location years’.

    Still a long way to go…….

  79. #79 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    So now these deniers are insisting that the climate sensitivity is HIGHER than the IPCC average assessment?

  80. #80 Latimer Alder
    January 21, 2013

    @vince whirlwind

    Just two days ago, Latimer was saying he had spent years trying to find empirical evidence of ocean acidification, without success!

    You would think he would say, “thank you”.

    1. I believe that i have given thanks to all who have helped me in my quest – yourself included. If I have inadvertently omitted anyone that is my oversight and was accidental.

    2 . The phrase ‘ocean acidification’ – like ‘global warming’ is in two parts. To show that it is correct, you have to show that not only is there ‘acidification(*)’ going on, but that it is happening at an oceanic level. Just like you cannot prove ‘global warming’ just from temperature observations in my back garden. To show that these things are ubiquitous you need a lot of points of observation. Seems like for ‘OA’ we have about 5 places not 5,000.

    (*) As a good chemist I prefer the term ‘neutralisation’. As and when the seawater pH drops below that of pure water, then it will be ‘acidic’. But until then the alkalinity (pH>7.0) is being neutralised.

    And not even the most alarmist theoretical calculation I’ve seen has suggested that a pH below 7.0 can be achieved no matter how much CO2 is put into the atmosphere. There ain’t enough free carbon, the seawater is too alkaline to start with and there is far too much of a buffer in the rocks.

  81. #81 Lotharsson
    January 21, 2013

    No, Lotharsson—as you understand perfectly well, your “trickiness” was in using the MWP in a bid to draw attention from the fact that I’d caught Vince out in a fragrant fabrication.

    ROFL! You’re really piss poor at this mind-reading thing. Why don’t you go off and practice for a while and come back when you get better at it.

    I explicitly acknowledged that Vince’s claim was incorrect because it was too broad. If I merely wanted to “draw attention away” I wouldn’t have acknowledged that in the first place.

    I also pointed out that your second claim was incorrect, but even more so. It (a) is falsified by a bunch of other work, and (b) it relies on claims about the past scientific understanding that are false. You, as predicted, are apparently still standing by it.

    Some of us have the mental capacity to deal with two errors at the same time, even if they are of different magnitude and by people on different sides of some issue.

  82. #82 bill
    January 21, 2013

    So, Larchy, with your qualifications and all, and your tremendous depth of knowledge, when are you going to publish?

    I mean, this place is a ‘backwater’ right; and, then, sad to say, so is Judy’s. And, what with your unparalleled grasp, and your ongoing contact with your peers at ‘our’ university lab – who, in the absence of word from you to the contrary, we can only assume agree with you – you owe it to the world to get cracking and publish a refutation to all this insidious alarmism, don’t you? Smash the strangle hold of the greenhouse mafia and allow the silent majority to break free!…

    I reckon we may even be able to run the draft by a few practising ocean chemists for a bit of the old pre-peer review and all, if you like.

    Come on, man. Otherwise folks – not me, to be sure – might conclude all this was just pontifical bluffing and contrarian nay-saying.

    And ‘global warming’ in quotes; is that a backhanded way of answering the BEST question? Please do answer it, because people – not me, of course, but, you know what they’re like – they’ll draw their own conclusions again, Latimer, they really will…

  83. #83 Latimer Alder
    January 21, 2013

    @wow

    ‘So now these deniers are insisting that the climate sensitivity is HIGHER than the IPCC average assessment?’

    Just a friendly suggestion that you are more likely to get a sensible discussion going if you address your remark more specifically and give some evidence for your statement.

    As it is, it is just an orphan – seemingly randomly put into the blog.

    The ‘@’ sign on your keyboard can help you here. As can the sequence CTRL+C, CTRL+V (cut and paste) to show who your remark is addressed to, and to what it refers.

  84. #84 Lotharsson
    January 21, 2013

    1)Why are you making a fuss about capitals?

    That’s a useful question. Where are capitals used apart from the start of a sentence?

    And where would their presence or absence make a difference when someone claims that “…its the climate change deniers.” refers to a specific organised group which presumably has a name?

    2) How can we have governance (especially global governance) without some form of government?

    That’s not a bad question either, but to make it more useful let me fix it.

    “How can we have global governance on some issue without having global government?”

    Now given that we don’t seem to have had the global government thing yet, I wonder if there are any historical examples of global governance on some issue…

    …which would, by definition, be examples of global governance of an issue without global government.

  85. #85 Lotharsson
    January 21, 2013

    You are a master at missing the actual point.

    Crap. That irony meter wasn’t even plugged in yet.

    Hand me the next one.

  86. #86 Latimer Alder
    January 21, 2013

    @bill

    Just to note that if I ever come across anybody called ‘Larchy’, I’ll draw their attention to your post.

    Cheers

    Latimer

    (There is a very famous and very fearsome NZ Rugby player called Colin ‘Pinetree’ Meads, but I doubt it was him you mean)

  87. #87 bill
    January 21, 2013

    Oh, see, now you’re doing the ‘it ain’t acidification’ thing again, Larchy, you really are. Just like that well-known scientist Lord Monckton! And yet all these people who are sort of currently, well, qualified and practising and publishing and all that don’t seem to agree with you.

    Why is that, do you reckon?

  88. #88 bill
    January 21, 2013

    Brad’s gone quiet, hasn’t he? You’d almost think there was nothing to him…

  89. #89 Lotharsson
    January 21, 2013

    And a reminder that the estimated amount of data needed to show ‘global warming’ was 150,000 ‘temperature location years’.

    It seems to have escaped your attention that you’ve asserted that the amount is sufficient to demonstrate global warming, but you have not shown that it is necessary.

    But hey, that kind of sloppy “logic” runs through most of your comments here, so why stop now?

  90. #90 Lotharsson
    January 21, 2013

    Since Latimer apparently isn’t interested (or is perhaps merely incompetent) to address the scientific case for concern about ocean acidification – and gosh, why not, I mean 17000 papers sounds like at least half a weekend’s speed reading, and who has that kind of time these days – perhaps he can regale us in the meantime with his reasonably well-evidenced theory for where all the CO2 we pump into the atmosphere goes. After all, we’re emitting more every year than the annual atmospheric increase so it has to go somewhere non-atmospheric, and it would be good if we could establish some idea about that with reasonable confidence and get to the nub of Latimer’s well-reasoned divergence from the consensus.

    So here’s the simple question: do you agree that it is pretty well established that the oceans are currently and have been (for at least several decades) a major CO2 sink, although not the only one?

  91. #91 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    Latte isn’t interested in discussion except to continue to argue.

    You will notice that he’s not managed to explain WHY he wants these things discussed.

    Because he has no purpose other than to demand everyone else do as he demands.

  92. #92 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    “2) How can we have governance (especially global governance) without some form of government?”

    International treaties.

  93. #93 Latimer Alder
    January 21, 2013

    @lotharson

    That’s about the number of records the IPCC analysed before they felt able to make a definite statement about global warming.

    And you’ll no doubt note that its about a thousand times greater than the 113 discussed above.

    Also note that the number of locations (abt 3,000) is 600 times greater than the 5 we have identified for ‘OA’.

  94. #94 Latimer Alder
    January 21, 2013

    @lotharsson

    You ask

    ‘do you agree that it is pretty well established that the oceans are currently and have been (for at least several decades) a major CO2 sink, although not the only one?’

    Sure. No problem with that. CO2 dissolves in H2O (hence sparkling water).

    See my reply of yesterday to Guthrie that started off this little discussion – and note the caveat.

    ‘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’

  95. #95 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    “That’s about the number of records the IPCC analysed before they felt able to make a definite statement about global warming.”

    Before being able to attribute most of the warming to human causes.

    You don’t do thinking so well, do you.

  96. #96 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    “Sure. No problem with that. CO2 dissolves in H2O (hence sparkling water). ”

    Oh deary me.

    This guy is evian backwards.

    “But pure water is not at all the same thing as seawater”

    And carbonic acid isn’t the same thing as seawater.

    And deep ocean water isn’t the same thing as shallow seawater.

    “It is not at all obvious that the weak carbonic acid like carbonic will overwhelm the buffering effect of the solution and surrounding rocks”

    That only describes YOUR problem.

  97. #97 Latimer Alder
    January 21, 2013

    @wow

    If your remark was addressed to me, I’m having trouble understanding the point (if there is one) of it.

    So far we seem to be in violent agreement(?) that seawater is not the same stuff as carbonic acid.

    Sure. It ain’t the same stuff as pure water either..nor orange juice nor molten lead nor liquid bromine nor vodka – apart from all being liquid.

    But where does your point lead after that?

  98. #98 Lotharsson
    January 21, 2013

    That’s about the number of records the IPCC analysed before they felt able to make a definite statement about global warming.

    I’m not after a definite statement.

    I’m after the best inference distilled from what we already know (including those 17000 papers), along with an appropriate confidence interval. You know, the kind of thing the IPCC comes up with. They look at chemistry theory, which suggests certain things, and evidence (including estimates of past pH levels, both recent history and much longer) which is apparently thus far pretty consistent with what is suggested by the theory, and experiments, and how well or otherwise the understanding of the ocean’s role in the carbon cycles fit in with all the other evidence and understanding about how carbon behaves on the planet..and they give their best inferences and their levels of confidence. (And apparently they’ve incorporated the notion that carbonate rocks have a buffering influence and have some idea of how fast these processes proceed compared to the rate of the oceanic CO2 increases. Go visit one of the lead researchers and try out your “It is not at all obvious that the weak carbonic acid like carbonic will overwhelm the buffering effect of the solution and surrounding rocks” line.)

    So far you’re not addressing those inferences except to indulge in the “high proofer” gambit, apparently from a position of personal ignorance – or faux ignorance – of most of the research evidence. This is mendacious because it ignores the case put forth, and arguably foolish because it’s usually coupled with an implicit or explicit demand to undercut best practices in risk management.

    (And you still haven’t shown that it’s the number of records and/or the locations that makes it sufficient…)

  99. #99 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    “So far we seem to be in violent agreement(?) that seawater is not the same stuff as carbonic acid.”

    Nope.

    We do seem to be in violent agreement that your statement “they are not the same” is vacuous and unenlightening.

    But then vacuous and unenlightening is your forte, isn’t it.

    “But where does your point lead after that?”

    Well that is exactly what I was saying.

    What was your point?

  100. #100 Latimer Alder
    January 21, 2013

    @wow

    Sorry, but unless somebody sends me a Babel fish that translates ‘Wowspeak’ into understandable English, I’m not going to reply to your style of just writing disjointed sentences punctuated by a few random insults.

    Maybe the ‘stream of consciousness’ is crystal clear to you, but it is completely incomprehensible to me.

    Maybe you can find a buddy to proofread them first?

1 3 4 5 6 7 22

Current ye@r *