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 21, 2013

    @lotharsson

    ‘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.’

    And it would be so easy to demonstrate that the effect is real and oceanic. Just go and measure the pH over a long time at a lot of different locations widely dispersed across the globe.. Real observations always trump theory and opinion.

    That’s what they did for temperature. And until they do the same for pH the best that can be said is ‘we think…’ or ‘theory says…..’ or ‘our judgement is……’

    which is one heck of a long way from the ‘established scientific fact’ that Guthrie claimed yesterday.

    For example, we have no measurements from the Southern Ocean, Arctic Ocean or Indian Ocean. None in the South Atlantic, nor the Southern Pacific. None around Europe, Asia or Australasia. None on the Eastern Seaboard of the US and none for Africa south of 25N.

    Instead we have a few short term (20 years or less) records from just five places. Which really isn’t much at all.

    Would you consider just five temperature series over 20 years sufficient to ‘prove’ (or indeed ‘disprove’) global warming? If so, I have a nice bridge to sell you. See how the coating of snake oil glistens in the sun!

  2. #2 mike
    January 21, 2013

    @ n frrstr

    Hy n–y lw-lf, lttl crp-t!–jst wnt y t knw ‘v gt y spttd.

    bsrvd clsly yr xchng wth Ltmr, nd y knw wht thnk, n? thnk y’r B. S. rtst, gy. thnk y’r fkng t! mn lk, ll y dd ws slp-nd-sld nd vd Ltmr’s rsnbl rqsts nd ms-chrctrz hs cmmnts. S, n, thnk y’r n wy vr yr hd. nd, lt m gss, y’v bn gttng by wth yr trnsprnt lttl clwn-ct fr yr whl slss-tr, prst, flnky-stg lf, rght, n, l’ sprt?

    S wht’s th dl, n? Y myb gt hv-mstr fmly cnnctns s vryn’s gt t pt p wth y r rckn wth sm smthrng, vr-prtctv, chkst hv-mm? r myb y’r sm knd f “md-mn” n th hv’s sfl-thg, prty-ln nfrcr cdr nd s vryn’s rnnng scrd f y? r myb t’s tht y’r n chrg f th cff mss nd y d sch gd jb thr yr hv-bz bdds kp y rnd dspt yr slf-vdnt “lmttns”? dnn, bt t’s gtt b smthng.

    nd, h by th wy, n, th wrd “pthtc” ds nt ppr, vn nc, mng th nrly 500 cmmnts ttchd t ths pst ntl frst sd t n n f my cmmnts. Bt nc ntrdcd th wrd, y–nmgntv, lttl wsl tht y r, n–pckd p n t nd, n tht “pthtc”, ndy, ttntn-skng, vr-gr, dfs wy y hv f vr-dng vrythng, y thn mplyd th trm, “pthtc”, n yr nxt fr cmmnts!–wht “pthtc” jk y r, n! nd wht “pthtc”, rp-ff, cpy-ct, lttl snk y r, n!

    nd snc Dltd s crp-pt f grp-thnkng, brnwshd lfts, n, th phrmns y rlsd n th crs f yr zngr-vrds rp wth th wrd, “pthtc”, prdctbly trggrd Pvlvn-rflx, lck-stp, gt-wth-th-prgrm hv-rctn nd w sbsqntly sw “pthtc” sddnly shw p n n f chk’s vr-trt cmmnts nd n n f Vnc’s stndrd-ss, gd-cmrd, dlt-bgr mstrpcs.

    mn, lk, y Dltds r sch gk-bll wrds. N wndr y gys cn’t gt dt!

  3. #3 Lotharsson
    January 21, 2013

    And it would be so easy to demonstrate that the effect is real and oceanic. Just go and measure the pH over a long time at a lot of different locations widely dispersed across the globe..

    Way to miss the point and dodge the question.

    But then that’s your M.O.

  4. #4 Latimer Alder
    January 21, 2013

    @lotharsson

    ‘Way to miss the point and dodge the question’

    Don’t think so, unless you can explain which point it is I’ve missed and which question I’m dodging.

    The relevant question to me is

    ‘Has it been adequately demonstrated by observation that the ‘ocean acidification’ is actually occurring?’

    by analogy with

    ‘Has it been adequately demonstrated by observation that ‘global warming’ has actually occurred’?

    You’ll have to explain in detail if you believe we are concerned with a different question. Because I’m not.

  5. #5 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    “Don’t think”

    Fixed that for you.

  6. #6 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    “I’m not going to reply to your style of just writing disjointed sentences punctuated by a few random insults.”

    Hmmm.

    For someone so distraught by the perception of that happening, you seem strangely quiet about mike.

    Who’dathunkit.

    No, lattie, the reason why you won’t answer is because you daren’t answer.

    Indeed I have answered it for you.

    You don’t have any reason to “discuss” what you do because you have no desire to resolve anything.

    You’re a contrarian denialist arsehole.

  7. #7 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    mike, tell your mom/sister/granny (hints of banjo plucking abound in your tripe) to tell you to get off that damn computer and get a real life.

  8. #8 Latimer Alder
    January 21, 2013

    @wow

    If Mike addresses any comments to me, then I’ll consider replying. But I see no reason to intervene in your private squabble.

    The other remarks you make are not worthy of notice, let alone reply.

  9. #9 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    Yeah, so you only care about insults if they go to you.

    Right.

    You know what they call that?

    Narcisissm. Disdain for anyone other than yourself.

    Hence your “We MUST discuss, never resolve whatever *I* insist must be discussed. NO DISCUSSION!!!”.

    You’re just a simpleton pissing on people far far more intelligent than yourself out of spite and anger.

    If you can’t bring yourself up (hell, that would require improving yourself, and you KNOW you are perfect), then you have to bring everyone else down.

  10. #10 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    “The other remarks you make are not worthy of notice, let alone reply.”

    ROFMAO!

    Well, guys, you know how to deal with this turdbucket now.

  11. #11 Latimer Alder
    January 21, 2013

    @wow

    Wise man Entwistle says

    ‘Sometimes better to keep schtumm and be thought a fool rather than open mouth and prove it’.

    Sound advice. Think on’t.

  12. #12 Stu
    January 21, 2013

    What is it with denialists and their complete lack of self-awareness?

  13. #13 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    Because that self awareness would have them be aware of their faults.

    AND THEY HAVE NONE!!!!!

  14. #14 Stu
    January 21, 2013

    And if you point any out, it’s an own goal and irrelevant. Or not “real”. Or it doesn’t count because they are smarter than you anyway. Or…

    Ah, whatever.

    I’m actually curious what Mike’s bleating looked like before disemvowelment.

  15. #15 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    Like bile-infested crap, Stu.

  16. #16 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    Or it’s YOUR fault. Or it’s YOUR problem.

    ANYTHING that means “it’s not me”.

    Which is entirely why they deny AGW. “It can’t be *me*!”.

  17. #17 Ian Forrester
    January 21, 2013

    Interesting that Keyes should confirm a statement I made about him:

    Another denier puts words in other peoples’ mouths.

    Here is what he accuses me of saying:

    “or are you scared we’ll contact your alma mater and make inquiries”

    Here is what I actually said:

    Frightened that some one might actually contact the University

    Only in the twisted and dishonest mind of an AGW denier are these two statements even closely related. Of course, if I had used “we” rather then the indefinite “some one” it could have been construed as a “threat” but I didn’t and it can’t be.

    However, I hope Keyes and Latimer keep up their screeds of dishonest junk, poor Matt Ridley must be really pleased to see the intellectual ability of these people who have decided to support him by obeying Watts’ dog whistle and come over here.

  18. #18 Chris O'Neill
    January 21, 2013

    Brad Keyes:

    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 wasn’t a threat to contact his alma mater (not that that should be threatening anyway). This guy is just dumb.

  19. #19 Chris O'Neill
    January 21, 2013

    L. Alder:

    ‘Sometimes better to keep schtumm and be thought a fool rather than open mouth and prove it’.

    Sound advice.

    Pity you didn’t take it.

  20. #20 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    So Brad, you’re saying that Latte is scared of his ex university not liking how he turned out?

  21. #21 BPW
    January 21, 2013

    Wow
    January 21, 2013

    mike, tell your mom/sister/granny (hints of banjo plucking abound in your tripe) to tell you to get off that damn computer and get a real life.

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…

    Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha…

    This from the douchebag who seems to spend virtually every waking moment of his “life” posting his unique style of blather here? Oh the irony.

    Do keep it up though. The entertainment is endless.

  22. #22 Lionel A
    January 21, 2013

    Vince W wrote the following (sorry back at page 3 – I have been away with a right hand immobilised by gout, and I don’t drink alcoholic beverages, and shingles, aka Herpes zoster – which latter lingers lingers still, phew HAVE the floodgates opened here in the interim) :

    I see what Latimer’s problem is – somebody told him to “read widely”, so he opened his mind….and his brain fell out.

    in response to a long endorsement of the greater width of blog postings found at WUWT and other well known sites of obfuscation presented as supposed logical argument.

    Which of course betrays Latimer’s own shortage in the critical thinking skills. How does the whole print run of The Daily Mail since its inception (1896) stack up against Feynman’s three volume ‘Lectures on Physics’, for example? Using Latimer’s logic The Mail must win.

    However an internet search will reveal the leanings of young Alder (seeing as it is ONLY thirty years since you were at university) with this as but one example Latimer tilts at windmills and wishes to join the Scottish Sceptic Association.

    His colours are clear.

  23. #23 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    I’m glad you liked the humrous put down, Bitty.

  24. #24 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    BPW being, of course, a sort of denialist seagull.

  25. #25 Latimer Alder
    January 21, 2013

    @lionel a

    ‘How does the whole print run of The Daily Mail since its inception (1896) stack up against Feynman’s three volume ‘Lectures on Physics’, for example?’

    They don’t ‘stack up’. They talk about different things. It is a false equivalence…like asking a dog why it isn’t more like a cat.

    And strangely enough, after some time here I was looking at an old BBC interview with Feynman only yesterday. Reminding myself of his famous remark that ‘science is the belief in the ignorance of experts’

    As to the rest, I’m happy to stand by my remarks. Why is this either of interest or a problem to you? Is this a blog where only those of the One True Faith may post? If so, please lay out the Credo that posters must adhere to.

    And I guess that your remarks about me as an individual show that you’ve nothing constructive to add about the science we’ve been discussing.

  26. #26 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    “It is a false equivalence…like asking a dog why it isn’t more like a cat. ”

    Or why isn’t Ridley more like a climate scientist.

  27. #27 Latimer Alder
    January 21, 2013

    @wow

    ‘So Brad, you’re saying that Latte is scared of his ex university not liking how he turned out?’

    Delighted to say that I met two of my old professors/tutors at the RI a little while back, and they showed no signs of being other than very pleased to see me. And me them.

    It was great to catch up after a few years and we had a very convivial evening. It was also very good to be able to see Michael Faraday’s lab and apparatus as he has long been a bit of a hero of mine.

  28. #28 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    Well, why not?

    It’s not as if your idiocy is any skin off THEIR nose, is it.

    But apparently Brad thinks that you’re scared of this.

    Don’t blame me for it, I didn’t make him conclude you were a scared little hobo.

  29. #29 Brad Keyes
    January 21, 2013

    Latimer,

    in case it wasn’t clear, I wasn’t suggesting that; those are words the inveterate ventriloquist Wow put into my mouth. Nice of Wow to use my first name at least, unlike Forrester.

  30. #30 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    “Latimer,

    in case it wasn’t clear, I wasn’t suggesting that”

    So how could Latte be frightened?

    You DO know what “threat” means, right?

  31. #31 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    Any way, you deniers have to have words put in your mouth since you never manage to say anything. Despite taking reams of screen real-estate to do so.

  32. #32 chek
    January 21, 2013

    science is the belief in the ignorance of experts

    The literal interpretation of that one phrase is assumed by every crank to be a license for their crankery.

    It’s unlikely the author had that in mind as he then goes on to say “It should not be “science has shown” but “this experiment, this effect, has shown.” And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments–but be patient and listen to all the evidence–to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at”.

    So it’s clear he’s promoting proper scepticism in the service of arriving at “a sensible conclusion”, which is in stark contrast to the fake scepticism of the deniosphere which seeks to arrive at a predetermined and paid for conclusion.

  33. #33 Brad Keyes
    January 21, 2013

    Latimer,

    what you’re doing here is heroic, and it’s a thing of beauty to watch one stand against many and kick ass—Crom is taking note in Valhalla—but seriously man, why waste any further time on these psychotic liars? See you back in the real world sometime!

  34. #34 Latimer Alder
    January 21, 2013

    @chek

    ‘ And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments–but be patient and listen to all the evidence–to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at”.

    Sure. And if you follow through this thread about the evidence for ‘ocean acidification’ you’ll see that is exactly what I have tried to do.

    Or, if you disagree, please point out where you think I have failed to live up to Feynman’s ideal. Mere abuse and name-calling or personal remarks will not suffice.

  35. #35 Vince Whirlwind
    January 21, 2013

    Latimer says:

    we have no measurements from the Southern Ocean, Arctic Ocean or Indian Ocean. None in the South Atlantic, nor the Southern Pacific. None around Europe, Asia or Australasia. None on the Eastern Seaboard of the US and none for Africa south of 25N.

    Well, guess what?
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2596239/
    (Measurements from the Southern Ocean – the same ones I incidentally already provided a link to).
    http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3058/
    http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/ocean-acidification/arcticcruise2012/
    Measurements from the Arctic Ocean.

    No doubt the entirety of Latimer’s assertion is wrong.

    I’ve said this before – what a duufus.

    Long rambling posts that contain no information but false assertions.

  36. #36 Vince Whirlwind
    January 21, 2013

    Did Brad say something about “liars”?

  37. #37 Latimer Alder
    January 21, 2013

    @brad keyes

    ‘why waste any further time on these psychotic liars?’

    Not sure I’d agree with your characterisation, but the short answer is – its a lot of fun! After a few years of playing with the big boys elsewhere, this is relaxation :-).

    And there’s just the faint hope that somebody will start to use their brain rather than just wallowing in their tribal instinct…which is pretty much all that is on display among the long-time posters here.

    It’s a bit like being the sole Everton fan on the Kop…… or the Pompey fan at Southampton…but that too is part of the fun.

  38. #38 BBD
    January 21, 2013

    Latimer

    Asking for long-series ocean pH data which don’t exist is a childish trick. It reminds me of the same silly game played elsewhere by people insisting on observational evidence of increasing DLW from CO2. There are no such observations.

    Neither chemistry nor radiative physics is in the slightest bit affected by this. If you think you are making a point of some kind you are mistaken.

  39. #39 Latimer Alder
    January 21, 2013

    @vince whirlwind

    Thank you for the post.

    But just a reminder that ‘acidification’ is a process. You cannot demonstrate acidification from a snapshot. You need a time series of measurements.

    Example: If today I measure the pH of my local sea as 7.5, this tells us exactly that – what the pH is today. It tells us nothing about what it was in the past. So it is not possible from that one measurement alone to deduce anything at all about the process of acidification (or alkalinaton).

    But if I were to return after a period to the same place and make a measurement once again – this time if 7.55 and then after a similar period of 7.6 then 7.65 and so on – then it is possible to begin to draw some sensible conclusions about the process(es) that may be going on.

    This is how the ‘global warmign’ was demonstrated. They didn’t just come to one measurement station and say ‘the temperature is 288.5 K therefore global warming’. They observed (roughly) the same stations over a period of many years to see if there was a general change.

    I hope that this has illustrated why – to demonstrate the existence of a process affecting a variable – you need a time series. not just individual measurements. And the longer the series – and the more measurements you get, the better.

    Unless I have missed it (if so please show where) there is inly one pH measurement for the Southern Ocean paper. The thrust of the paper is to construct and test a model of aragonite .. a worthy piece of work no doubt, but not hugely ‘au point’ to the topic of ‘ocean acidification’ .

    Similarly the Arctic ocean observations are an attempt to provide a comprehensive snapshot of the state of the ocean as it is today…..but sadly, has no information to help us look at processes. Maybe – if continued for another ten or twenty or thirty years this initiative will be able to do so. But not today.

    Here is the extract from their Q&A

    ‘Q: For how many years have you been doing this?

    A: We have been studying Ocean Acidification in the Arctic Ocean since the summer of 2010.’

    So thanks again for taking the time to do the research.

    Cheers

    Latimer

  40. #40 Latimer Alder
    January 21, 2013

    @BBD

    How are you me old pal, me old beauty?…Our paths haven’t crossed for quite a while.

    ‘Asking for long-series ocean pH data which don’t exist is a childish trick’

    Nothing childish about it. Nor a trick. Just trying to get confirmation of the theory.

    How else do you plan to experimentally/observationally demonstrate that ‘ocean acidifcation’ is actually occurring out there in the wild blue yonder if you don’t get some measurements and see how they vary over time?

    Do tell…because an awful of of people wasted an awful lot of time and money doing the same for temperature measurements and ‘global warming’ if you have a better method.

  41. #41 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    Still busy saying nothing, latte?

  42. #42 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    ‘why waste any further time on these psychotic liars?’

    Yes, many of us wonder this every single day you idiots whine up here.

  43. #43 Lionel A
    January 21, 2013

    Latimer Alder quoted (more context required – another cherry):

    …BBC interview with Feynman only yesterday. Reminding myself of his famous remark that ‘science is the belief in the ignorance of experts’

    Are you sure it wasn’t from another faux-sceptic.

    It is the company that you keep that gives your game away and as for the science under discussion – well there isn’t much of that just comments about the antics of the company that you keep. For a science writer to resort to WUWT to answer Tim’s riposte then shame on him and shame on you for not understanding what this thread is really all about which is

    the distortion of science by those who run the blogs that you appear to inhabit and thus go along with..

    Look to other threads where the nitty-gritty of science has been well dissected.

    Looking at some of the recent visitors here it seems like a three line whip has been sent around for the likes of you and Jay Cadbury phd (of Rabett fame, or more latterly as lumpusspookeytoothphd) to pitch in here creating noise.

    It’s a bit like being the sole Everton fan on the Kop…… or the Pompey fan at Southampton…but that too is part of the fun.

    Yeah! Right! That really clears things up. You enjoy being a troll. Shame about Scotland’s rugby team, perhaps they should have you as fly-half, you sure are ‘fly’.

  44. #44 BBD
    January 21, 2013

    Latimer

    Nothing childish about it. Nor a trick. Just trying to get confirmation of the theory.

    I doubt that. You will be aware as I am that ocean pH monitoring is in its infancy. Hence the tactic of asking to see evidence you know does not yet exist in sufficient quantities to ‘satisfy’ your criterion of evidence.

    It’s the same game you were playing at JCs. As I said, it doesn’t affect the chemistry one bit. What this sort of thing does do is illustrate how thin your playbook actually is.

    Now, you’ve been outed. You will need to come up with something else. And not another tired iteration of the ‘can’t get no satisfaction’ trick. Something different.

  45. #45 Latimer Alder
    January 21, 2013

    @BBD

    ‘You will be aware as I am that ocean pH monitoring is in its infancy’.

    Sure. And the consequence of that is that we do not have enough data to demonstrate whether or not ‘ocean acidification’ is actually occurring, The observational proof is not there. Maybe one day it will be…maybe it won’t. But right now we just don’t know.

    Unless of course, you come up with another way ….on which so far, you are strangely silent.

  46. #46 Brad Keyes
    January 21, 2013

    Well Latimer, you have the forbearance of a saint, for which I suppose I have to admire you…

  47. #47 Vince Whirlwind
    January 21, 2013

    Latimer says:

    You cannot demonstrate acidification from a snapshot. You need a time series of measurements.

    …which is exactly what I gave you, dickhead.

  48. #48 Latimer Alder
    January 21, 2013

    @BBD

    Forgot to add

    ‘It doesn’t affect the chemistry one bit’

    How do you know what the chemistry is apart from by making observations and doing experiments?

    Do you have another way?

    If so, please let us all know and we can shut down all the labs around the world as redundant archaisms.

    Perhaps you can do it in the same post explaing how to show ‘ocean acidification’ is actually occurring without making time series measurements?

    If you can pull those two off, I see a Nobel beckoning…..

  49. #49 Latimer Alder
    January 21, 2013

    @lionel a

    Gosh.

    Just a few posts from me here and there is quite a fluttering in the dovecotes. Didn’t realise that you were all so terrified of alternative views and of simple questions. Wonder why that should be? Especially as you probably consider yourself to be ‘radicals’.

    You say that this thread is about

    ‘the distortion of science by those who run the blogs that you appear to inhabit and thus go along with..’

    I guess you have never heard of a forum or been to the pub for a discussion with people you disagree with. Keep to your own kind no doubt – a bit like some of the more extreme religious sects.

    Your choice…you may keep your spiritual purity, but you’re not going to be very good at arguing your corner in the big wide world. Which probably explains why I have never come across any of you (bar BBD) in any other place.

    I wrote earlier that you should all get out more. Sitting around like nodding dogs agreeing that you should Kill all Deniers – or whatever the rallying cry ‘du jour’ is today – may be nice and cosy and unchallenging..but doesn’t get you very far.

  50. #50 Latimer Alder
    January 21, 2013

    @vince whirlwind

    Latimer says:

    You cannot demonstrate acidification from a snapshot. You need a time series of measurements.

    …which is exactly what I gave you, dickhead.

    Forgive me if I missed it, but I’d be grateful if you’d point the exact place in each paper where such timeseries may be found. I didn’t see them on a quick skim. but clearly you have studied the papers in greater detail than me and no doubt can quickly remember where to point me to.

    Thanks again.

  51. #51 Latimer Alder
    January 21, 2013

    @lionel a

    ‘the distortion of science by those who run the blogs that you appear to inhabit and thus go along with..’

    Don’t be ridiculous. My presence here doesn’t mean that I ‘go along’ with Tim Lambert. Until I was banned for some unfathomable sin I was a regular commentator at the Guardian CiF. Didn’t mean that I agreed with everything they said. Any more than my comments at Judith Curry’s mean that I hang on her every word agreeing with everything she writes.

    You really must grow up from this tribal view of the world.

  52. #52 chameleon
    January 21, 2013

    Latimer is giving you good advice deltoids,
    You need to get out more.
    Some of you have convinced yourselves that there is a scary tribe of deluded people called denialists who are intent on taking the world to the brink of destruction.
    Apparently anyone who dares to question assertions made by deltoids immediately means they MUST be a member of the deniers.
    Some of these assertions are made from the 4th floor of govt office buildings.
    The world, the politics and the research is moving on deltoids.
    Hiding here and pretending that’s not happening will not do anything to save the world.
    Despite all your petty name calling, people do care about the future of the world and the human race.
    Whoever you believe this mysterious and dangerous ‘deniers’ are, they’re probably not your enemy.

  53. #53 chameleon
    January 21, 2013

    And Lotharsson,
    forgive me for stating the bleeding obvious, but JeffH was talking about ‘theories’ in particular his view of the ‘climate change deniers’ conspiracy theory.
    I pointed out that the UN, the theory of global governance and the funding therof by govt grants are not ‘conspiracies’ they are well known and accessible.
    The only missing organisation is ‘climate change deniers’.
    So which one smacks of ‘conspiracy theory’?
    Are you denying there is a such a thing as a theory and/or/policy platforms for global governance and/or deliberative global governance that are studied via government funding?
    It’s all perfectly official and googleable.

  54. #54 guthrie
    January 21, 2013

    Yup, as I expected, Latimer is denying the science.
    What a pity.

  55. #55 Latimer Alder
    January 21, 2013

    @guthrie

    ‘ Latimer is denying the science’

    Please explain what you think I am ‘denying’ and why.

    Thanks

  56. #56 bill
    January 21, 2013

    I wrote earlier that you should all get out more. Sitting around like nodding dogs agreeing that you should Kill all Deniers – or whatever the rallying cry ‘du jour’ is today – may be nice and cosy and unchallenging..but doesn’t get you very far.

    You really do have a persecution fantasy thing going on, don’t you, Sprucey? You’ll drop it immediately of course, but it really is quite an insight into the febrile and reactionary world view that lurks beneath the cultivatedly urbane exterior.

    Have you conceded that you are simply not competent to make an assessment of the OA issue – despite your claimed, mysteriously-vague-in-the-detail, qualifications – and that you’re just behaving like a bog-standard wrecker (read Oreskes and Conway some day) of the work of the people who really are both competent and active? Using tactscs straight out of the tobacco-lobby playbook?

    You, sir, are a reactionary indeed!

    Oh, and now we see that you were a regular troll at CiF: and yet your first act here was to turn up and make false claims about Monbiot! What an honourable gentleman you aren’t…

  57. #57 Stu
    January 21, 2013

    Oh dear, how original. “You guys seem awfully upset over me asking just a few questions”, herpaderpaderp.

  58. #58 chameleon
    January 21, 2013

    BILL???????
    “Have you conceded that you are simply not competent to make an assessment of the OA issue – despite your claimed, mysteriously-vague-in-the-detail, qualifications – and that you’re just behaving like a bog-standard wrecker (read Oreskes and Conway some day) of the work of the people who really are both competent and active? Using tactscs straight out of the tobacco-lobby playbook?”

    You REEEAAAAALLLLLYYYY need to follow Latimer’s advice and get out more!
    Good grief!
    This comment makes it look like you’re suffering from some type of combination of bi polar disorder and agoraphobia.
    You are being startled by imaginary shadows Bill.
    Or to put it simply Bill.
    You have seriously, very seriously lost the plot!
    The world and the people in it who don’t necessarily have the same perspective as you are not that scary Bill.
    Honestly they’re not!
    They’re not funded by the tobacco lobby or anyone else and they are not trying to wreck anything.
    They’re quite happy for you to join them in this fascinating but imperfect rough and tumble life out here.

  59. #59 chek
    January 21, 2013

    WB Lionel., hope you’re feeling a bit better now. Those shingles can take the wind out of your sails for a few weeks.

    Ploughing through your recommendations all weekend (809 Sqn is a cracking read (but the occasional 892 bits are the best to a phanatic)).

  60. #60 Stu
    January 21, 2013

    They’re not funded by the tobacco lobby or anyone else

    Oh dear, we have a truly dumb one here.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

  61. #61 chameleon
    January 21, 2013

    But, but, but Stu?
    That’s the “Heartland Institute” !
    I’m not a secret member or a subscriber and as far as I know neither are lots and lots and lots of other people who don’t necessarily hold your political views.
    As far as I know, they don’t recieve any ‘secret or suspicious’ funding.
    Do they receive Govt funding of any description?
    If they receive funding from the Australian tax payer then I guess I could be a member????
    They’re not called ‘climate change deniers’ they are an organisation called ‘The Heartland Institute” and their sources of funding is not a secret or a conspiracy.
    You do know don’t you that the tobacco industry also pays substantial amounts of money to other causes?
    Including Govt organisations as well as other NGOs?
    It’s all perfectly legitimate and googleable.
    Do you have some sort of issue with industry, including the tobacco industry, funding research and charities?
    I agree that smoking tobacco is not good for you, but that would be conflating the issue here wouldn’t it?
    They aren’t funding the Heartland Institute” or many other forms of research and charities because they’re trying to make you take up smoking!
    In fact, they may not even know you exist considering you tend to hide out here in terror of all these awfully scary people you call ‘climate change deniers’.

  62. #62 Stu
    January 22, 2013

    Red herring, strawman, red herring, red herring, strawman, red herring, strawman, red herring. All with a light concern troll sauce.

    Content: 2/5. Being inconspicuous: 0/5. Need better trolls. Next!

  63. #63 Anthony David
    January 22, 2013

    Latimer.

    Scientists don’t necessarily need to measure a phenomena to make sound predictions. Global warming was predicted well before the measurements confirmed the theory. OA predictions are based on years of careful ocean and atmospheric carbon chemistry measurements as well as valid proxy measurements which are all the foundations of these predictions. The pH measurements cited confirm the prediction. (Naturally more measurements are better, funding is always a struggle for these projects). Our understanding of the saturation state of aragonite predicts problems for high latitude aragonite caclifiers. Recent observations are sadly confirming this prediction.

  64. #64 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    Pfft.

    Content holding steady at 0 out of 5.

  65. #65 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    “And the consequence of that is that we do not have enough data to demonstrate whether or not ‘ocean acidification’ is actually occurring”

    Nope, we do have enough data to do that.

    However, you will merely state a goalpost shift to avoid having to concede the point.

  66. #66 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    “Do you have some sort of issue with industry, including the tobacco industry, funding”

    PR lies.

    FTFY, chubby.

  67. #67 Stu
    January 22, 2013

    Wow, don’t you know? Only public monies are bad.

  68. #68 chameleon
    January 22, 2013

    No seriously folks!
    They do not call themselves the ‘climate change deniers’!
    They are called the ‘Heartland Institute’.
    It is in fact YOU PEOPLE who call them and anyone else who questions your political views ‘climate change deniers’ or “Denilaists”.
    And Anthony David,
    Theoretically you are correct but we need more than theory before we start interfering in the ph levels of the ocean.
    Latimer is correct that there is not enough evidence or work in OA to proclaim such confidence as has been claimed here.
    We could theoretically do more damage to the oceans by interfering in ph levels if we don’t know enough about how it actually works.
    It appears from the very few studies that have been done so far that CO2 especially from Anthropogenic sources is not a key driver of changes in the ph of oceans.
    In fact we don’t really have a ‘global benchmark’ for what we could theorise is a ‘satisfactory’ or ‘acceptable’ ph level of oceans.
    All we really know is it isn’t unusual for it to change or vary from natural causes.

  69. #69 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    “They do not call themselves the ‘climate change deniers’!”

    Nobody said they called themselves that.

    Do you make up EVERYTHING you see or hear, chubby?

  70. #70 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    “and anyone else who questions your political views ”

    More fantasy from chubby.

    Apparently facts are, to this idiot, “political views”.

    And denying they exist is “questioning” them.

    Sheesh. Ask your daddy to buy you a bloody dictionary, you daft bint!

  71. #71 bill
    January 22, 2013

    SHOUTY Chebbie, have you noticed that I don’t care what you think? It’s hard to imagine anyone with opinions more inconsequential than yours.

  72. #72 Anthony David
    January 22, 2013

    Chameleon
    We are already interfering with the pH of the oceans and it is all one way. Our benchmark is the pH of the ocean, measured and inferred, over millions of years. The changes are locked in and BAU means more changes down the line. The only way to rectify it is to stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at the extraordinary rate we are doing and the surface ocean pH should be restored in some hundreds of years at a minimum.

  73. #73 Vince Whirlwind
    January 22, 2013

    Latimer:

    Forgive me if I missed it, but I’d be grateful if you’d point the exact place in each paper where such timeseries may be found.

    Don’t be such a retard. This act of yours might wash amongst the mental incompetents that infest the crank blogs you recommend, but you’re not going to get very far anywhere else.

  74. #74 bill
    January 22, 2013

    Ah, just noted that mike the psycho – ‘reasonable’, ‘moderate’ Sprucey’s best mate (how about Tucci78, we wonder?) – has been disemvowelled!

    Truly well deserved.

    In all honesty, if you are indeed a US citizen and do have a gun cabinet, mike, your neighbours would be well-advised to get your name straight onto any ‘red-flag’ list that Obama might manage to set up (despite the best efforts of NRA hysterics – a strongly overlapping set with AGW Deniers, I might add.)

  75. #75 Vince Whirlwind
    January 22, 2013

    I noticed Mike had been disemvowelled, but I can’t see I noticed too much difference before and after.

    Funny how the frothing-mouthed lunatics, the liars like Latimer, the delusional like Spangly, and the lobotomites like Chameleon are all on the science-denial bandwagon.

    Maybe Lewandwosky should do IQ tests on them all and reveal to the world how objectively dim they are.

  76. #76 Lotharsson
    January 22, 2013

    what you’re doing here is heroic, and it’s a thing of beauty to watch one stand against many and kick ass…

    Oh my fucking word! That has to be the most unintentionally hilarious thing on the Intertoobz for months! Either that, or Brad has a peculiar private definition of “heroic” and “kicking ass”, in which case it’s merely kinda sad. (What is it with this phenomenon of tag-team denialists showing up effusively praising one another for their alleged bravery and alleged perspicacity?)

    Mind you, this:

    And there’s just the faint hope that somebody will start to use their brain rather than just wallowing in their tribal instinct…

    …runs second, albeit a distant second, in the unintentional humour stakes. (Plus it breaks another irony meter.) Well over 90% of what Latimer has posted at this site has been quickly shown to comprise fallacious logic but he simply declares it to be sound – indeed, sounder than the rebuttals! – and moves on to the next claim.

    As demonstrated by his deflecting non-response to my question last night, Latimer apparently can’t even grok the question about what the science says, how confidently it says it and why it says it, let alone answer it. And goodness gracious, produce his own best inference from all the evidence? Not on your life!

    Until he answers the question he is in denial of the important findings in the current scientific understanding, and of the evidence that it assessed in order to come to that understanding.

    Latimer, for example, opines that “It is not at all obvious that the weak carbonic acid like carbonic will overwhelm the buffering effect of the solution and surrounding rocks” but then refuses to ask “have scientists considered that question” – let alone “and if so, what did they find out”? When prompted to go find out – visiting a researcher who knows something about it, for example, if he couldn’t be bothered trying to do some kind of literature search – then he would rather not, thank you very much, presumably because that might uncover inconvenient evidence. He’s got one and only one method in mind which will allow him to graciously grant that a certain conclusion is indeed reasonable, and no other fancy schmancy scientific methods are gonna change his mind on that front, bucko!

    What it comes down to – as it almost always does – is that his “argument” is largely an argument from personal ignorance – and it’s quite determined personal ignorance – and an outright refusal to draw the best inference from all the evidence.

  77. #77 Richard Simons
    January 22, 2013

    I made this comment on the Open Thread a few days ago, but it seems to have been missed. I’ll shorten it and broaden the audience it’s directed at.

    Essentially no Creationists can give a brief summary of the Theory of Evolution. I suspect the same applies to people who can’t accept the reality of climate change,

    So, to those of you here who do not think that anthropogenic climate change is taking place (including those who compulsively avoid making any kind of clear statement): In the late 60s, when I was an undergraduate student, our crop physiology lecturer told us that global temperatures were likely to increase as a result of human production of CO2. He gave the reasons and we all agreed it seemed plausible. What do you think was the explanation and evidence that he gave us?

    My prediction: no serious attempt will be made to provide an answer.

  78. #78 Stu
    January 22, 2013

    Lotharsson: the only remaining step he has to make on the cognitive dissonance scale is the “real science” qualifier the truly insane like the J-man use all the time.

  79. #79 Lotharsson
    January 22, 2013

    Latimer also claims it was necessary to have a gazillion temperature records to confirm global warming. (Well, no – as various people have pointed out one can draw sound conclusions that warming must occur prior from other evidence including experimentally confirmed theory without having a gazillion temperature readings. Asking how analogous this is to ocean acidification is a useful question, so of course Latimer refuses to ask it. Nevertheless, entering the small subset of “what constitutes acceptable science to Latimer” for the moment, we proceed…)

    Latimer might like to try some of the simple temperature reconstruction code produced (IIRC) by caerbannog and available in various locations on the Interwebz. It allows one to select a subset of temperature stations and uses a very simple method to produce a gridded reconstruction. The interesting thing about doing this is how robust the warming signal is – in other words, how few stations one needs to incorporate to see a surface warming signal. (IIRC the analysis of Watts’ SurfaceStations data produced a similar result.)

    This was one reason why I pointed out Latimer’s assertion that a gazillion readings were necessary was false – the other being the experimentally confirmed theory that also says warming must occur.

    And if one does not need a gazillion records even for the surface temperature warming signal, there goes another plank in Latimer’s house of denial.

  80. #80 Lotharsson
    January 22, 2013

    Essentially no Creationists can give a brief summary of the Theory of Evolution. I suspect the same applies to people who can’t accept the reality of climate change…

    Yep. That is well worth repeating.

    And it’s precisely what I’ve been trying to demonstrate re: Latimer’s “understanding” of ocean acidification by asking him to specify what he understands the science says and why it says it.

    My prediction: no serious attempt will be made to provide an answer.

    Alas, I fear it would be imprudent to bet against that proposition.

  81. #81 Lotharsson
    January 22, 2013

    This act of yours might wash amongst the mental incompetents that infest the crank blogs you recommend…

    Well, Brad thinks it is heroic and chameleon praises it – so there is already some evidence in favour of the proposition…

  82. #82 Lotharsson
    January 22, 2013

    The only missing organisation is ‘climate change deniers’.

    It’s amazing how dense you are once you’ve decided on a “fact”. Jeff did not discuss any organisation of climate change deniers in that comment. This has already been pointed out to you in several different ways. It’s like your claim that Delingpole’s article quoted Flannery. You decided it did, and nothing – not even the plain facts which you can access by carefully re-reading the article – will dissuade you.

    forgive me for stating the bleeding obvious, but JeffH was talking about ‘theories’ in particular his view of the ‘climate change deniers’ conspiracy theory.

    Your bleeding obvious is (again) confused.”Theories” does not mean the same thing as “conspiracy theories”. Until you stop conflating the two you are going to continue misinterpreting things.

    I pointed out that the UN, the theory of global governance and the funding therof by govt grants are not ‘conspiracies’ they are well known and accessible.

    Yes, you did. We know. We saw. We understood.

    And we understood that you had (once more) misinterpreted what was said.

    Here’s what Jeff actually said when talking about conspiracy theories put forth by climate change deniers:

    Some of their illuminati have used everything from ‘its a global conspiracy to create a world government under the auspices of the UN’ to smearing scientists by bleating that ‘they depend on fear campaigns to secure government grants’.

    Do you see the bits in single quotes? Those are the examples of conspiracy theories that Jeff gave. Your comments don’t address those examples. You seem to think they do – but as I’ve tried to point out you err by conflating “global governance” with “global government” – which is exactly the falsehood that most conspiracy theories that it’s all a hoax intended to establish a world government under the auspices of the UN rely upon. In other words at first glance it sounds like you’re buying into one of the classes of conspiracy theory Jeff gave as an example.

    No-one here is denying the existence of the UN or proposals from various bodies for global governance of various issues. The conspiracy theories takes those facts and distort them into something they most clearly are not. Like you seem to be doing.

  83. #83 Lotharsson
    January 22, 2013

    Oh, good grief. Chameleon is trying to issue psychological assessments, so predictably they seem to bear no relation to the comments they are made in response to.

    And:

    They aren’t funding the Heartland Institute” or many other forms of research and charities because they’re trying to make you take up smoking!

    Er, yes the did and they do. That’s exactly why tobacco companies have funded The Heartland Institute – to make it easier for them to get citizens to take up smoking.

    The recent social engineering of internal Heartland Institute documents confirms they are still taking tobacco industry money, and one can easily find out that tobacco lobbying was a bit part of their work in the past.

  84. #84 Lotharsson
    January 22, 2013

    Bill points out that Latimer is using tactics “straight out of the tobacco-lobby playbook”. The perennially confused one somehow turns this into a claim by Bill that The Heartland Institute is a tobacco lobbyist – which she then enthusiastically (and falsely) denies.

    My head is already spinning. One imagines that some sort of cognitive deficiency is necessary to turn tactics used by a class of entities into is one of a class of entities. But in response to the ensuing rebuttal she then she gets even more confused and opines:

    They do not call themselves the ‘climate change deniers’! They are called the ‘Heartland Institute’.

    Why, yes they are. And they are paid to promote climate change denial – all perfectly googleable – which makes them ‘climate change deniers’. The hypothetical cognitive defect seems like a good explanation for turning an observation about what some entity does into a strawman about what said entity calls itself.

    I’ll also be fascinated to find out what evidence she thinks supports:

    It appears from the very few studies that have been done so far that CO2 especially from Anthropogenic sources is not a key driver of changes in the ph of oceans.

    Especially since this is pretty much going against Latimer’s faux “awwww, shucks, we don’t really know if it’s acidifying” line.

    But given the major problems with comprehension noted above I’m not sure she sees the contradiction.

  85. #85 Vince Whirlwind
    January 22, 2013

    Uh-oh, somebody better tell my local football team they they aren’t a football team, seeing as they call themselves, “The Sea Eagles”.

  86. #86 bill
    January 22, 2013

    Hey, we’ve been getting the North Koreans all wrong! Aren’t they called the Democratic Republic of Korea?

    And Heartland is the Tobacco Lobby. Along with its mates, of course,who also just happen to deny / have denied AGW, the CFCs and ozone link, acid rain, etc..

    The playbook is always identical. The likes of Chebbie and Sprucey Boy are just small suckers on the tip of one of these tentacles!

  87. #87 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @bill

    If I ever come across anybody called ‘Sprucey’ or ‘Sprucey Boy’ I’ll be sure to draw your remarks to his attention.

    I spent about five years working with a slightly larger than life guy called Dennis Spruce, but I doubt that it’s him you have in mind

  88. #88 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @vince whirlwind

    ‘Latimer:

    Forgive me if I missed it, but I’d be grateful if you’d point the exact place in each paper where such timeseries may be found.

    Don’t be such a retard. This act of yours might wash amongst the mental incompetents that infest the crank blogs you recommend, but you’re not going to get very far anywhere else.’

    Thank you for your reply.

    Just to check that I have understood.

    I was looking for data to demonstrate that ‘ocean acidification’ is actually taking place. And after extensive searching by good folks here and by me we had found only five possible examples.

    I opined that we had no data from the Southern Ocean or the Arctic.

    With some fanfare – and a little ritual personal abuse about my search skills – you presented two papers that you claimed remedied these deficiencies. After a quick study, I could not track down the relevant data in those papers.

    So I politely asked you to point out exactly where it could be found. Your reply is above.

    Seems like the locations of the relevant data in either paper may have slipped your memory once again.

    Please let me know if you do track it down, and I’ll be happy to add two more examples (making seven) to the five we already have.

    But it’ll still be a long way to go to catch up on the approx. 3000 examples (measurement locations) that were needed to show that global warming had actually occurred.

    Thanks for your time.

  89. #89 Brad Keyes
    January 22, 2013

    Vince, yes, I did say something about “liars.” If you think I belong in that class, then by all means demonstrate where I’ve lied to you or to anyone else. You won’t be able to, because I haven’t lied. Meanwhile I stand by my general execration of liars.

  90. #90 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @wow

    I opined that we do not have enough data to demonstrate whether ‘ocean acidification’ is actually occurring.

    You replied

    ‘Nope We do have enough data to do that’

    Really?

    An absolute top whack amount of 113 location years spread across just 5 locations is enough to confirm that ‘ocean acidification’ is taking place?

    Even though we have no measurements from the Southern Ocean, Arctic Ocean or Indian Ocean. None in the South Atlantic, nor the Southern Pacific. None around Europe, Asia or Australasia. None on the Eastern Seaboard of the US and none for Africa south of 25N?

    Doesn’t seem like ‘ocean’ acdification to me . Far too many oceans for which we don’t have any data at all. And far too little length of data for any of those we do have.

    The oceans cover 70%+ of the earth’s surface. And yet you are content to call an ‘oceanic’ phenomenon based on just five sampling points over a maximum of twenty years observations?

    ‘And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments (but be patient and listen to all the evidence) to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at.” RP Feynman

    It is my judgement that there is still a long long way to go and a lot of data to be collected from a lot more places before this theory can be considered ‘an established scientific fact’ as claimed by Guthrie

    But I guess we’ll just have to agree to differ.

  91. #91 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @lotharsson

    ‘And it’s precisely what I’ve been trying to demonstrate re: Latimer’s “understanding” of ocean acidification by asking him to specify what he understands the science says and why it says it’

    Seems to me that ‘the science’ doesn’t say anything. Experiments and observations are the things that tell us about nature. But allow me to let the far more eloquent Richard Feynman discuss exactly this point (and thank you for giving me this opportunity to bring it up)

    ‘“When someone says, ‘Science teaches such and such,’ he is using the word incorrectly.

    Science doesn’t teach anything; experience teaches it. If they say to you, ‘Science has shown such and such,’ you should ask, ‘How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?’ It should not be ‘science has shown.’

    Exactly. Or to put it rather crudely

    ‘Experiments and observations rule OK!’

    So – to answer your question – my understanding is that there is a theory about ‘ocean acidification’ based on lab experiments.

    But we are way short of enough real world observational data from different sites and over long enough times to demonstrate whether or not it actually scales from bench level to ocean level.

    Until we do collect that data it is not ‘an established scientific fact’. It is still an unconfirmed theory.

    Maybe one day it will be so established. Maybe it won’t. But until then, we just don’t know and it is foolish to pretend that we do.

  92. #92 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @lotharsson

    ‘One can draw sound conclusions that warming must occur prior from other evidence including experimentally confirmed theory without having a gazillion temperature readings. Asking how analogous this is to ocean acidification is a useful question, so of course Latimer refuses to ask it.’

    OK. I’ll ask the question

    ‘How analogous is this to ocean acidification’?

    You have clearly given the matter some thought so I’d be very pleased to hear your answer.

  93. #93 Vince Whirlwind
    January 22, 2013

    Stop crapping on, Latimer – the Southern Ocean data quoted in the paper I linked to is the exact same data I linked to previously.

    You may have engaged in “an extensive search for data”, which , if we are to believe you, spanned many years and was fruitless, however the rest of us have demonstrated that 30 seconds on Google will throw up no end of data, including data you have falsely asserted does not exist.

    What a tiresome little toad you are.

  94. #94 Vince Whirlwind
    January 22, 2013

    Having said that, it is a fact that CO2 in the atmosphere is taken up by any water exposed to it, until a point of equilibrium is reached. That uptake varies according to temperature and other factors.

    It is another fact that CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280ppm to 391ppm over the last 150-odd years.

    In what alternate reality would you need measurements from all around the world to show you that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere translates to increased CO2 in the water?

    You’re being an idiot.

  95. #95 Vince Whirlwind
    January 22, 2013

    I suppose, a failed “atmospheric chemist” who doesn’t know that temperature is the main driver for CO2 uptake (as per your mistaken assertion earlier on in this thread) who apparently doesn’t know how to use Google, might be able to claim that he doesn’t know what’s going on.

    Lucky others know what’s going on.

  96. #96 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @lotharsson

    Re ‘Caerbannog’

    ‘ The interesting thing about doing this is how robust the warming signal is – in other words, how few stations one needs to incorporate to see a surface warming signal. (IIRC the analysis of Watts’ SurfaceStations data produced a similar result.)

    Fine. Perhaps you;d like to report on how many stations are in fact needed to produce a robust result in the temperature case. And then perhaps we can work on estimating how many stations will be needed to produce the same (or not) for ‘ocean acidification’.

    Though it is perhaps a little more complicated since you have opined elsewhere that you don’t think the two circumstances are actually comparable……..

  97. #97 Lotharsson
    January 22, 2013

    Seems to me that ‘the science’ doesn’t say anything.

    You illustrate my point (and Richard Simons’ point) beautifully. Thanks! Perhaps instead of trying to co-opt Feynman (for what chameleon would surely call “arguing meaningless semantics” if she weren’t so busy applauding your performance) you should, you know, actually take his advice:

    ‘How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?’

    Very good questions.

    And yet despite wrapping yourself in the Feynman flag, you still haven’t applied them to ocean acidification, and accordingly still can’t give an account of the current scientific understanding on ocean acidification. How curious! Is it any wonder that you’re in no position to express faux-skepticism about the current scientific understanding? Your deliberately blinkered focus on how many modern data measurements – and your fallacy of the excluded middle between “unconfirmed theory” and “established scientific fact” – are NOT an account of the current understanding, no matter how hard you pretend they are.

    I predict you won’t give that account, because it would make it a lot harder to pretend that your position on the matter – complete with speculation relying on factors that may actually have been addressed by research – has little substance.

    We’ve seen this particular act time and time again and thus far your version of pseudoskepticism hasn’t provided anything new.

  98. #98 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @anthony david

    ‘Scientists don’t necessarily need to measure a phenomena to make sound predictions’

    Really? How do they do it – telepathy? Receiving the astral influences? Invoking the spirit of Aristotle? Going to conferences?

    Seems to me that if you had written

    ‘People don’t necessarily need to measure a phenomena to make predictions’,

    then you’d be right. But you can’t judge whether those predictions are ‘sound’ until you’ve done some measurements and checked whether the reality matches up with the predictions.

    You also say

    ‘ OA predictions are based on years of careful ocean and atmospheric carbon chemistry measurements’

    Umm…that is the whole point of this discussion.

    We’ve been looking for the evidence of the ‘years of careful ocean…measurements’. And it is in fact incredibly scanty…just five locations with data going back only a few years. And huge areas of the globe with no data at all.

    And I’m glad you agree that

    ‘More measurements are better’.

    Though I think I’d rephrase it as

    ‘a lot more measurements are essential before we know whether ‘ocean acidification’ is really occurring or not’ .

  99. #99 Lotharsson
    January 22, 2013

    In what alternate reality would you need measurements from all around the world to show you that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere translates to increased CO2 in the water?

    As I said, it’s the same “act” we’ve seen before. One generally holds out (implicitly or explicitly) either:

    a) the concept that some effect that has been studied to date has some attribute or mode or impact or scale of operation in addition to what existing studies have found which makes all the difference, or

    b) some other mysterious factor (“hypothetical cycle” being a particular favourite when this game is played with surface temperatures) has a large influence and is just waiting to be discovered as the real culprit.

    Neither one gives credence to drawing the best inference from all the evidence.

    In Latimer’s case the ones he’s been explicit about here are buffering and the effect of certain types of rocks, i.e. maybe they’re a large enough effect to counter the extra CO2 that enters the oceans. One immediately notes that he doesn’t appear to have even investigated what the current state of knowledge on these effects (especially their magnitude) is and he certainly hasn’t cited any data on how large an effect they have in anything like current conditions.

    One might be forgiven for speculating that finding out is not in his interest given that he’s clearly far more invested in promoting his doubt rather than discussing the best understanding we currently have…

  100. #100 Lotharsson
    January 22, 2013

    … you have opined elsewhere that you don’t think the two circumstances are actually comparable……..

    Let me try that again. I was attempting to opine that the two circumstances are quite comparable, BOTH in terms of number of stations needed being far less than you asserted AND because the best inference prior to large amounts of data coming in is that acidification/global warming will occur.

1 4 5 6 7 8 22