Nice one, twice at that, BBD.
I go away, track down and hopefully fix a water leak (I am allowed being an ex FAA plumber as they used to derogatorily label we AAs – in ‘The Mob’ which latter is JackSpeak, also on Kindle for the RN) and find you have done the biz plugging a leak in somebodies head.
#92, WW’s create nothing. They destroy.
I’ve just realised that I have Glen Matlock playing guitar on NMTB, which must have been a surprise for Steve Jones, who is hopefully not a regular reader of Deltoid’s bareknuckle forum.
I think what might have happened is that ancient memories of the fact that Jones played bass as well as guitar on most of NMTB (because Sid was abysmal and Matlock had left) confused me. Drink might also have played a part. Apologies.
SJ’s tone is interesting. Everybody seems to agree that he used a Fender Twin Reverb which is a tube amp not typically capable of a really dirty overdriven sound. SJ says he had Gauss brand speakers in it, which would have toned down the rather cutting top end you get from these things and fattened up the middle, but I still can’t really marry up his tone with an FTR as-is. SJ says that he laid down lots of guitar tracks one over the other on NMTB, which I’ll bet has a lot to do with it, but for my money, he probably used some kind of fuzz pedal or overdrive (signal booster) to get that grind.
Just been listening to it again. Cracking.
No sweat BBD – I assumed you really meant SJ.
And I agree that bog standard FTR’s are way too thin sounding compared to a Marshall or (my fave, until nicked Orange) valve top. But apparently he changed the speakers to Gauss, and having swapped out 4 xFane 12′s for 4 x Celestion back in the day that can make a difference. I’ll have to dig out the Classic Albums making of NMTB and pay attention to the scenery more!
One studio trick (in the Phil Jones – no relation – sense) that’s used is to feed the guitar track back through the amp and re-record it with slightly different tone settings and preferably a treble boost, which when mixed together with the original applying a couple of ms delay and panned properly gives a monster sound with lots of crunch and cut in there.
Then again, he used a Marshall on the reform your, so I tend to think that with good players, getting a good sound is as much to do with feel and physicality before a volt even gets generated in the p/u.
p.s regarding Gleick’s alleged forging that infamous Heartless doc, ISTR that Heartland swore that it didn’t exist on their office PCs, but didn’t mention their laptops or any other devices which were available then – way back in 2011.
An odd and far from cast iron affirmation.
Not that it matters either way now, except as a twig for deniers to beat up on.
More apologies. I didn’t realise you were a musician (“this is an FTR, chek” etc). Definitely agree wrt superiority of Celestions! Long ago, I had a 50W Marshall head and a 4x cab with Cs in it. But it was too loud for practice in farty little flats in London and too big. But back to SJ – if asked to guess I would have said “Marshall head” for the amp on NMTB. You might well be right about the mixing though – SJ says that he recorded several guitar tracks but that certainly doesn’t mean he *played* them and layered. Much easier to do it electronically and you get a tidy result without the imprecision of layering individual, separate takes.
Re libellous accusations that Gleick forged the HI documents, I can’t remember Watts actually denying that HI was paying him to produce a data visualisation tool to display NOAA temperature.
In fact I have a feeling that he may even have confirmed this, which would be rather strong evidence that the documents G obtained were genuine.
Does anyone know if this is correct? Did Watts confirm that HI was paying him?
No apologies required BBD. And that’s a nice rig you had and more than adequate for live gigs before proper pro PA systems came along. God, I recall counting 22 WEM 4×10 columns as ‘the PA’ at a Fleetwood Mac gig when they were a big name in Peter Green days. These days I find my 45 year old WEM 15 watter valve combo more than adequate for annoying theneighbours!
‘Ey up lad – Shall we break out the chateau de chassilier now?,
I’ll have to go look, but ISTR that the majority of the liberated docs were authentic, with just some doubt about he one (which possibly included the school outreach program) I mentioned a couple of comments ago not refuted in an entirely convincing way.
Ah, it seems that Watts confirmed the HI funding:
Readers may recall that when Peter Gleick first sent out the stolen Heartland board documents and the fake document to give the story “legs”, there was a mention in there of a project that I asked Heartland to help me fund. They found a private donor who was interested in my idea, and agreed to fund it. The amount of funding I received, based on the plan I submitted, was $44K, which when compared to many scientific papers and projects that get funded, is a proverbial drop in the bucket.
If Gleick faked the document, how is it that the dollar amount paid to Watts is exactly correct? Lucky guess?
Back in reality, this is clear, even conclusive evidence that HI was funding WUWT to the tune of $88k and that the document is genuine. That’s a hell of a lot of money for a data viewing utility.
I see Jeff Id in comments at Recursive.
Id frequently appeared at DeSmogBlog comments and is otherwise know as Patrick Jeff Condon who runs a ‘contrarian blog the Air Vent’.
Not to mention the HI funding to the New Zealand cranks (NSCSC I think) after they had repeatedly sworn blind they received no outside -let alone foreign – funding. That one was covered over at Gareth’s Hot Topic. Maybe an email to him will save you time?
I’m pretty sure I’ve seen Condon elsewhere – but not the last year or so. But the boringpredictabletedious tends to blur a bit, so my memory may not be wonderful.
I understand Air Vent were one of the prime movers in the so-called Klimatgate nonsense, but not being a follower of crank blogs I have no idea of subsequent sewerage they may deal in.
I must admit I ROFL-ed MAO at this from omnologos’ first comment at Climate Crocks:
John Mashey – whatever happened in 1998 is immaterial by now.
Perhaps omnologos should inform all of those “skeptics” who are still attempting to wage war on “the Hockey Stick”, or those that cherry pick the 1998 El Nino because their claims about temperature collapse if they don’t?
One has to admire the tenacity and skill of John Mashey of which his link at Climate Crocks to the Murry Salby affair is worth a follow so I’ll include it here:
Defamation By Internet? Part 1 – Murry Salby’s Short-Lived Blog Storm
and to which John Mashey promises a sequel ‘Defamation by Internet? Part 2 – SalbyStorm Surges Through (Un)skeptical Blogs‘.
A new EU survey shows that the overwhelming majority of EU citizens accept the scientific case for AGW and back taking action.
Key results :
Nine in ten Europeans consider climate change a serious problem
80% of respondents agree that fighting climate change and using energy more efficiently can boost the economy and jobs
92% of respondents think it is important for their governments to provide support for improving energy efficiency by 2030, with just over half (51%) saying this is ‘very important’.
(Each survey consists of approximately 1000 face-to-face interviews per country).
Sorry, that should be EU survey
A new paper on Sea Levels published in ‘Nature Climate Change’ 23/03/14
“Present-day sea-level rise is a major indicator of climate change1. Since the early 1990s, sea level rose at a mean rate of ~3.1 mm yr−1 (refs 2, 3). However, over the last decade a slowdown of this rate, of about 30%, has been recorded4, 5, 6, 7, 8. It coincides with a plateau in Earth’s mean surface temperature evolution, known as the recent pause in warming1, 9, 10, 11, 12 Here we present an analysis based on sea-level data from the altimetry record of the past ~20 years that separates interannual natural variability in sea level from the longer-term change probably related to anthropogenic global warming. The most prominent signature in the global mean sea level interannual variability is caused by El Niño–Southern Oscillation, through its impact on the global water cycle13, 14, 15, 16. We find that when correcting for interannual variability, the past decade’s slowdown of the global mean sea level disappears, leading to a similar rate of sea-level rise (of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm yr−1) during the first and second decade of the altimetry era. Our results confirm the need for quantifying and further removing from the climate records the short-term natural climate variability if one wants to extract the global warming signal10.”
“We find that when correcting for interannual variability, the past decade’s slowdown of the global mean sea level disappears, leading to a similar rate of sea-level rise (of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm yr−1) during the first and second decade of the altimetry era.”
Wow. So a period biased to La Nina has the expected effects on both global temperatures and sea level. And sea level rise is proceeding apace.
Thanks, “2″, for confirming what we already knew. No doubt this explains why this wasn’t published in a leading journal – not breaking new ground.
I see Richard ‘Groene Rekenkamer’ Tol is up to his old tricks again ina new climate change report. And the state-corporate media is buying it hook, line and sinker. Trust the BBC to overplay Tol’s as-usual nonsensical contrarian argument as if it is shared by many scientists. In fact, if one reads this stupid BBC article, its Tol alone who has concerns over its conclusions.
Old news. LN drives precipitation increase. Recent powerful LNs caused so much rain over land that MSL *fell*. Paper you link quantifies the effects.
See also Boening et al. (2012) The 2011 La Niña: So strong, the oceans fell
I see Tol has asked for his name to be removed from the WGII SPM, which is a step in the right direction. Self-marginalisation can achieve more than the concerted efforts of others in that direction.
For whom the bell tolls
It Tols for he.
I expect that Delers is raving at the moment with news that Siemens confirm Green Port Hull wind turbine factory to be built.
I may be going dark er long as XP support being pulled catches me at a low ebb financially and health wise and with much else going on around me. I have devices which ain’t likely to work well on Win 7 or even less likely Win 8 (which has a god-dam awful interface). Microsoft a message for you – ! The hassle is just not worth it.
If money does somehow permit, buy a cheapo Win8 box and connect to the internet using that. Network it to your XP box and peripherals via your router and everything stays much the same. Just don’t use the insecure XP box for internet access. Block it. Set options to “Access Local Only” or whatever the XP equivalent is in network setup.
Iffy link there. Hopefully this is what you were pointing at:
Siemens confirms Green Port Hull wind turbine factory to be built
Also, Lionel, Windows 8.1 can boot directly to the Desktop. You don’t get that irritating touchscreen interface.
Craig, its also worth observing that the Queensland floods in 2010 & 2011 (I suppose related to La Nina, but a notable excursion from the standard La Nina) had a measurable effect on Global Sea Levels. Since this comes towards the decade they were studying, it would necessarily flatten the trend through that period – possible accounting for all of the 30% decline.
Removing interannual variability makes trends more visible. In other news, water is wet.
BBD Yes thanks for adding a working link.
I have worked at manufacturing in GRP, polyester and epoxide for aircraft (Perspex too) and am impressed by the size of that mould.
And thanks for the OS tips, space is an issue with having two boxes and a notebook is out from gout. I feel like saying sod it and falling off this treadmill all together.
‘Where do I want to go today?’ To dump obsoleted kit on Microsoft’s doorstep.
a notebook is out from gout.
Why not consider an external keyboard? I never use a notebook keyboard if I can help it – they are vile.
Have you looked into specialist keyboards for damaged hands?
Don’t give up.
FrankD: “Removing interannual variability makes trends more visible. In other news, water is wet.”
When “Stu 2″ posted his link and quote, do you suppose he actually understood this is what it was saying?
Somehow I tend to think that 2Stu doesn’t subscribe to Nature, but rather was told by someone ‘here’s another final nail in the coffin of AGW’.
I just hope 2Stupid doesn’t spend the next month trying to defend his incomprehension like he did with Abbot & Pierrehumbert and Snowball Earth deglaciation.
There’s stupidity and there’s aggravated stupidity…
Aside, the Moscow March stats (near two centuries of them) may be trashed.
Old March record was +17.5° C from way back in 2007.
Day before yesterday, +18.8° C.
Yesterday, +19.7° C.
(AGW will not beat records once by a tiny margin. It will smash them multiple times in a row)
It seems that this is apropos the thread at Shaping Tomorrow’s World (and I’m talking about the main body, not the small mention of the withdrawn paper at the end).
(Delingpole apparently horrendously misrepresented the article that post discusses. It’s quite telling that he needs to do that over and over again…and as Torcello points out “…it is clear that the bloggers misrepresenting my views knew exactly what they were doing with the scandalous headlines and crafted misquotations. Even when they linked to my article, they felt secure in the judgement that their audience wouldn’t read it.”)
Yes, I read the DeSmog article. The vile tactics of the fake sceptics and the right-wing media need to be brought to wider public notice. Most people have no idea what these vermin are doing.
We spoke briefly last week about Michael Mann’s attack on “the right to free speech” in the Mark Steyn case. Judith Curry has more on this “Trial of the century?” here,
And BBC podcast here,
(Main segment of report at 29:45)
JC Quote: “The key statement of concern made by Mark Steyn is that Michael Mann molested and tortured data – specifically the tree ring data that were used in his famous hockey stick analysis. Unlike data that you collect in a controlled laboratory environment, climate data is messy. First you have to select which data you are going to use, and this selection process inevitably leads to concerns about ‘cherry picking.’ Second, you need to calibrate or adjust the data, particularly if you are using proxy data such as tree rings. And thirdly you need to select the statistical methods for analyzing the data. Mann’s data analysis has been criticized with regards to all three of these issues”
That comments section at the Torcello article had grown rather since I first looked in and I see one Brad Keyes who once haunted us in the mix cheer-leading for a Helen Stream both of whom have had many comments pulled. Alastair Leith has the measure of Keyes though with Brad’s,
quite apparent sense of intellectual superiority.
. Spot on Mr Leith.
It is a shame so many comments are removed, maybe one day a Collected Edition of the most egregious blog comments will be published with appropriate cautions.
It is clear that some bloggers are just plain ignorant, some are malicious but that does not exclude them having both of those qualities, if qualities can be considered an appropriate designation that is.
Trust GSW to inhale and exhale Judith Curry’s second hand smoke.
JC’s career, as a trusted scientist, will soon be in a more rapid spiral of decline than Arctic sea ice.
Do you really think that Mark Steyn understood the principals of Mann’s research any better than you do? Besides Mann’s resultant paper is long in the tooth now and has been backed up by many other studies using other proxies  since.
 Do you think that temperature can be measured without proxies of some form?
Steyn is fucked. He is a nasty, right wing thug who tried to smear the wrong scientist – someone who has had enough of lies and smears from the right wing thugs and the industry shills. And now he is going to get what he richly deserves.
More from Mark steyn here, his post,
“What Kind of Fool Am I?”
Mark seems to have newly acquired some celebrity[?] free speech lawyers lined up to fight his case, which is being billed as a “Trial of the Century”/”The Mann vs Free speech”.
These guys are unlikely to be cheap and those of you with an interest in supporting the right to free speech can do so here.
“Give the Gift of Steyn
…and help support free speech”
BBD said it. Steyn is IMHO an obnoxious right wing quack. Trust gormless to side with this kind of idiot.
Even you might understand this: MBH99 validated by PAGES-2K:
[Caption:] Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999 ) with its uncertainty range (light blue). Graph by Klaus Bitterman.
* * *
We go from 1999 to 2013. Many studies have validated the Mannean hockey stick but PAGES-2K is a multi-author, multi-institutional collaboration bringing together the very latest data.
Look at the graph above and read the words:
PAGES 2k Consortium (2013) Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia
Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.
Mann was broadly correct. Liars from McIntyre to Steyn are simply wrong. There is no room left for doubt. Not intellectually honest doubt, anyway.
We spoke briefly last week about Michael Mann’s attack on “the right to free speech” in the Mark Steyn case.
We also noted that this was not an attack on “the right to free speech”, but (unsurprisingly) that concept was too difficult for you to grok.
Speaking of too difficult to grok, Curry is conflating two different things, eithe to mislead her audience or because she’s not very good at grokking herself:
Mann’s data analysis has been criticized with regards to all three of these issues”
Steyn didn’t merely say that Mann had been criticised on “all three of these issues” – let alone establish that any of the criticisms were scientifically valid. He said far far more than that. And it’s the distinction between what Steyn said and Curry’s whitewash of it that matters here.
Ha. So Steyn is fucked *and penniless*. Well in the lovely, touchy-feely world of US law, he’s chum then.
PAGES-2K authors and affiliations:
Department of Botany, Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science and Technology, Karachi, 75300, Pakistan
Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, New York 10964, USA
Kevin J. Anchukaitis,
Brendan M. Buckley,
Edward R. Cook &
Jason E. Smerdon
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 2543, USA
Kevin J. Anchukaitis
School of Earth Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Asfawossen Asrat &
Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, Pune, 411008, India
Hemant P. Borgaonkar
Dipartimento di Matematica e Geoscienze, University of Trieste, 34128, Italy
Martina Braida &
Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Birmensdorf, 8903, Switzerland
Ulf Büntgen &
Département Paléoenvironnements et Paléoclimats (PAL), Université Montpellier, Montpellier, 34095, France
Brian M. Chase
Department of Archaeology, History, Cultural Studies and Religion, University of Bergen, Bergen, 5020, Norway
Brian M. Chase
Laboratorio de Dendrocronología y Cambio Global, Universidad Austral de Chile, Casilla 567, Valdivia, Chile
Duncan A. Christie &
Center for Climate and Resilience Research, Universidad de Chile, Casilla 2777, Santiago, Chile
Duncan A. Christie &
Australian Antarctic Division, Kingston, Tasmania 7050, Australia
Mark A. J. Curran,
Andrew D. Moy &
Tas van Ommen
Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, University of Tasmania, Sandy Bay, Tasmania 7005, Australia
Mark A. J. Curran,
Andrew D. Moy &
Tas van Ommen
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colorado 80305, USA
Henry F. Diaz
Department of Geography, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, 55099, Germany
Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Yunnan, 666303, China
Faculty of Science, Nepal Academy of Science and Technology, Khumaltar, GPO Box 3323, Lalitpur, Nepal
Narayan P. Gaire
Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, China
Quansheng Ge &
School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia
Departamento Astrofísica y CC de la Atmósfera, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, 28040, Spain
J Fidel González-Rouco
Lemaitre Center for Earth and Climate Research, Earth and Life Institute, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1348, Belgium
School of Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Studies, University of the Witwatersrand, Wits, 2050, South Africa
Stefan W. Grab &
David J. Nash
Hydrologic Research Center, San Diego, California 92130, USA
Nicholas Graham &
Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research & Institute of Geography, University of Bern, Bern, 3012, Switzerland
Martin Grosjean &
Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, 00014, Finland
Sami T. Hanhijärvi &
Atte A. Korhola
School of Earth Sciences and Environmental Sustainability, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona 86011, USA
Darrell S. Kaufman &
Nicholas P. McKay
International Project Office, Past Global Changes (PAGES), Bern, 3012, Switzerland
Thorsten Kiefer &
Lucien von Gunten
Department of Symbiotic System Science, Fukushima University, Fukushima, 960-1248, Japan
Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, 106 91, Sweden
Paul J. Krusic
Laboratoire d’Océanographie et du Climat: Expérimentations et Approches Numériques (LOCEAN), Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris cedex, 575252, France
Department of History, Stockholm University, Stockholm, 106 91, Sweden
Fredrik C. Ljungqvist
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd., National Climate Centre Auckland, 1011, Zealand
Andrew M. Lorrey
Department of Geography, Climatology, Climate Dynamics and Climate Change, Justus Liebig University, Giessen, 35390, Germany
Jürg Luterbacher &
Johannes P. Werner
Laboratoire des Science du Climat et de l’Environnement, Gif-sur-Yvette, 91 191, France
Department of Geography, Swansea University, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK
Danny McCarroll &
Maria R. Prieto
Desert Research Institute, Nevada System of Higher Education, Reno, Nevada 89512, USA
Joseph R. McConnell &
Instituto Argentino de Nivología, Glaciología y Ciencias Ambientales (IANIGLA), CCT-CONICET-Mendoza, Mendoza, 5500, Argentina
Mariano S. Morales,
Ignacio A. Mundo &
British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, CB3 0ET, UK
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Nagoya University, Nagoya, 464.8601, Japan
Takeshi Nakatsuka &
School of Environment and Technology, University of Brighton, Brighton, BN2 4GJ, UK
David J. Nash
Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32308, USA
Sharon E. Nicholson
Department of Glaciology, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association, Bremerhaven, 27570, Germany
College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4RJ, UK
Jonathan G. Palmer
Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
Jonathan G. Palmer,
Steven J. Phipps &
Chris S.M. Turney
ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
Steven J. Phipps
Centro de Estudios Cientificos, Valdivia, Chile
Department of Chemistry ‘Ugo Schiff’, University of Florence, Sesto Fiorentino, 50019, Italy
Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, USA
Timothy M. Shanahan
LASG, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100029, China
Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 119017, Russia
Olga N. Solomina
Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA
Eric J. Steig
National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research, Goa, 403 804, India
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA
Department of Biology, Ghent University, Ghent, 9000, Belgium
Department of Geography, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, K1N 6N5, Canada
Andre E. Viau
Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, 2100, Denmark
Bo M. Vinther
Institute for Coastal Research, Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, Geesthacht, 21502, Germany
Sebastian Wagner &
National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colorado 80305, USA
Eugene R. Wahl
Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA
James W.C. White
Department of Forest Science, Shinshu University, Nagano, 399-4598, Japan
PAGES 2k Consortium
Kevin J. Anchukaitis,
Hemant P. Borgaonkar,
Brendan M. Buckley,
Brian M. Chase,
Duncan A. Christie,
Edward R. Cook,
Mark A. J. Curran,
Henry F. Diaz,
Narayan P. Gaire,
J Fidel González-Rouco,
Stefan W. Grab,
Sami T. Hanhijärvi,
Darrell S. Kaufman,
Atte A. Korhola,
Paul J. Krusic,
Fredrik C. Ljungqvist,
Andrew M. Lorrey,
Joseph R. McConnell,
Nicholas P. McKay,
Mariano S. Morales,
Andrew D. Moy,
Ignacio A. Mundo,
David J. Nash,
Sharon E. Nicholson,
Jonathan G. Palmer,
Steven J. Phipps,
Maria R. Prieto,
Timothy M. Shanahan,
Jason E. Smerdon,
Olga N. Solomina,
Eric J. Steig,
Chris S.M. Turney,
Tas van Ommen,
Andre E. Viau,
Bo M. Vinther,
Lucien von Gunten,
Eugene R. Wahl,
Johannes P. Werner,
James W.C. White,
Koh Yasue &
Writing teamg: D.S.K. led the synthesis; N.P.McK., E.Z. & S.T.H. performed the synthesis analyses; D.S.K., R.N., L.v.G., T.K., H.G., H.W., C.S.M.T., F.C.L., V.M-D., E.R.W., & T.v.O. prepared the manuscript. Africa: D.J.N., A.A., B.M.C., S.W.G., S.E.N., T.M.S, D.V., A-M.L., M.U. compiled and evaluated the proxy data. Antarctica: T.v.O, M.B., A.D.M., R.M., H.O., M.Se., B.S., E.J.S., M.T., J.W.C.W., M.A.J.C., J.R.McC., M.Si. & B.M.V. provided proxy data, contributed to their dating and interpretation; M.A.J.C., J.R.McC., M.Si. & B.M.V. correlated volcanic markers; T.v.O & R.N. produced the reconstruction; M.A.J.C. managed the data. Arctic: A.A.K., D.S.K. & S.T.H. coordinated the study. S.T.H, D.S.K. & F.C.L. collected and reviewed the proxy data; S.T.H. calculated the reconstruction and managed data. Asia: M.A., K.J.A., H.P.B., B.M.B.,Q.G., E.R.C., Z.F., N.P.G., K.K., P.J.K., T.N., J.G.P., M.Sa., X.S., O.N.S. & K.Y. contributed, collected and analysed the proxy data; K.J.A., B.M.B., E.R.C. & P.J.K. performed the reconstruction; T.N., M.Sa. & F.S. provided technical support and managed the data. Australasia: J.G., A.M.L., S.J.P. & R.N. coordinated the study. R.N. & J.G. collated, managed and analysed the proxy data; R.N. & J.G. developed the reconstruction with input from S.J.P. Europe: U.B., J.E., S.W., E.Z., D.McC., F.J.G.-R., F.C.L., J.E.S., J.P.W. & J.L. collected, reviewed and analysed the proxy records, and provided input in the analysis and interpretation of the European reconstruction; S.W. managed the data; J.P.W. & J.E.S. produced the reconstruction. North America: H.F.D., E.R.W., V.T., R.G., N.G. & A.E.V. designed the study, analysed the data, and produced the reconstructions; E.R.W. & A.E.V. collected and archived the data. South America: R.V. & M.G. coordinated the study; R.V., D.A.C, A.L., I.A.M., M.S.M., L.v.G., M.R.P. & A.R. provided proxy data; R.N. calculated the reconstruction; R.N. & I.A.M. managed the data. All authors reviewed the manuscript.
Competing financial interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Do you UNDERSTAND what you are being shown here? This isn’t some trivial bit of paper. This is a mountain of work undertaken by a huge consortium of authors from institutions around the world. It is the state of the art.
Do you UNDERSTAND this?
Who the fuck is Mark Steyn?
Who the fuck is McIntyre?
And GSW you may care to peruse the many posts at Eli’s place on Mark Steyn v Mann, to get your story straight, starting with his last:
All of a Sudden the World Famous Attorney May Realize He Is In Over His Head
and Curry whitewashing on this could be bad for Curry who cannot seem to resist putting distance between herself and respectable scientists.
You may also care to go to Eli’s Home Page and scroll through the page noting a number of recent articles which you SHOULD read with a thinking head on, if you can find one that is, they will help set you straight on many misconceptions you have.
But of course that last suggestion is most likely wasted because you either won’t or you can’t.
As became clear during the Real Climate and its complementary Collide-a-Scape thread on Montford’s novel, a few years ago, Curry really was utterly clueless when confronted on her comprehension of Mann’s work.
And judging by the Steyn defenders that pop up on the Rabbet threads, he’s attracting plenty of crank idiots. I doubt he’ll be able to tell the difference when he chooses one for his defence.
ISTR mentioning rspung awhile back but as Lotharsson points out him making libelous claims. I guees that it is the eight in the ‘rspung 26/3/14 6:43 AM’ post in
All of a Sudden the World Famous Attorney May Realize He Is In Over His Head.
Note to our crank followers, that raft of comments from rspung is a salient lesson on what not to do if you judge by the responses given.
As for this gem:
Compare that image to the hockey stick. They didn’t call it the hockey stick for nothing. The pre-20th century line was as straight as an arrow.
Note to all tempted to go a hunting with rspung (I doubt that there would be many) – use your own arrows or starve.
What a fucking moron rspung is. Thanks for shortening my life by directing me to that comment thread.
Someone should inform the fuckwit that the reason RSS is an outlier is because of its geographic coverage: RSS: 82.5N – 70.0S compared to 85.0N – 85.0S for UAH.
RSS misses the strong Arctic amplification of warming over the last decade and it is enough to bias it cool. And that’s before we consider the cherry-picked start date…
The cool bias from lacunae in surface temperature reconstructions is also evident, as we see from Cowtan & Way (2014).
As I said, a knob-head. Quite why Eli puts up with these tossers is beyond me.
There’s also the factor that the NOAA satellite used by RSS is in constant orbital decay, with no propulsion system to correct it.
Being an older satellite also means it’s weighed down by those big, heavy mercury thermometers rather than the lighter alcohol ones used on UAH’s spacecraft and are therefore subject to less gravitationally induced decay.
Dr Inferno has covered this very subject some time ago.
Great plot idea from my friends at Medialens (UK):
“Plot idea: 97% of the world’s scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies”
We’re living in an age where parody is becoming less and less possible.
Ugh – Denial and Deniers, uuuuuuuuugly.
“Plot idea: 97% of the world’s scientists with the aid and abetment of the biosphere, the cryosphere, the hydrosphere and the global climate contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies.”
Chek, you’d be referring at least in part to Tony Abbott’s grasp on the important issues facing us I suspect?
Thanks for that Bernard. Indeed, its now better!
I see that the comments thread at The Conversation Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent? article has been taken over by the Orcs chuntering amongst themselves, probably best left that way – more fuel for Stephan Lewandowsky.
Did Richard Tol declare that he was refusing to sign the IPCC Working Group II Summary for Policymakers on climate impacts and adaptation to pre-empt news that his name was being removed for non-cooperation?
Reading the last paragraph of Eli’s latest: The Ferret Cornored
And about his statement that he would not longer sign the policy summary (SPM), Lynn commented slightly sarcastically that he (ER-Tol) had not taken part in writing the current version, but had separated from the writing group in the previous year. He had refused “repeated requests of the Working Group leader, Chris Field, to cooperate further.” Therefore his name no longer is included on the title page.
It could look that way to the casual reader.
Strange situation for an author to volunteer and then refuse to do the work. Then again it must be difficult reconciling the divergent aims of two organisations – working for the IPCC (for free) and the GWPF (probably not for free).
Chek @ # 63.
While you are partially correct that authors (either as invited or as volunteers) are not paid directly by the IPCC; they do not work for free.
” The IPCC is currently organized in 3 Working Groups and a Task Force. They are assisted by Technical Support Units (TSUs), which are hosted and financially supported by the government of the developed country Co-Chair of that Working Group/Task Force. A TSU has also been established to support the IPCC Chair in preparing the Synthesis Report for an assessment report. ”
Tol was clear about the reasons for requesting his name be withdrawn:
“Prof Tol, the lead co-ordinating author of the report’s chapter on economics, was involved in drafting the summary for policymakers – the key document that goes to governments and scientists. But he has now asked for his name to be removed from the document.
He said: ‘The message in the first draft was that through adaptation and clever development these were manageable risks, but it did require we get our act together.
‘This has completely disappeared from the draft now, which is all about the impacts of climate change and the four horsemen of the apocalypse. This is a missed opportunity.’
“Prof Tol does not dispute the view that climate change is caused by man – but he says its impact has been exaggerated.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2589424/UK-professor-refuses-apocalyptic-UN-climate-change-survey.html#ixzz2xEGvcs9q
“Prof Tol” doesn’t know the first thing about the relationships between biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and the importance of these to human civilization. Without a basic understanding of the myriad of ways the natural economy both works and supports the material economy, one’s opinions are pointless. The way I see it Tol doesn’t understand even the basics os systems ecology, and it is these same systems that sustain us and which are being challenged by AGW and other environmental threats posed by human actions. The fact is that Tol appears to advocate a form of neoclassical economics – which IMHO makes him a dinosaur. Also it appears to me that he’s got an ego the size of the Titanic.
The fact that the IPCC accepts people like Tol into any of their working groups shows how desperate they are to dilute the process of promoting mitigation. And the important point is that, even with people like him on board their conclusions are stark. But to reiterate, until Tol can show that he possesses even the most basic understanding of how climate change will impact biodiversity – meaning populations, ecosystems and biomes – his views are virtually useless.
As an aside, I invited him to lecture in a course I am preparing at the Free University in Amsterdam (I am a Visiting Professor there) on Science, Advocacy and Society – and he never responded to my email. To be honest, I don’t want skeptics in my course because my belief is that they are dead wrong, but I was willing to let bygones be bygones and hear what he had to say. I also invited a Dutch science journalist to speak and got a curt 4 word reply, “I’ll think about it”. This is the kind of response that will make me tell him to ‘jump in the lake’. s it is, I have some excellent speakers there, including a leading science writer from the UK. I don’t need Tol or any of the other skeptics who are on the wrong side of science.
As an aside, I invited him to lecture in a course I am preparing at the Free University in Amsterdam (I am a Visiting Professor there) on Science, Advocacy and Society – and he never responded to my email. To be honest, I don’t want skeptics in my course because my belief is that they are dead wrong, but I was willing to let bygones be bygones and hear what he had to say. I also invited a Dutch science journalist to speak and got a curt 4 word reply, “I’ll think about it”. This is the kind of response that will make me tell him to ‘jump in the lake’. As it is, I have some excellent speakers there, including a leading science writer from the UK. I don’t need Tol or any of the other skeptics who are on the wrong side of science.
Jeff Harvey times two.
Tol was not the lead coordinating author for a chapter on biodiversity.
He was the lead coordinating author for the chapter on economics.
Professor Tol hasn’t pretended otherwise.
I wasn’t questioning anything other than Chek’s comment @#63.
Stu 2, Tol is listed by the IPCC as a Coordinating Lead Author, and the IPCC page that you linked to says:
Hundreds of experts are involved on a voluntary basis in the preparation of IPCC reports. Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors for IPCC reports are selected by the relevant Working Group/Task Force Bureau… None of them is paid by the IPCC.
I seem to have missed the bit where it says that Coordinating Lead Authors are paid for their work – perhaps because I was distracted by the sentence that said “None of them is paid by the IPCC.”
So perhaps you are implying instead that Tol was paid by virtue of being a TSU member:
They are assisted by Technical Support Units (TSUs), which are hosted and financially supported by the government of the developed country Co-Chair of that Working Group/Task Force.
However that doesn’t necessarily mean that members of the TSU are paid for their work. There are a whole bunch of costs of running such a unit that do not constitute payments for expert contributions.
And even if that were to be established, one would need to show that Tol was a TSU member (which seems like a rather lowly position compared to Coordinating Lead Author). If it helps, here is the WG2 staff page showing the bureau members and TSU members. I may have missed him on that page, so feel free to point him out.
Tol was clear about the reasons for requesting his name be withdrawn…
He may have been clear, but that doesn’t mean his clearness was accurate and not misleading. Others have pointed out facts that appear to undermine his clear claims.
“Prof Tol does not dispute the view that climate change is caused by man – but he says its impact has been exaggerated.”
So…another case of someone with no expertise in the relevant disciplines other than economics, there being several such disciplines that are relevant to the claims he is making, who is telling whole fields of inquiry that they are wrong.
If you weren’t an expert yourself, who would you back – the experts, most of whom broadly agree – or the non-expert who disagrees with them?
They are not paid directly by the IPCC.
Chek has apparently assumed that means they work for free.
I assume you realise there is a difference?
Tol is an expert in his particular field and has not pretended otherwise.
I assume you realise there is a difference?
Yes, of course. That’s why I asked if you had any proof that he didn’t work for free, even allowing for the possibility that he might be paid as a TSU member out of a different budget than the IPCC budget. Since the IPCC says that people in his role are not paid for their efforts and you have brought no evidence otherwise, not even evidence of being financially supported via a TSU, then I will continue to infer that he was not paid for his efforts.
Tol is an expert in his particular field and has not pretended otherwise.
He appears to be making pronouncements outside of his field of expertise. Citing the fields that he is an acknowledged expert in doesn’t change or excuse that fact in any way.
What I am saying, and try to understand this, is that without a good working knowledge of the effects of climate change on natural systems and on the services that emerge from them, Tol might was well be writing about basket weaving. You appear to think that economics and biodiversity are independent topics. They most certainly are NOT. The natural economy underpins the material economy. This is the problem with many economists; they think that the material economy is somehow physically separated from any deleterious effects on nature. One thing for certain: people like Stu2 are certainly clueless when it comes to this. No wonder so many laypeople are AGW deniers or downplayers. They have not even a basic understanding of the fact that the human material economy is a small subset of nature,
In summary, I argue that Tol’s contribution to any discourse on climate change and its effects is likely to be garbage, unless he tries to link collapsing ecosystems, fraying food webs and failing supporting services into his little econometric models.
“Tol is an expert in his particular field and has not pretended otherwise”
More spurious waffle from Stu2. By downplaying the effects of AGW on humanity, he most certainly is overstepping his remit. Humans are not exempt from the laws of nature, although it appears that many economists can only measure their views of the effects in terms of winter heating bills, the effects on revenues lost from ski resorts, and other unimportant waffle. They cannot get it through their heads that human civilization is utterly dependent on natural systems and a myriad of conditions that emerge from them. They largely ignore or downplay this area, and focus on pedantics. That’s why its a waste of time listening to any economist and their views on any aspect of human-mediated global change unless they have thought very deeply about effects on natural systems. In doing so, they need to take courses on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, as some, like Geoffrey heal has done. As I said, Tol, could have learned a lot had he come to my course and discussed relevant areas with me. But, IMHO, his bloated ego gets in the way.
Why, oh why, do you insist on linking to stories (for children) in the Daily Fail, even somebody like you, about as dense as teak, would have noted the poor track record for accuracy of this gutter press paper for the would be upper class from comments here over the years.
One does not read the Mail on climate and expect the truth and sure enough there is an egregious untruth right off the bat in that article – highlighted to assist in your comprehension:
A climate scientist has accused the United Nations of being too alarmist over global warming – and demanded his name be removed from a crucial new report.
Tol is most definitely not a climate scientist, he is an economists a group that with a few notable exceptions are clueless about the magnitude, speed of onset and impacts of the climate change which is already under-way. Jeff Harvey has put you straight there and he would not have had to put in that effort if YOU chose to investigate the relevant literature instead of feeding at denier/pseudo-sceptic blogs and the known shaky press.
For those interested in a description of a history of Britain’s coastal erosion and flooding the I can recommend Outrageous Waves: Global Warming and Coastal Change in Britain through Two Thousand Years.
I purchased this book on sight from a local bookshop at about the time it was published and, in the light of recent events, I have dug it out and started reading it again. A very interesting section on the Somerset Levels is just one of many in a journey that travels around the coastline.
My only criticism is that Basil Cracknell has been taken in by the work of Willi Soon on the MWP which colours the discussion on this facet.
Lionel, Yes, I noticed that the Daily Fail article listed Tol as a ‘climate scientist’. How pathetic. They also do not disclose his links with a number of what IMHO are anti-environmental groups like the Groene Rekenkamer.
This is typical of the corporate media. Take one outlier like Tol, who isn’t even a scientist, and blow his importance out of all proportion.
Tol is (was) a CLA and as such unpaid.
2Stupid is applying denier logic essentially of the ‘if you tilt your head and squint just so…’ variety, as usual. While blowing smoke about TSU’s when challenged.
Meanwhile out in the world the right wing press spins it as “A climate scientist has accused the United Nations of being too alarmist ” (h/t Lionel) and we can safely assume Tol’s extra-curricular buds at GWPF are calculating his bonus as we speak. Job done.
It’s a war, and once again, just as 80 years ago, the Daily Mail has chosen the wrong side.
#75, nice find. Such catalogues keep their value whatever the author’s stance on climatological issues (if they don’t do what revisionists do: change or cherry pick the data to fit the ideology). Books like this hold value for a century or more in these times.
Meantime today I had a gig with someone who holds that the Sahara is vegetation starved because the atmosphere has been CO2 starved for such a long time.
Never mind taiga or Amazon and Congo.
Holland begins tomorrow a stretch of some four days skirting the date records again. AGW in Holland is higher temps (+1.5° year average compared to around 1900), more precip (+20 inland to +35% coastal) and more sunshine hours (+20% or so). Thus the sunniest March in the record is already from way back in 2003 but it will be smashed.
With circulation patterns getting stuck in totally unseen ways this could stick a half year like the westerlies did past half year. Then I have what I want for Holland: the inferno, that everyone says to hope for but will in reality be suffered bigtime. The days the country record of +38.6° C goes to 39.9° C then 40.8° C (using the margins Moscow updated its March record last weekend – I am the only one in Holland who believes that 40+ is possible in this country, try to realize that).
In other words, I have nothing to say about an economist who thinks he can do climatology because Delingpole said an artist’s degree is among the best credentials.
Meantime today I had a gig with someone who holds that the Sahara is vegetation starved because the atmosphere has been CO2 starved for such a long time.
I hope you explained equatorial convection and the downward, dry leg of the Hadley cell to him.
#79, BBD, stoop down some more. That would only give trouble. Apparently the Sahara desertificated sometime shortly after the Holocene optimum and how does the present Hadley constellation help then?
The point is he argues the Sahara is desert because there’s too little CO2 in the air. Temperatures, he thinks, are good and if there were more CO2 plants become ‘more water-efficient’.
Stoop low and witness how he mixes up percentages with absolutes and changes the subject when shown Amazon and taiga because, well, CO2-starvation didn’t kill those.
This guy is like a Jehova. Known the case for years. Trying to get at his brain but my instruments snap on the skull. Interesting.
A war with Wow would end the world within a night.
Indeed chek on the Spanish Civil War the Daily Fail it is clear where their politics lay, and it wasn’t with socialism as the paper tried to denigrate the volunteers:
It is clear when reading some of the letters that the volunteers were not “mercenaries who had left good homes and jobs to get rich in Spain” (Manchester Guardian, 20 November 1936), nor were they the naive political illiterates the Daily Mail would have us believe, when, in May 1937 it made the astonishing suggestion that most of the volunteers “had been lured to Spain and hoodwinked by promises that they would spend most of their time picking oranges.”
Spanish Civil War.
The Daily Mail’s owners were also pro Mussolini and Hitler during the 1930s and it would not surprise me if some from there were involved in the Hess affair (re ‘Double Standards’ Picknett et. al.) and even the shooting down of the plane on which they thought Churchill was flying for the plot in Double Standards makes clear that Churchill was aware of a higher state echelon plot to change the administration to a pro German faction. The way that the counter to Operation Cerberus failed could also be linked to similar entities involved in the Hess affair.
Conspiracy ideation, maybe, but more like joined up thinking. I have a folder of stuff I have collected on that Hess affair and it all makes very interesting reading.
I see that rspung really went off the rails in an earlier thread Unclear On the Concept over at Eli’s. I missed the tail of that thread somehow, so much stuff flying around at the moment.
As the climate change signal emerges ahead of schedule and people are taking notice so the noise from the suspects increases.
Damn. This will probably bring Duff and Rudolf out of the woodwork!
The Sahara did indeed desertify after the HCO and for the same reasons that the HCO was fading by ~6ky: precessional forcing. Precessional forcing peaked ~11ka and has gradually fallen ever since. Precessional forcing seems very likely to influence summer monsoons (orbital monsoon hypothesis).
The best discussion I have is that in Ruddiman (ch. 8) which is not available online AFAIK but here is a teaching aid with illustrations from that text.
The best think your interlocutor could possibly do is read Ruddiman. All of it.
Good find that BBD, the chapter mismatch 8 & 9 no doubt due to different edition sources. Which reminds me, an updated version has been published recently has anybody commented on any contents change?
Excellent book BTW which should be ‘shoved under the nose’ of the likes of rspung.
I just caught the tail end of a documentary about The Gulf, Saudi Arabia and that carbuncle of energy and water waste that is Dubai. Astonishing waste of water with the fountain displays every evening which out-displays Vegas and some. Also the staggering amount of water that is pumped up from aquifers for desert agriculture. So much water it draws in migratory birds and their hawk predators. Future is short as the water runs out in about a decade. What then, more economic migrants.
That’s what the desert needs, water not more CO2!
F*ck but I loathed Dubai. All the slaves from India keeping the place spic and span; all the petrodollar-fat indigenes being arrogant and vile; all the expats sucking the teats. A foul place.
Which reminds me, an updated version has been published recently has anybody commented on any contents change?
As far as I can see, nothing really major (publisher’s website statement on 3rd edn.)
Save your pennies and spend them on Ruddiman’s Earth Transformed, now at last available in the UK.
Clearly one has to watch Amazon. I bought a copy on release, about ten days ago, for £25. Now the main Amazon listing is £37, which is a non-trivial price inflation. See alternative suppliers list in link.
One for Jeff Bonaparte, article in der spiegel on the leaked IPCC draft,
” UN Backtracks: Will Global Warming Really Trigger Mass Extinctions?”
“In 2007, the IPCC predicted that rising global temperatures would kill off many species. But in its new report, part of which will be presented next Monday, the UN climate change body backtracks. There is a shortage of evidence, a draft version claims.”
Passenger pigeons get a mention (too tasty apparently), as do Polar bears,
“At most, the draft report says, climate change may have played a role in the disappearance of a few amphibians, fresh water fish and mollusks. Yet even the icons of catastrophic global warming, the polar bears, are doing surprisingly well. Their population has remained stable despite the shrinking of the Arctic ice cap.”
I’m sure somebody said PB’s were doomed a few years ago and I like the ‘may have played a role” in the disappearance of a “few” amphibians.
“Uncritically blaming climate change for species extinction is dangerous…”Monocultures, over-fertilization and soil destruction wipe out more species than a temperature rise of a few degrees Celsius,” he says. ”
Overall quite positive, combination of “better than we thought” and “still unknowns”,Author of the piece is Geologist/Journalist, Axel Bojanowski.
So Griselda, what makes a “Geologist/Journalist” your go-to authority on biological impacts?
Would you consult (and I hope for consistency’s sake you would) consult your dentist on your brain tumour?
In 2007, the IPCC predicted that rising global temperatures would kill off many species.
Give it time, GSW. Take a broad, general view of things.
Jeff Harvey @ # 72 & 73.
Try to understand this:
I was questioning Chek’s comment @ # 63:
“Strange situation for an author to volunteer and then refuse to do the work. Then again it must be difficult reconciling the divergent aims of two organisations – working for the IPCC (for free) and the GWPF (probably not for free).”
Quite clearly you do not agree with what Tol has said in public. I have not offered an opinion about what Tol said. I questioned Chek’s comment.
I questioned Chek’s comment.
… and got slapped down by the facts.
Just out of idle curiosity though, what was the point of your question meant to imply? That Tol was paid and didn’t do the work, or he bites off more than he can chew for the money … or what?
Just more irrelevant noise from you would be my guess.
It all boils down to whether we trust economic analyses of CC impacts over ecological ones. The former are not necessarily fully informed by the latter.
Nice to see R. Tol marginalising himself in his professional sphere as he has done in the blogosphere though.
BBD, I agree. Dubai is utterly foul. A cesspit of moral corruption.
Read more here:
Great piece of journalism.
“Tol said farmers, for instance, could grow new crops if the climate in their region became hotter, wetter or drier. “They will adapt. Farmers are not stupid,” he said.
Perhaps Tol should speak to those farmers who were unable to “adapt” during the 1930′s dustbowl and ask them what they were thinking, letting a minor issue like just three years of continual drought force them from their land. I’d bet an economist such as Tol would have nice, pat answers as he pretended to have the first clue about events occurring in nature.
The other piece of nonsense in Tol’s statements about farmers adapting is that he completely avoids discussing crucial changes in parameters which are heavily studied and their impact routinely analysed when talking about financial quantities: volatility and variance.
Climate change is going to make (and is already making) the weather more volatile and variant, i.e. less predictable with extremes becoming more extreme. Any economic analysis that told people they could simply “adapt” to changing financial conditions which left out the impact of volatility or variance changes would be considered negligent.
This makes him look like he doesn’t even apply key concepts from his own field of expertise to this issue, let alone factor in the available knowledge from the other fields he is not expert in.
Gormless is back with more utter bilge. The ariticle he alludes to says this: “On the other hand, the IPCC admits that there is no evidence climate change has led to even a single species becoming extinct thus far”
Again, this statement alone exemplifies the sheer and crass stupidity of those who just do not understand cause-and-effsct relationships in ecology. The fact is this: extinctions are hard to verify. It is easier to say a species exists than to prove it does not. Second, extinctions are not instantaneous events but generally occur over protracted periods of time. You don’t alter environmental parameter ‘X’ on day one and expect ‘Y’ number of extinctions on day 2. Populations undergo dynamic shifts towards new equlibria or not; this can take decades after the initial trigger. We know that the loss of tropical forests (and even temperate forests decades earlier) are still rippling through ecological communities. This phenomenon, known as the ‘extinction debt’ (Tilman and May, 1994, Nature) is something we ecologists understand well. Brainless idiots like GSW apparently not, as I have discussed it numerous times on Deltoid and each and every time its gone straight over his simple little right wing Steyn-loving head. And lastly, for a species to be officially recognized as being extinct by the IUCN, it must not be formally recorded in the wild for 50 years. The IUCN is a conservative body and thus extinctions are not measured lightly. The bulk of the warming has occurred since the 1980s – well under 50 years.
So, of course, Der Speigel’s article is a load of bullshit. Many studies are showing species in population free falls, as well as demographic shifts and other changes in response to warming. And as I have said on here also numerous times, AGW exacerbates other anthropogenic threats such as habitat destruction, other forms of pollution, invasive species, et al. In other words, many current and future extinctions will be ‘embedded’ in multiple stressors in which AGW might just be the ‘straw that breaks the camel’s back’.
If this is the intellectual level of your knowledge GSW, no wonder that I thrash you every time. Some advice: don’t try and debate me on anything remotely linked to conservation biology and ecology. I will annihilate your arguments every time.
Chek: Clearly ‘geologist/journalist’ Axel Bojanowski has a kindergarten level understanding of environmental science. Der Spiegel is wearing its heart on its corporate sleeve publishing this kind of drivel.
After reading GSW’s ignorant blather I was going to ask him if he understood the term ‘extinction debt’ but I see that Jeff beat me to it.
Nothing further needs to be said, except that my question would have been rhetorical…
That Der Speigel piece is a disgrace and this paragraph is one example of its inanity, or insanity at that:
But are such observations really an indication that mass extinctions are pending? “The critical value has not been reached yet,” says ecologist Niklaus Zimmermann of the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research. It will only become a problem when weather extremes occur more frequently. “Two hot summers in Europe in a row, such as the one in 2003, would probably have very serious effects,” Zimmermann explains.
So that ex-pert is qualified to discuss this because he knows something about Alpine trees but is clueless about what is going on in the rest of the ecosphere like er, um, oceans for example.
But considering the changes already taking place in the Alps such as an increase in erosion as rocks glued together with ice start to tumble at increasing frequencies and heavier rains cause more landslips, now he should know that, how can he paint such a rosy picture?
What utter bilge. It is more of the same old, same old – more research and more information before we can be sure. Aaaaaaargh!
On extinction debt here is something by which maybe even Gratuitously Simple Worms could grasp the issue:
Extinction debt suggests endangered species are doomed
and there are plenty more other examples.
Matt Ridley strikes again:
Matt Ridley op-ed is a laundry list of IPCC misrepresentations,
Right on cue, Matt Ridley has another error-filled opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal anticipating the forthcoming Working Group II (WG2) release of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) on climate change impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability.
and as I read down this article I was already prepared for these obvious contributors to Ridley brain (cerebral if you prefer) infarction:
However, Ridley cites the same handful of skeptic and contrarian scientists—including Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, Nic Lewis, and Richard Tol…
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.