The Australian is notorious for its attacks on climate science and its hypersensitivity to criticism, so this segment on the Science Show on the psychology of the rejection of climate science where this Maurice Newman opinion piece in the Australian was (correctly) described as "drivel" was pretty well guaranteed to draw lots of responses. So far there have been eight published. On the front page of Tuesday's paper we had the headline “It's OK to link climate denial to pedophilia, ABC tells ex-chairman Maurice Newman” (search for it if you wish to read the article). You have to read right to the end of the article to find out that the headline is completely false:
In its direct response to Mr Newman, the ABC maintained it did "not equate climate change sceptics to pedophiles".
So they didn't say it was OK, but rather denied doing it. Because they didn’t. Here’s what Robin Williams said on the Science Show:
What if I told you that paedophilia is good for children, or that asbestos is an excellent inhalant for those with asthma? Or that smoking crack is a normal part and a healthy one of teenage life, to be encouraged? You'd rightly find it outrageous. But there have been similar statements coming out of inexpert mouths again and again in recent times, distorting the science.
The example of a similar statement that Williams gives is Todd Akin’s claim that rape cannot cause pregnancy. Williams did not equate Akin with a pedophile, but rather said that Akin made an outrageously false and unscientific claim, A statement equating a group with pedophiles would look like this:
"The wind-farm business is bloody well near a pedophile ring. They're f . . king our families and knowingly doing so."
Of course, that wasn’t published by the ABC, but by The Australian (search for “Wind farm scam a huge cover-up” by James Delingpole) and yesterday The Australian was forced to publish this:
Third, it has concluded that the report of the anonymous remarks concerning paedophilia, a very serious and odious crime, were highly offensive. The Council’s principles relate, of course, to whether something is acceptable journalistic practice, not whether it is unlawful. They are breached where, as in this case, the level of offensiveness is so high that it outweighs the very strong public interest in freedom of speech
As you might expect, rather than admit that the two cases were different, The Australian’s Nick Leys complained that the ABC was being held to a different standard. As did The Australian in an editorial. And they also published a ridiculous rant from Delingpole making the same complaint (“Where free speech is as dead as the dodo”). Also saying the same thing was a column by Christopher Pearson (“Climate lunacy rules at Aunty”). I imagine there will be many more over the next few weeks.
The Australian also used this as an excuse to publish more drivel from Newman (“ABC clique in control of climate”):
We have seen the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change discredited. We know the science is less robust. And, for the past 16 years, mother nature has been kind to the sceptics. Because Williams says the entire globe is threatened in a way that is pretty dire doesn't make it so. Yet the "weight of evidence" argument is often used as a licence to vilify holders of alternative views. As a taxpayer-funded organisation, the ABC shouldn't even have a view on global warming. What it does have is a duty to all Australians to broadcast honestly the best available evidence on both sides of the argument so that we can make up our own minds. This is not happening.
You could make up your mind as to whether Newman’s claim that there has been no global warming for 16 years by looking at the data. Here, from woodfortrees.org, is a graph showing the temperature trend from 1980 to 1996 (the green line) and global temperatures since 1980. The data shows that in the last 16 years temperatures have been mostly above the trend line.
Newman also claims:
In March 2010 as chairman, I addressed an in-house conference of 250 ABC leaders. In a speech titled "Trust is the future of the ABC", I asked, "how might we ensure in our newsrooms we celebrate those who interrogate every truth?" I lamented the mainstream media's role as an effective gatekeeper. It was too conformist and had missed the warning signs of financial failure. I blamed group think and used climate change as an example. My mistake was to mention climate change.
Actually, Newman’s mistake was to smear scientists, accusing them of lacking in moral and scientific integrity and basing all this on a some blog posts.
Update: The Australian refused to print a letter from the ABC correcting the record.
- Log in to post comments
The worst thing about The Oz, the very worst thing, is that I now find myself bored with this claptrap. I can't even rouse myself to irritation or annoyance.
Morally, I and everyone else should be more enraged, more offended, with each additional item of evidence of their agenda. I feel weak and demoralised that this piling on makes me numb. I just hope this is a temporary thing - and that my ennui doesn't coincide with too many other people responding the same way. If we allow ourselves to be human and have the occasional period of burn-out, others who've regained their energy after their little time out will keep things ticking over for us until we're back.
But it still feels icky.
This, of course, comes from corrupting "no statistically significant warming" into "no warming" for the less complete Hadcrut3.
I predict the denialists are going to keep claiming no warming since September 1997 for a few more years yet by using their corrupted version of "no statistically significant warming".
Tim I think you have missed the point. Whether the planet is currently in a warming phase or cooling phase is largely irrelevant. The geologic record shows us that the planet has gone through many heating and cooling phases over its history - most recently warming from 800 to 1300 and also in the holocene only a few thousand years ago. The point is that people like yourselves always show temp data over a very short time period to support your own view - and you have done it again here - taking data from 1980 onwards. When climate change advocates, such as yourself, as prepared to provide temp data from about 5000 BC to the present time, and explain the several heating and cooling cycles that have occurred since then, a number of us will take you seriously. But whilst you only show limited data to prove your own point, you are not being honouring the real science. The earth has been here about 4.9 billion years - how about we talk about temps over a bit longer than 30 years which is what you are doing here.
The Australian's current defensive denialist hysteria rather reminds me of the NRA's current defensive denialist hysteria. The ludicrous level of epistemic closure combined with embarrassingly histrionic rhetoric is completely comparable.
This is what angry old white men are like, at heart.
And then there's the scrawny, oily gits. Delingpole is a symptom of the age. Ugly.
I saw the Newman piece but I missed Delingpole's screed. Once again Tim you've come to the rescue of those of us who are allergic to reading too much of the Australian.
It's been discussed many, many times before but one can only conclude that this campaign against climatological science is deliberate. If it wasn't, then the Australian is a sheltered workshop for journalists and editors who are insufficiently-skilled in their chosen field of work to be able to operate in mainstream media.
The only good thing about having them put their nonsense in print is that one day the rest of the country will be able to identify those who participated in causing mortal delay on mitigation action. I continue to hope that there may be a legally-based retribution for such people, but even if they escape that there will be moral retribution.
Sadly, there is no come-uppance that will ever balance the share of harm that the Australian's staff is wringing on the planet. Not even eternal pain and damnation in the lakes of fire in the Christian Hell would cut it...
[Note to the Australian - my comments above are different to saying that I think that your staff should be tortured. Your homework for next year is to understand why]
On a more positive note, News Ltd has posted a loss of $476.7 million for the financial year ending June 30.
I no longer get a paper delivered. Young people people are getting their news and views online.
The Australian is the paper of the old cranky white guy. Not good to have a business plan aimed at a dying demographic.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend…
who did you say were the denialists?
If you and the rest of the warmists were so damn correct in your science why isn't the world taking notice? Instead we have another failed lovefest at Doha and the world is ignoring you and your prophesies of gloom.
I'm currently in Dubai where they generate 23GW of power by burning Gas - they don't give tuppence for your silly AGW ideas. Qatar, where the meeting took place generates 3GW of power for their 2mil population - also 100% from fossil fuels - they don't give a stuff about your silly ideas as well.
You, Robyn Williams and the ABC need to take optical viagra and have a long, hard look at yourselves!
Boring. Next.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47
I vote for the cherrypicker!
63% of Indonesian men smoke. Following the blockhead's logic, smoking is no longer bad for you.
the world's really worried about CO2 production.
"“Thanks to abundant supplies and insatiable demand for power from emerging markets, coal met nearly half of the rise in global energy demand during the first decade of the 21st century,” said Maria van der Hoeven, the Executive Director of the Paris-based International Energy Agency.
Economic growth is expected to push up further coal’s share of the global energy mix, “and if no changes are made to current policies, coal will catch oil within a decade,” she said in a statement.
The latest IEA projections see coal consumption nearly catching oil consumption in four years time, rising to 4.32 billion tons of oil equivalent in 2017 against 4.4 billion tons for oil."
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=2…
MikeH - Lambert said this:
"You could make up your mind as to whether Newman’s claim that there has been no global warming for 16 years by looking at the data."
I gave you the last 16 years of data - how is that cherrypicking?
janama - not only do you have to cherry pick the start year, you have to pick a superceded temp series and even then there is still warming albeit not statistically significant.
From 1997
Hadcrut3 - Trend: 0.012 ±0.131 °C/decade (2σ)
Hadcrut4 - Trend: 0.049 ±0.126 °C/decade (2σ)
And exactly what are you proving? That the laws of physics changed in 1997? You are one El Nino away from having your childish argument look as moronic as your argument about coal use.
Here is the escalator again but in higher resolution - clearly your eyecrometer is not working.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator10-12.gif
Ah, one of the 'this blog belches carbon' brigade. Thinks the laws of physics are decided by popular plebiscite. Great respecter of Arab opinion on those occasions that it happens to coincide with his. What else does 'everyone in Dubai' believe, incidentally? All 100% correct, then?
In short, as I said; boring. Next.
And, indeed, one more El Nino and by their own logic this lot - who also simultaneously believe the very warming they deny is caused by the sun, cosmic rays, or mystical and laughably unevidenced 'natural cycles' whose duration expands as required - will all have to go down to the nearest harbour to, in the immortal words of Fred Dagg, 'pull a wave over their bonces'. It'll be that much easier with the ocean that little-bit higher!
Relax: that, of course, would be consistent, so there's little danger of it ever happening...
I picked a land based temp reading and a satellite reading - as you say the warming is not statistically significant which is what Newman claimed.
I'm not suggesting the laws of physics changed in 1997, I'm saying the CO2 effect, as determined by the physics, is at the point in it's logarithmic curve where a 9% increase in CO2 over 16 years is not significant in regard to global temperature. At max a doubling of CO2 will cause 1.2C increase and that could in fact be a good thing as the biosphere increases with CO2 increase. Any further increase due to CO2 is the pure speculation of computer models. The leveling of the past 16 years surely shows the models to be wrong.
I didn't put an argument regarding coal - I just posted an article stating what is happening regards the world's use of coal. You can draw your own conclusion.
The escalator is real cherry pickin!
Yep, that's right, fool - 42 years of very-statistically-significant-indeed warming is 'cherry-picking', whereas you have your' lack of significance' pearl to clutch (for the time being), a magical, undevidenced belief in a convenient sensitivity, and, of course, all those wise folks in Dubai on your side...
42 years of .6C warming that levels off over the past decade is nothing to get your knickers in a knot about, and please refrain from personal abuse, you only insult yourself.
Ah, janama returns after a blissfully extended absence...
His commentary recalls for me a_ray's observation at Pharyngula:
jamana playing with wood, here is another example:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1995/plot/rss/from:1995/trend…
Now what do you see amongst the trees? Oh. And think about all that Arctic ice melt - why is that happening?
How would you know as the system has not yet reached equilibrium. Only when it does, and it only will if we stop increasing the amount of GHG up there, will we able to put an absolute value on climate sensitivity.
This is what you, assisted by the likes of Lindzen and his acolytes, are ignoring inertia.
So what Lionel - the only wood worth it's salt is the RSS trend that is as good as flat - showing NH only is fiddling the books IMO.
"Oh. And think about all that Arctic ice melt – why is that happening?"
Didn't you read the NOAA press release that mentioned the cyclone that broke up the ice and drove all the ice southward where it melted! Oh, you probably didn't because the MSM didn't print it.
"How would you know as the system has not yet reached equilibrium"
Exactly when has the system ever reached equilibrium? the climate is an active, varying, unpredictable system.
I see you are still only capable of abuse and ad hom Bernard.
When you account for known natural variation (e.g. here) and warming of the oceans, we're still accumulating heat energy at a substantial rate.
Only a fool would look at that data and argue that something/someone is "fiddling the books", or that warming isn't happening, or whatever.
Didn't you know that similar storms have occurred in earlier years without anywhere near as large an effect? Why might that be?
Strange business is News Ltd. When it's not making a loss, it normally makes very little profit and pays bugger-all dividend.
e.g.
as Bill said. Boring.
Well, when you present no scientific case all that is left for me on which to comment is your inability to present a coherent rational case. If that requires an assessment that appears indistinguishible from what resembles ad hominem, then that is simply a reflection of your incapacity to make your case.
Of course, if I am wrong you should be able to present in one or two posts an evidenced-based, referenced, point-by-point rebuttal of the following:
CO2 is a 'greenhouse' gas
the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing
humans are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2
climate sensitivity is around 3 degrees Celcius per doubling of atmospheric CO2
the planet is warming as a result of the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration
natural forcings do not account for the observed warming
the cryosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere are all demonstrating empirically-provable responses to the planet's warming
an increase in the mean global temperature of 3 dgrees C will have serious negative impacts on the global ecosystem
a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will have serious negative impacts on the global marine ecosystem through the resultant ocean acidification synergising with temperature increase
an increase in the mean global temperature of 3 degrees C above the Pre-Industrial Revolution baseline will have serious negative impacts on the ability of global human society to maintain its coherence
an increase in the mean global temperature of 6 degrees C above the Pre-Industrial Revolution baseline will almost certainly destroy global human society, and probably even most regional human societies
an increase in the mean global temperature of 6 degrees C above the Pre-Industrial Revolution baseline will lead to a great extinction event
the planet's warming is superimposed on background 'noise'/variations resulting from the combination of natural forcings separate from human 'greenhouse' gas emissions
these background 'noise'/variations resulting from the combination of natural forcings have resulted in a 2-standard-deviation variation of ± ~0.2 degree Celcius/decade for the last three or so decades
this background 'noise'/variation means that, statistically, a certain minimum period of time is always required in order to observe the most recent portion of the signal emerging from the noise
this minimum period of time required to statistically identify signal from noise is currently at least 15-17 years.
cherry-picking intervals shorter than the period required to observe signal emerge from noise, in order to make claims about the underlying trend, is poor statistical practice
deniers are cherry-picking intervals shorter than the period required to observe signal emerge from noise, in order to claim that warming has stopped, and in complete ignorance (whether deliberate or otherwise) of the statistical condition noted above
the net consequence of (timely) mitigation against 'greenhouse' gas-caused warming would be positive for human societies
humans have almost certainly left it too late to mitigate to avoid the First-Chapter consequences of global warming
if humans don't move to mitigate in the very near immediate future they will have almost certainly left it too late to mitigate to avoid the Second- and subsequent-Chapter consequences of global warming
at this point the primary reason for human inactivity with respect to mitigation is the concerted and deliberate campaign of denial by ideologues and vested interests who want to maintain the fossil fuel paradigm
it will always be better for humans to mitigate to reduce warming than not but the return on any such action will diminish the longer we wait, to be effectively zero at the point at which mitigation is no longer possible, by which time global human society will be threatened as referred to above.
That'll do for starters. Others may want to add to that list.
Damn.
The new blog format doesn't automatically number the list.
Well, when you present no scientific case all that is left for me on which to comment is your inability to present a coherent rational case. If that requires an assessment that appears indistinguishible from what resembles ad hominem, then that is simply a reflection of your incapacity to make your case.
Of course, if I am wrong you should be able to present in one or two posts an evidenced-based, referenced, point-by-point rebuttal of the following:
CO2 is a 'greenhouse' gas
the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing
humans are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2
climate sensitivity is around 3 degrees Celcius per doubling of atmospheric CO2
the planet is warming as a result of the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration
natural forcings do not account for the observed warming
the cryosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere are all demonstrating empirically-provable responses to the planet's warming
an increase in the mean global temperature of 3 degrees C will have serious negative impacts on the global ecosystem
a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will have serious negative impacts on the global marine ecosystem through the resultant ocean acidification synergising with temperature increase
an increase in the mean global temperature of 3 degrees C above the Pre-Industrial Revolution baseline will have serious negative impacts on the ability of global human society to maintain its coherence
an increase in the mean global temperature of 6 degrees C above the Pre-Industrial Revolution baseline will almost certainly destroy global human society, and probably even most regional human societies
an increase in the mean global temperature of 6 degrees C above the Pre-Industrial Revolution baseline will lead to a great extinction event
the planet's warming is superimposed on background 'noise'/variations resulting from the combination of natural forcings separate from human 'greenhouse' gas emissions
these background 'noise'/variations resulting from the combination of natural forcings have resulted in a 2-standard-deviation variation of ± ~0.2 degree Celcius/decade for the last three or so decades
this background 'noise'/variation means that, statistically, a certain minimum period of time is always required in order to observe the most recent portion of the signal emerging from the noise
this minimum period of time required to statistically identify signal from noise is currently at least 15-17 years.
cherry-picking intervals shorter than the period required to observe signal emerge from noise, in order to make claims about the underlying trend, is poor statistical practice
deniers of human-caused global warming are cherry-picking intervals shorter than the period required to observe signal emerge from noise, in order to claim that warming has stopped, and in complete ignorance (whether deliberate or otherwise) of the statistical condition noted above
the net consequence of (timely) mitigation against 'greenhouse' gas-caused warming would be positive for human societies
humans have almost certainly left it too late to mitigate to avoid the First-Chapter consequences of global warming
if humans don't move to mitigate in the very near immediate future they will have almost certainly left it too late to mitigate to avoid the Second- and subsequent-Chapter consequences of global warming
at this point the primary reason for human inactivity with respect to mitigation is the concerted and deliberate campaign of denial by ideologues and vested interests who want to maintain the fossil fuel paradigm
it will always be better for humans to mitigate to reduce warming than not but the return on any such action will diminish the longer we wait, to be effectively zero at the point at which mitigation is no longer possible, by which time global human society will be threatened as referred to above.
That'll do for starters. Others may want to add to that list.
Double damn. I previewed on another blog and the numbers were there.
[Trying for third time lucky...]
Well, when you present no scientific case all that is left for me on which to comment is your inability to present a coherent rational case. If that requires an assessment that appears indistinguishible from what resembles ad hominem, then that is simply a reflection of your incapacity to make your case.
Of course, if I am wrong you should be able to present in one or two posts an evidenced-based, referenced, point-by-point rebuttal of the following:
1. CO2 is a 'greenhouse' gas
2. the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing
3. humans are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2
4. climate sensitivity is around 3 degrees Celcius per doubling of atmospheric CO2
5. the planet is warming as a result of the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration
6. natural forcings do not account for the observed warming
7. the cryosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere are all demonstrating empirically-provable responses to the planet's warming
8. an increase in the mean global temperature of 3 degrees C will have serious negative impacts on the global ecosystem
9. a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will have serious negative impacts on the global marine ecosystem through the resultant ocean acidification synergising with temperature increase
10. an increase in the mean global temperature of 3 degrees C above the Pre-Industrial Revolution baseline will have serious negative impacts on the ability of global human society to maintain its coherence
11. an increase in the mean global temperature of 6 degrees C above the Pre-Industrial Revolution baseline will almost certainly destroy global human society, and probably even most regional human societies
12. an increase in the mean global temperature of 6 degrees C above the Pre-Industrial Revolution baseline will lead to a great extinction event
13. the planet's warming is superimposed on background 'noise'/variations resulting from the combination of natural forcings separate from human 'greenhouse' gas emissions
14. these background 'noise'/variations resulting from the combination of natural forcings have resulted in a 2-standard-deviation variation of ± ~0.2 degree Celcius/decade for the last three or so decades
15. this background 'noise'/variation means that, statistically, a certain minimum period of time is always required in order to observe the most recent portion of the signal emerging from the noise
16. this minimum period of time required to statistically identify signal from noise is currently at least 15-17 years.
17. cherry-picking intervals shorter than the period required to observe signal emerge from noise, in order to make claims about the underlying trend, is poor statistical practice
18. deniers of human-caused global warming are cherry-picking intervals shorter than the period required to observe signal emerge from noise, in order to claim that warming has stopped, and in complete ignorance (whether deliberate or otherwise) of the statistical condition noted above
19. the net consequence of (timely) mitigation against 'greenhouse' gas-caused warming would be positive for human societies
20. humans have almost certainly left it too late to mitigate to avoid the First-Chapter consequences of global warming
21. if humans don't move to mitigate in the very near immediate future they will have almost certainly left it too late to mitigate to avoid the Second- and subsequent-Chapter consequences of global warming
22. at this point the primary reason for human inactivity with respect to mitigation is the concerted and deliberate campaign of denial by ideologues and vested interests who want to maintain the fossil fuel paradigm
23. it will always be better for humans to mitigate to reduce warming than not but the return on any such action will diminish the longer we wait, to be effectively zero at the point at which mitigation is no longer possible, by which time global human society will be threatened as referred to above.
That'll do for starters. Others may want to add to that list.
Oh Bernard - let's discuss your rant!
1. CO2 is a ‘greenhouse’ gas
No One disputes that.
2. the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing
No one disputes that.
3. humans are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2
well to some extent - a small change in ocean temperature will create more CO2 increase than we could ever dream of producing.
4. climate sensitivity is around 3 degrees Celcius per doubling of atmospheric CO2
Where do you get that from? most scientists agree a doubling of CO2 results in a 1.2C change in global temperature. Only computer modelers with their positive feedback fantasies suggest more, I assume you are a modeler?
5. the planet is warming as a result of the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration
There is no correlation to support that claim - hence the 9% increase in CO2 over the past 16 years whilst temps have remained constant.
6. natural forcings do not account for the observed warming
Which natural forcings are you referring to?
7. the cryosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere are all demonstrating empirically-provable responses to the planet’s warming
Do you mean the missing hotspot?
8. an increase in the mean global temperature of 3 degrees C will have serious negative impacts on the global ecosystem
strawman - you have no evidence such a warming will occur other than computer models that have been shown to be unreliable.
9. a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will have serious negative impacts on the global marine ecosystem through the resultant ocean acidification synergising with temperature increase
It has been shown that the marine ecosystem experience pH changes everyday way beyond the minute difference dissolved CO2 creates.
10. an increase in the mean global temperature of 3 degrees C above the Pre-Industrial Revolution baseline will have serious negative impacts on the ability of global human society to maintain its coherence
You have given no evidence for your projected 3C increase in global temps and such a statement is just ridiculous - man has survived a lot more than a 3C change in temperature. Today was 3C warmer than yesterday.
11. an increase in the mean global temperature of 6 degrees C above the Pre-Industrial Revolution baseline will almost certainly destroy global human society, and probably even most regional human societies
See answer to previous outrageous prediction! You're off you f**kin rocker!
12. an increase in the mean global temperature of 6 degrees C above the Pre-Industrial Revolution baseline will lead to a great extinction event
Show me one example of extinction that is attributable to man's burning fossil fuels.
Here's the latest extinctions - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_animals_of_Australia
13. the planet’s warming is superimposed on background ‘noise’/variations resulting from the combination of natural forcings separate from human ‘greenhouse’ gas emissions
That's just gobbledygook!
14. these background ‘noise’/variations resulting from the combination of natural forcings have resulted in a 2-standard-deviation variation of ± ~0.2 degree Celcius/decade for the last three or so decades
more gobbledygook
15. this background ‘noise’/variation means that, statistically, a certain minimum period of time is always required in order to observe the most recent portion of the signal emerging from the noise
so 16 years isn't long enough for you?
16. this minimum period of time required to statistically identify signal from noise is currently at least 15-17 years.
so 16 years shows nothing - what's your point?
17. cherry-picking intervals shorter than the period required to observe signal emerge from noise, in order to make claims about the underlying trend, is poor statistical practice
really? thanks for the lesson in statistics.
18. deniers of human-caused global warming are cherry-picking intervals shorter than the period required to observe signal emerge from noise, in order to claim that warming has stopped, and in complete ignorance (whether deliberate or otherwise) of the statistical condition noted above
forgive me if I think what you are saying is total codswallop! as does the rest of the world. - don't let me interrupt your fantasy though.
19. the net consequence of (timely) mitigation against ‘greenhouse’ gas-caused warming would be positive for human societies
how do you come to that conclusion? where has warming ever been detrimental to human society? I know that a freezing cold climate is being detrimental to the peoples of northern Europe as I type this! Your computer models didn't predict this did they?
20. humans have almost certainly left it too late to mitigate to avoid the First-Chapter consequences of global warming
That's pure speculations based on NO evidence...do you call yourself a scientist or are you just another computer programmer with an inflated self importance.
21. if humans don’t move to mitigate in the very near immediate future they will have almost certainly left it too late to mitigate to avoid the Second- and subsequent-Chapter consequences of global warming
so all the scientists that advise the world governments are wrong? otherwise they would be doing everything in their power to avoid the disaster you espouse - unfortunately you are being ignored, ever occurred to you you may be wrong?
22. at this point the primary reason for human inactivity with respect to mitigation is the concerted and deliberate campaign of denial by ideologues and vested interests who want to maintain the fossil fuel paradigm
When I put fuel in my car or turn on an electric heater I do not class myself as an ideologue - you may - I don't.
23. it will always be better for humans to mitigate to reduce warming than not but the return on any such action will diminish the longer we wait, to be effectively zero at the point at which mitigation is no longer possible, by which time global human society will be threatened as referred to above.
Since when has warming ever been a problem to mankind. The Roman's didn't wear Togas for nothing, the Brit's grew grapes where they won't grow today, and the Vikings thrived in Greenland. Warming is good!
you lost me with your stupid science fantasy - it's so full of holes I doubt your mind can even hold it together and keep you sane, get real Bernard - your case is over and out!
Didn’t you read the NOAA press release that mentioned the cyclone that broke up the ice and drove all the ice southward where it melted! Oh, you probably didn’t because the MSM didn’t print it.>
Thinking that others commit errors of omission simply because that is how you work betrays unbalanced logic.
Of course I knew about the August Arctic storm which broke up ice weakened by melt. Why did it melt first is what you need to consider.
Your biggest error of omission seems to be believing what you read on WeUseWishfulThinking and ClimateDespot both infamous for distorting any scenario.
Now if you were to read this What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum? then yoiu would be better informed seeing as that source relies upon the input of many accredited scientists and not one-string ex-weather men (unqualified) and a PR blow-hard or the largely lacklustre MM wherein physics, chemistry and many other appropriate sciences seem a foreign land.
It seems that deniers are being directed to this 'honey pot' with new ones, or are they socks, popping up every day now..
And from the blog of a respected scientist here is something to consider, it refers to the state of the ice and also the difference in conditions to other recent key melt years, furthermore it was posted the day before the storm hit: Harbinger?.
You were saying?
@janama
Your response to Bernard, beautifully argued if I may say!
;)
Lionel A - it's clear there are other forces in action regards arctic ice. Perhaps submarine volcanoes that are active in the area could be the cause. It's know there is volcanic activity in the Greenland Sea that links to the volcanic activity in Iceland.
Griselda simpered: "Your response to Bernard, beautifully argued denied if I may say!"
And yes, there is a difference, moron.
Janama is under the impression that folksy tales of Roman drunks and invisible volcanoes prove no global warmings, but strangely missed out on the opportunity to remind us of the China-Greenland trans-polar wine trade.Butis still banging the 16 year drum, thus we have yet another moron, lecturing.
.
When's someone gonna withdraw the funding to mitigate against that?
But somehow we've got 0.8C increase with half a doubling and heat going into the oceans as well.
It's the magic pixie dust heat source wot dunnit.
janama,
They BELIEVE mate and some of them even speak in tongues,
Facts are not part of that belief system, nor are real world, "folksy" observations., unless they are computer generated.
'Submarine volcanoes'? Are you guys still trying to run with that one? Give me a freakin' break!...
Pyjamarama is just the bog-standard, hand-waving, unevidenced, "my hubris beats yer fancy book-lernin' any day" Denialist article.
And still very, very boring.
Has scored some serious fawning from beta-male supreme GooSeyWuh, though, so the narcissist's preening regard is confirmed and it must all seem worth it, somehow...
Wrong in your very first response - not a good start.
And entirely unacquainted with the evidence as well.
Most of your other responses are wrong or confused or even flat out attempts to evade the question by misdirection, but since pointing that out in detail won't make any difference to you I'm not going to spend time on it today.
Better trolls please.
GSW self-demonstrates that s/he has no ability to separate fact from error or fallacy from logic and is apparently smitten by easily detected sophistry - or is just trolling.
Better trolls please.
Ian Thomson, what facts are you concerned about, that others are ignoring?
Where do you go to get your facts? From the experts? or from dodgy oil-funded ex-weathermen with no qualifications relevant to climate science and a long history of emitting anti-science?
If you choose to get your "facts" from the latter, why are you criticising others for placing their beliefs above real-world facts?
And as for Janama who apparently believes the Arctic melt is being caused by undersea volcanoes.....how much more retarded can you get than to be part of Janama's fan-club?
Positive feedbacks are a part of the natural world, as are negative feedbacks. The earth system is a complex beast. Factoring in positive greenhouse feedbacks is the only way modellers can get the Earth out of an Ice Age for example. Solar forcing alone is not going to do it. Palaeoceanographers were among the first to raise concerns about future scenarios, based on what they had gleaned from the past . If anyone has an alternative, detailed explanation with details for the rapid change from glacial to inter-glacial conditions, I'm all ears.
No One disputes that.
Liar.
The rest of your claims are lies as well.
If there was every any doubt that GSW is a liar, idiot, and ignoramus ....
Perhaps an inoperable brain tumor is the cause of your ignorance, stupidity, and intellectual dishonesty.
I see you are still only capable of abuse and ad hom Bernard.
As he has repeatedly demonstrated, he is capable of more ... but it is wasted on stupid ignorant dishonest intellectually lazy garbage like you.
Apparently none of you have read up on the 1.4 million estimated active submarine volcanoes so it's pointless mentioning it as is the volcanic faultline north of Iceland running into the Siberian sea.
I suppose you can't model volcanoes hence the ignorance of them
The Oz is still at it, declining to print a letter from the ABC correcting their front page headline. http://about.abc.net.au/press-releases/letter-to-the-editor/
'Estimated' by whom, precisely? Ian bloody Plimer?
First, define a 'volcano'. Then tell us how your submerged volcanoes compare to their terrestrial equivalents.
1.4 million eh?
And what evidence do we have that these volcanoes have either
1) increased in number or
2) increased their activity or, maybe ...
3) increased both.
When did this increase start?
Compared to what previous period?
Who has measured this?
Where are the numbers?
Seeing as you know more about this than I do, I'd appreciate some references to track down.
Just to be perfectly clear in case the above wasn't ...
It doesn't matter if there are 14 million undersea volcanoes if their activity hasn't changed.
Whatever influence they do or don't have is only relevant (to 27 consecutive years in which the temperature of every single month is higher than the 20th century average) to considering the extent and the causes of recent warming if they've changed in a significant way. .
Ah, that was going to be my next question. ;-)
I'll lay long odds that our learned friend will simply bolt or change the subject. Even by the standards of Denialist tropes the whole 'magical undersea volcanoes' shtick is ridiculous.
Though I'm sure these denailist Walter Mittys really imagine there's 1.4 million Mount Etnas under the sea that are not only responsible for all the Carbon Dioxide - after all, only agenda-driven hardcore socialists like the USGS disagree - but they've even managed to melt the Arctic over the last three decades without anybody noticing.
It is extremely difficult not to be outrightly contemptuous of the purveyors of such specious drivel.
Even magicker - these undersea volcanoes are managing to melt the sea ice from the top AND the land ice.
Janama is just retarded. GSW is an agenda-driven agent of misinformation. The rest of them are dupes.
@Vince
"GSW is an agenda-driven agent of misinformation"
I haven't been pushing any misinformation. That's all on your side- links to sks, Romm and tamino for goodness sake.
These guys are about as "agenda-driven" as it gets.
The denialsists seem to have latched on to the dispargement of 'models' are some kind of talisman.
Never mind that much of the technology they use and rely on daily involves modelling of all kinds.
Anti-scientific gibberish at its finest, from our dim-wiited deniers,
To get back to the interesting parts about paedophilia, does this remind the bunnies about something?
"The denialists seem to have latched on to the dispargement of ‘models’"
Even funnier is that self-appointed denier fluffer and assistant encourager in chief Griselda once (implausibly) claimed 'a background in particle physics'. Surprisingly, a fellow traveller has never been corrected on the subject of wicked, evil models by someone whose "work" would be impossible without them.
Agreed. The agenda at sites like SkS and Tamino is substantiated information and analysis.
That contrast was your point, right?
Aah, it's all the undersea volcanoze! I had a play with this a couple of years ago, and this is wot I rote!
"I was having some fun over at The Land the other week with one of the denizens claiming undersea volcanoes are responsible for the melting of the Arctic ice cap. While he wanted to rant about conspiracies and all that he does raise an interesting point which has made me think, just how much heat (and of course energy) do volcanoes need to add to the oceans to actually make any difference? So I figured I might do some calculations, there are a number of assumptions I will make and I’ll be quite open about them, I will however be generally erring on the conservative side.
It’s going to get a little complex but none of the calculations are all that difficult, grab a bit of paper and a pen.
We’ll assume a rise in average ocean temperature of 1 degree over 100years, assuming that this is constant throughout the water column (if it were due to volcanic activity the difference would be higher the lower you go as that’s where the heat source is but to make it easy I’ll stick with a one degree warming throughout the column), so how much energy does this take?
From basic physics we know that it takes 4.2 Joules of energy to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius (I’m assuming fresh water, I do know it’s salt water but the difference in the end will only be minor), from a quick Google search (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/SyedQadri.shtml) we find that the worlds ocean volume is around 1.3-1.4 billion cubic kilometres.
Assuming one gram of water equals one millilitre (yes, I do know the density will be a little different with salt water but in the end it really won’t make much difference), one cubic metre will equal one million millilitres (1 x 106 ml) , one cubic kilometre will equal one million billion millilitres (1x 10^15 ml) and will require 4.2 x 10^15 Joules to warm it by one degree, so the whole ocean will require 4.2 x 10^15 x 1.3 x 10*9 or 5.46 x 10*24 Joules of energy to raise it by one degree (this does make a very, very big assumption that there’s no energy lost from the system, counting in energy loss this figure would be much higher).
That’s a lot of joules, so what does this equate to? Another Google search on “world energy consumption” tells us the average annual energy consumption is roughly 5 x 10^20 Joules (my search said 4.74 x 10^20 but I rounded it up just for ease of calculation) so dividing or 5.46 x 10^24 by 5 x 10^20 gives us 10920 years of the worlds energy use would raise our oceans by 1 degree Celsius.
So what? I hear you quite rightly say, “the energy comes from cooling magma not from burning coal” so what we need to know are the melting point of magma and the specific heat capacity (specific heat capacity is how much energy it takes to raise one gram of a substance by one degree Celsius).
Another Google search on “magma melting temperature” gives an answer of between 700 and 1300 degrees to melt it depending on the makeup of the magma, in this case for ease of calculation we’ll pick a mid point of 1000 degrees. As for specific heat capacity, granite has a specific heat capacity of 790J/kg/degree or 0.79J/g/degree (we’ll round it up to 0.8J/g/degree for easier calculations, don’t worry this works out as more heat released for less weight which helps out the conservative nature of the calculations).
Time for a breather? Just to reiterate, we’ve figured out how much energy it would take to warm the world’s oceans by one degree Celsius, what we’re doing now is figuring out how much volcanic magma we would need to heat it by that much, as I’ve said, I’ve made a number of assumptions but they should result in a fairly conservative answer.
Ok, the amount of energy going into melting something should be the same as that released when it solidifies and cools so to raise 1 gram of granite to melting point of around 1000 degrees from a starting temperature of 50 degrees (it’s a lot hotter at the bottom of the oceanic crust than it is at the top so I figured 50 degrees would be a reasonable average), would require 950 (the temperature difference) multiplied by 0.8 (the specific heat capacity) or 760 Joules, that would also be released as it cools and solidifies.
So, what does that mean? Fair question, how many tonnes of magma would need to cool from 1000 degrees to 50 degrees to release that sort of energy?
Taking our 5.46 x 10^24 Joules of energy needed divided by 760 gives us 7.2 x 10^21 grams or 7.2 x 10^15 Tonnes. Granite has a density of around 2.7T/m3 and basalt around 3T/m3, for ease of calculations I’ll go with the basalt density which gives 2.4 x 10^15 cubic metres or 2.4 million cubic kilometres of magma needing to be produced by the worlds mid ocean ridges, volcanoes etc over 100 years to raise the oceans temperatures by 1 degree celcius (remember I’m assuming no loss, the actual number would be much higher).
As this mostly happens in the oceans and the oceanic crust is between 7 and 10km thick, we’ll assume a thickness of 10km giving 240 000 square kilometres of oceanic crust formed in 100 years.
Actually, it isn’t, that assumes all the action happens at the mid ocean ridges where the crust is formed and nothing at the subduction zones so I’ll halve it assuming (quite reasonably I think) that there’s as much energy released at the subduction zone as at the mid ocean ridges, so we’re looking for 120 000 square kilometres of new ocean crust formed in 100 years (remember, this is a conservative estimate, the actual number would be much more). Again using Google there’s around 80 000km of mid ocean ridge which means they’d have to widen by 1.5km in a century, or again being nice 750 metres either side meaning the continents would have to move at least 7.5 metres a year this is around 150 times faster than they are currently moving and to move 150 times faster you’d need 22 500 times the energy (remembering basic physics F=MV2).
These figures are very much in the lower end of the ballpark so if there is an influence from oceanic volcanoes on sea temperature and climate change we can see that it is very, very little. "
Lotsa ballpark, back of the envelope calculations but what it means is that if it is undersea volcanoze then runaway subduction (TM to some crazies) is happening.
Adelady's questions are quite relevant and if Bib and Bub can come up with numbers somewhere in the ballpark then they may be worth listening to.
Just this humble marsupial's opinion.
Hillier & Watts (2007) surveyed 201,055 submarine volcanoes estimating that a total of 3,477,403 submarine volcanoes exist worldwide.
The volcanic area I was referring to is the Gakkel Ridge that expands from Iceland, you know where the volcano was recently erupting, into the Siberian sea.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023767.shtml
It's easier to heat water from below than from above as in a kettle - try heating your bath with a hair drier.
This also goes to the fact that the northern hemisphere is warming yet the southern and equator isn't.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20UAH%20TropicsAndExtratropicsMon…
Er.. jamona if that was the case wouldn't the deep ocean be warmer than the upper layer? Except it isn't? And how are those freshwater lakes forming on top of the polar ice if being melted from below?
Do you think there may even be an orchestrated campaign of sciency-sounding nonsense being sold to know-nothings desperate not to believe anything the IPCC says?
Because, as we all know, hairdryers heat by radiating electromagnetic ener...oh, wait.
'The Gakkel Ridge' 'that expands from Iceland', eh? Oooh, detail to add verisimilitude; doesn't that sound all sciencey!
So tell us about the change in its recent activity, then, Pyjamarama. Papers from any reputable journal, please.
If you ever do decide you actually want to learn stuff, and not just regurgitate half-digested chum specifically designed to appeal to willfully self-deluding idiots, do try to wean yourself off the Right Wing blogs, eh?
ah chek - so all those active volcanic plumes at the join between plates and the submarine volcanoes gushing CO2 and hot water are cooling the oceans - got ya!
Yes Lotharsson, the hairdryers heat the surface and the result is water vapour.
janama in payamas:
This based on a crap from morohasy which is totally at odds with what real scientists are reporting:
Dr. Eric Rignot at AGU .
and its hypersensitivity to criticism leads it to conducting a war on journalism in which it gives people the "Oz treatment".
janama:
So you think that just because such volcanos exist, therefore they must be the cause of Arctic warming.
What a moron.
Is janama as stupid as it makes out?
"June 26, 2008 — A research team led by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) has uncovered evidence of explosive volcanic eruptions deep beneath the ice-covered surface of the Arctic Ocean. "
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080625140649.htm
similarly with Greenland
http://icons-ak.wunderground.com/data/wximagenew/e/ElijahSentFromHeaven…
ROFL! You really don't get the points people make, do you?!
Did you actually think someone that? Did you fail to understand what they were saying? Or did you avoid responding to what they were actually saying because you couldn't answer it?
As previously pointed out the relevant question is not whether they are injecting heat into the oceans, but whether they have recently started injecting heat at a higher rate thus causing ocean warming, or whether they're injecting heat at much the same rate as they have for a long time which won't cause warming because the heat injection at the bottom and the heat loss (e.g. from the top) will be roughly in equilibrium.
And as pointed out above if they were injecting more heat now than before then it would be warming from the bottom, not (as we can see) from the top.
You clearly don't have enough knowledge/science to make the kinds of claims you're making.
(And no, the existence of volcanic eruptions in the Arctic doesn't imply what you claim it does. See the earlier parts of this comment - and the one that gives you a rough estimate of how much energy would have to be released to create the kind of warming we see - which is simply not in evidence - an amount that happens to be entirely consistent with the radiative imbalance observed at the top of the atmosphere.)
Lionel A - in the video you posted Dr Rignot admits the Antarctic isn't warming - so what's your point?
A simple question for janama, for how long do you think these undersea volcanoes have been emitting their magma and heat? A few years, a couple of hundred years or millions of years? If I remember correctly tectonic movement has been going on for just about all the time that the earth has existed and associated undersea volcanic activity has been going on at approximately the same level for an equivalent time period. Since you claim that the undersea volcanoes are responsible for recent ocean warming of 0.1 degrees C per decade (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1960/plot/hadsst2gl/fro…) the oceans should have all boiled away in about the first 1000 years of this activity starting about 4 billion years ago. Please explain to us how this hasn't happened and that even though these volcanoes have been emitting the same amount of heat and energy for millions of years they have only started to warm the oceans 50 or 60 years ago? Which is, incidentally, the same time period over which real scientists have shown CO2 to be warming the globe.
You clearly didn't pay attention to all of it!
Janama.
You still haven’t understood even the basics have you? Of either the science, or the politics.
As has already been noted above, you are wrong. There are quite a few people who dispute this.
Thus far the oceans have been a net sink for CO2. You are wrong to suggest that the warming-related ocean out-gassing is at present contributing to atmospheric CO2 increase.
However in the future, as temperatures continue to warm, the oceans will no longer be a net sink and then they will outgas CO2 to the atmosphere. And that will warm the planet even more…
Where do I “get that from”? Why, from the professional literature of course.
When you say that that “most scientists agree a doubling of CO2 results in a 1.2C change in global temperature” you are attempting to fool the uninformed by ignoring the fact that this figure refers to the transient sensitivity, sans feedings-back. Feedings-back are an integral and an unavoidable physical reality - as nearly all scientists and even many engineers well understand. And feedings-back determine equilibrium climate sensitivity, which is the parameter that affects the future most dramatically.
It seems to pan out around 3 degrees Celsius, or a little more:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/fasullo-trenberth-2012.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/huber-and-knutti-quantify-man-made-global-warming.html
Depending on your definition of ‘equilibrium’ that sensitivity value could be even higher:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-feedbacks-anyone.html
Oh, and transient climate response may be a little higher than you are prepared to concede, especially if your concession is for your perception of equilibrium climate sensitivity:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/gillett-estimate-human-and-natural-global-warming.html
You don’t like modelling? Well, that’s your problem, because models are quite reliable:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
But it’s not only modellers that find positive feedings-back. Empirically-based studies agree:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/hansen-and-sato-2012-climate-sensitivity.html
Perhaps you are hoping to fool us with the Lindzen and Choi version of low sensitivity. Heh, that ostrich never flew:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen-Choi-2009-low-climate-sensitivity.htm
Schmittner et al. (2011) didn’t gather much more air under their wings either:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Schmittner-climate-sensitivity-goood-bad-ugly.html
So, you are wrong again.
There is a correlation to support the consensus claim – only a statistical illiterate would claim otherwise.
With respect to the temperatures over the last 16 years, I refer you once again to the idea of noise superimposed over a signal – a concept to which you are obstinately and recalcitrantly refractory.
Perhaps you need a clear example. Imagine that it is a month before summer solstice. It’s been cooler for the last three or four days than it was last week. Does this mean that the increasing insolation resulting from the annual axial progression of the planet does not warm the Earth?
Only an idiot would say so, and yet it is the same process with which you engage to compare climate signal to noise.
Any room on your plate for another ladleful of wrong?
All recognised natural forcings.
No, I mean the demonstrable changes in the natural world to a warming planet.
If that doesn’t shake your tree try using Google Scholar and “climate change” or “global warming” combined with “biological change (or response)”, “cryological change (or response)” and “hydrological change (or response)”.
Oh, and the hotspot isn’t missing. And if it were, it would mean that the way we understand the physics of any planetary warming is awry, not just the physics of human-caused warming. We know that it is warming, ergo a hotspot is expected. If there’s no hotspot it does not mean that our observation of warming is incorrect, it means that we are failing to detect a hotspot, or that the science of hotspots is not as clear as we thought.
Your strawman is immaterial to the fact of warming, and there’s now another big helping of wrong on your dinner plate.
Wrong.
There is much evidence that warming will occur. Basic radiative physics indicates that it will. Paleoclimate data indicate that it will.
And once again, your claim about the unreliability of “computer models” is – what’s that word again? - wrong.
You are confabulating the results of diurnal fluctuations with those of long-term fluctuations.
Many species can handle short deviations from their preferred physiochemical envelopes, even at regular and frequent intervals. It’s why penguins can dive for fish, and lizards can run across hot sand. However long-term decline in the mean pH of seawater has serious and even catastrophic consequences for the metabolisms of calcium carbonate metabolising flora and fauna, especially with respect to their abilities to deposit and maintain external calcium skeletons.
There’s also the matter of hydronium ion metabolism, especially in the context of electron transport chains, but this has not been large on the radar at present. However it matters for many species, particularly at the gamete/zygote/embryo stages. Rest assured that future work will show that non-calcium exoskeletoned species will also suffer with any decrease of pH below 8.0.
So basically – you’re wrong.
Once again you are confabulating short-term resilience with long-term tolerance.
A change in the mean annual global temperature of 3 degrees Celsius has profound impacts on the biosphere, including but not restricted to forests, fisheries, crop productivity, disease distribution and water distribution. Human societies as we recognise them in any form - from the Palæolithic period onward – have all evolved and existed during the Holocene, which is characterised by a remarkably consistence mean global temperature that has varied since the last glacial maximum through an estimated mean range of less than a degree.
It’s six degree warmer now than during the last glacial maximum. Another six degrees would place us close to the warmest point in the planet’s history for the last 55 million years, and not far behind the warmest it’s ever been. And there’s a very good likelihood of exceeding six degrees Celsius increase in mean global temperature with ‘business as usual’ carbon dioxide emissions.
Humans would not be able to live well on a plane that warm – if we could indeed live at all. Our physiologies simply aren’t designed that way (no endotherm’s is), and the stuffing-up of the planet that would accompany such a profoundly quick increase in temperature would guarantee that our post-oil/coal technologies (if anything significant exists) would not save us.
There’s a pattern emerging here janama – you are wrong.
Um, you are “f**king” wronger.
See my previous uncontroversial response to your blather.
Ah, another wrong-headed straw man.
And easily pummelled.
Of course you are ignoring the fact that we’ve only been seriously warming the planet for four or so decades, and extinction from climatological pressure usually takes longer than that. Extinction is not immediate. Ask me the same question in another few decades and the list will be long and rapidly growing, and it will include some iconic species. If you’re an Australian janama you should visit our ‘Snowies’, because the mountain pygmy possum will only exist in zoos in another few decades.
But it’s not just alpine and polar species that are being impossibly painted into the ecophysiological corners. Ranges are shifting and contracting everywhere, and the effects of warming are interacting with disease, human-caused habitat destruction, competition with human-transported exotics, human pollution, and sundries other confounders.
Only if one is statistically ignorant.
And wrong.
And more statistical ignorance.
And more wrongness.
Not if it includes cherry-picked dates and doesn’t account for the current noise over signal.
But then, I’m of the scientific bent.
Unlike yours, which is bent wrong
My point is that you are statistically-innumerate, -illiterate, and -ignorant, all rolled into one big ball. My point is that you are comparing apples to deniers' turds, which have a particularly rank odour.
My point is that your bastardisation of all that is logical, and rational and scientific stinks of wrong.
It seems to be the first lesson that you’ve ever had.
It obviously didn’t stick though, because it made no difference to you being gobsmackingly and predictably wrong.
Pardon me if I won’t forgive you.
And I rather think that your comment about “the rest of the world” thinking that the science I quote is “codswallop” is, now let me think about it for a moment... wrong.
But be my guest if you can prove your claim. Remember though that it only takes one black swan...
I come to “that conclusion” by reading the science.
To date humans have not experienced warming outside of the Holocene envelope, so your question is another straw man. However, the effects of global warming are anticipated in regional warming, which has been detrimental to societies whenever drought, disease, dustbowls and other ecosystem collapse, fire, famine and fighting for limited resources occur.
Current local cold in a small part of the world today is not a reflection of global warming impact over the next decades, centuries and millennia. To imagine that it is is profoundly egocentric of you.
And wrong.
Yes, “computer” do “predict” winter in Europe for quite a while yet.
So again you are, as is your habit, wrong.
Excuse me if I snort derisively in your direction.
My comment is supported and reflected by many climatologists and physicists. If you got out of your parents’ basement and darkened the doorway of a university, or even just used g00gle scholar, you’d understand this.
I call myself a concerned scientist, a very worried scientist.
I call you a denialist with an inflated capacity for being wrong.
The scientists who advise governments are doing everything in their power to attempt to avoid the disaster that they and I anticipate. It seems that the only ignoring around here is that in which you have engaged with respect to what’s happening beyond the door of that basement of yours.
I continually reassess my knowledge of the science, hoping against hope that climatologists, physicists, biologists and ecologists are wrong. I hope for nothing less. The enormous weight of evidence suggests the exact opposite – that the consensus and my acceptance of it are not wrong.
That same weight of evidence clearly indicates that you are wrong.
You have an army of straw men.
The ideology is not in an isolated instance of the use of fossil energy.
It is in the resistance to moving humanity forward so that we don’t rely on fossil energy, and that in so doing we provide ourselves, our descendants, and the biosphere with the best chance in the future of the opportunity for life that we enjoy today.
That’s were your ideology creeps in.
So now you’re chowing on wrong for dessert.
Warming has been a problem for “mankind” when it pushes us and/or our biology-based primary industries beyond our ecophysiological envelopes. Incipient global warming will be all the greater a problem for these same reasons.
Unsurprisingly, you are dead wrong about grapes in Britain.
The Vikings in Greenland were a group of recalcitrant ignorers of the ways of the natural world, who refused to adopt technologies sympathetic to the environment in which they lived, who were never prosperous to begin with, and who were wiped out be a very slight change in the mean regional annual temperature.
Which only goes to prove my point, and refute yours.
My case remains as solid as ever, which is to say rock solid, whilst yours disappears faster than smoke in a hurricane.
You have yet to point out any holes in the consensus science, you have engaged in much fantasy of your own but show none on my behalf, the only sanity in question here is yours, and my case is backed by evidence.
Your case is just bursting at the seams with wrong.
[*I gave up on all the other sics - there were too many to bother...]
Yes I did - and I heard a lot of "we don't know" in his talk.
2012 was a record antarctic sea ice extent
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=79369
and here's the arctic temperature since 1900 which clearly shows the arctic warming since 1980 but not warming more than in the 40s.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_…
An increase in Antarctic sea ice does not imply that the Antarctic is not warming, what it does fall in line with is an increase in glacier flow and increasing water vapour falling out as snow, but not much in the Eastern Antarctic which is as described almost a desert.
The warming of the West Antarctic peninsula is very real as this tells:
Antarctic Peninsula: rapid warming
and this tells what it means for some Antarctic inhabitants:
THE FEROCIOUS SUMMER Palmer's penguins
and the warming of Antarctica - PDF.
Your point is...?
Looks broken to me.
Furthermore, Central West Antarctica among the most rapidly warming regions on Earth.
You were saying janama?
Perhaps. Or just dishonest?
I went to all the links provided, and failed to see anything that supports the 'Arctic ocean ice melt is caused by undersea volcanic activity' hypothesis. Let alone the notion that it's the convenient trillions of undersea volcanoes causing the warming and the CO2.
You see, to anyone who's actually acting in good faith 'we identified and described some volcanoes' doesn't cut it, for the reasons outline above; before finding them guilty we need - (ahem) - the smoking vent.
Though one linked piece - provided, appropriately enough, by 'Elijah Sent from Heaven' - did sagely announce;
I rather think the words 'rate of activity' are required in the sentence for that last sentence to make any sense, but, basically, that's the question we're asking, and getting no answer to, beyond the usual hand-waving and willful lack of skepticism.
And literally pathetic 'evidence' such as this very jpeg.
Those interested in the actual reality of the Arctic crisis, on the other hand, might find the graphics at this link interesting.
Lotharson, also there would be a tell tale pH profile from the volcanoes
Goodness me!
Honestly, you people are just as vitriolic or maybe even more so than the people you are complaining about.
In essence, I agree with the main thrust of this post that modern day journalism rarely lets the truth interfere with a good story.
However, Robyn Williams and the Science Show exhibited similar poor behaviour in this instance & have often done so in the past.
It was 'infotainment' and it deliberately used an inappropriate analogy with paedophilia.
Not even slightly scientific in terms of the 'physics' of climate.
An attempt to defend that behaviour (regardless of your perception of the intent) is no better than defending the OZ!
But don't you think Lionel that by warming the past they are cruelling themselves for future AGW "adjustments"?
"They can’t find any recent warming, so they took a broken sensor with “intermittent gaps and other problems”, “recalibrated” it, “used computerized analyses of the atmosphere to fill the gaps” and “discovered” warming that “happened in the 1980s”. If you believe that this is science, then I strongly suggest you prep your telescope, lest you miss out on a spectacular sleigh sighting…"
Excellent point.
But not one that is likely to resonate with janama, as Bernard's epic fisk suggests.
Of course, to make that claim accurately one would need to recognise 'physics' and 'science' when one saw it, whereas chameleon on this and the Sea Level Rise thread clearly does not.
And gotta love someone who feels the need to undermine whatever credibility readers who haven't seen them comment before might be prepared to spot them by scare-quoting the term "physics".
I must say I enjoyed Bernard J's thrashing of The Wrongster above.
Lurkers and those who somehow have not managed to form - at any time over the last, say, um, decade or so, despite all the controvesry - an opinion on the single most crucial issue currently facing civilization might wish to read it and understand that Pyjaramarama's wrongheaded and unrelenting wrongful wrongness is not an aberration or even a personal idiosyncrasy - this is Denial, and this is the strength of its arguments.
Shallow old men who cannot accept that their-best-of-all-possible worlds might, indeed, be fatally-flawed, and who will stoop to any depth to avoid confronting realities their ideological blinkers refuse to transmit.
Join them, and lose. And look just as daft.
Antarctic sea ice extent is controlled by the circumpolar winds. The winds have increased due to the ozone hole.
janama --- Try to keep up:
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2012/12/can-last-glacial-maximum-cons…
which includes links to excellent papers on climate sensitivity.
chameleon,
I don't think so.
What's 'inappropriate' about it??
Unless you're running with the mistaken line that he called them paedophiles, which is clearly not the case.
Or do you think he wasalso claiming that denialists push asbestos as a treatment for asthma too?
No I clearly said he used an inappopriate analogy Michael.
Did you not understand the difference?
There was no 'unless' about my comment.
Lotharrson, as per the previous post, I do not know what your problem is.
Do you think using such an analogy is a good 'physical' representation of current climate science?
My point remains that I don't believe the ABCs behaviour was/is any better than the journalists at the OZ.
My question was - what's 'inappropriate' about it?
I note you use the word inappropriate rather than inaccurate.
That may be because, as you did on the other thread, you tried to tell me that I didn't say what I actually said. Your comprehension skills aren't very good in cases where comprehension would prove inconvenient.
Such as in this case, perhaps, where your follow-up question once again shows zero comprehension of my point. (It is also incoherent - the analogy clearly wasn't intended to be a representation of climate science whether 'physical' or physical.)
Drongo drops,
But don’t you think Lionel that by warming the past they are cruelling themselves for future AGW “adjustments”?
WTF is that supposed to mean?
To so slyly slalom around the sources that I pointed you to is dishonest. But that is nothing new.
And, garbled quotes from We Use Wishful Thinking will not cut it here and you could not even cut and paste with accuracy, too much Fosters perhaps, try Duff beer that should suit you better.
Now this is getting tedious especially as my only good hand is now incapacitated somewhat, pecking at keys whilst trying to operate a mouse using a stick between my teeth is becoming tiresome. So until you start learning to study sources diligently and understand why your pet ideas are just so damned wrong it is adieu from me.
Lionel.
Your salvation is at hand - or not, as the case may be:
https://leapmotion.com/
Excuse me for being pedantic Lotharrson,
But I commented on the use of the paedophilia ananlogy.
So who is actually claiming people are saying/not saying what they actually said or didn't say?
And Michael,
Do you think it's either appropriate and/or accurate for the ABC to invoke an analogy with paedophilia when discussing aspects of climate science?
I don't think the ABC's behaviour is any better than the behaviour at the OZ.
So in essence I agree with the main thrust of this post that journalism standards are questionable.
I'm unclear why Tim tried to defend one of them however.
It would seem that would have more to do with politics than science.
chameleon,
Accurate as an analogy -absolutely.
Inappropriate- well, that 's one purely subjective. I'd just note that in the context of the discussion - anti-science denialism in the face of one ofthmost pressing issues facing humanity - it amounts to petty pearl-clutching of the most astounding triviality.
Uber tone-trolling perhaps?
So now my question to you Michael is:
What's accurate about this analogy when discussing aspects of climate science?
I believe invoking an analogy with paedophilia has proved to be inappropriate and highly counter productive.
It has led to people throwing insults and/or becoming defensive and no further advancement of the discussion of science.
You however found it accurate?
Bernard at some point you're going to have to take stock.
When Ben Santer starts to say there are problems with the theory well maybe there are http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109.full.pdf
“The multimodel average tropospheric temperature trends are outside the 5–95 percentile range of RSS results at most latitudes.”
The lack of statistical trend of the last 16 years is a fair period of time. Most of us are surprised and you have to retrofit "other factors" to justify your position.
There is a no evidence of a tropospheric hotpsot and the temperature evolution curve shows as much.
So what have you got to keep going with the faith ? aerosols, cloud feedback, IPO change, weak sun ?? or wrong models
chameleon,
Climat escience per se, was not the topic. Robin Williams was taking about how clmate science is discussed in sections of the media and blogosphere, noting how much of it is wildly inaccurate and how that precludes rational discussion. He used some analogies to highlight just how scientifically wrong some of this stuff is.
He was not using the analogy to talk about the actual science, which is what you seem to believe.
The main point - you are ignoring the substantive issue to deal with stylistic trivia.
But you clearly are not.
A pedant would spell my name correctly. (But perhaps that's being pedantic ;-)
A pedant would not deny even tiny differences between two things, let alone large ones, when those differences are germane to the argument. You have repeatedly done so.
What Michael said. (As I tried to point out to chameleon yesterday).
(I predict chameleon will continue to argue about the tone, and is at least a 50% chance to repeat his implied claim that the analogy used was about the science rather than the pseudo-science and anti-science claims that abound in the media and blogosphere.)
I know . Robin Williams ridiculous analogy could be easily applied to catastrophic global warming alarmists, who have no data to back their wildly inaccurate assertions. Basing an argument on climate modelling that empirical data continues to prove inaccurate is not the scientific method in practice. If a model fails in it's predictive ability, obviously that model is flawed and should not be relied on. IPCC temperature projections did not even meet the low-end probability scenario, yet we see media releases recently that state the IPCC's projections have been proven accurate. Then with absolutely no data to support it, alarmist sites bleat that there is a very high probability that there will be a 4 - 6 degree Celsius rise in temperature by 2100. That's after the empirical data showing that with a substantial increase in CO2 we have not seen a commensurate rise in temperature that models claimed would occur. Temperature rise does not correlate with an estimated 30% increase in CO2 since 2000. Even if CO2 emissions had stayed at 1990 levels more warming was predicted than what eventuated. The IPCC, and it's believers base it's future climate outcomes on models, that data shows to be incorrect. It's about time, considering the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted, and the sickening effort to try to restrict the third world to expensive electricity generation, that eco-narcissists stopped avoiding the empirical evidence just because it is inconvenient to their ideology.
Also I have a phobia of paragraphs.
No Michael,
I am commenting on the results of the behaviour.
I agree that the analogy has nothing to do with the actual science.
I actually did write that at the start.
Considering the headline at this post is claiming it is about science I am now unclear what you think you are defending in relation to my comment.
Perhaps Michael it has more to do with political opinions than science?
That would explain why poor journalism is excused in one instance and not in another.
Lotharsson,
my bad.
Apologies for the double r instead of s.
No disrespect intended.
Pity you're not as good at picking up the main point of my comments as you are at spotting spelling errors :-)
I was also not aware that you are a fortune teller who likes to 'predict' what others will say?
"I agree that the analogy has nothing to do with the actual science. I actually did write that at the start." - chameleon.
My response was this just the post before the comment above;
"What’s accurate about this analogy when discussing aspects of climate science?" -chameleon.
You might need to make up your mind as to wether you think the analogy with in relation tot he scienc eor not.
As to accuracy - well, obviously it is. Could it be any simpler to understand - the analogy is to other important and obviously unfactual statements, that we wouldn't entertain for a second as reasonable.
Surely it's not that hard to understand.
But the question remains unanswered - why is it 'inappropriate'. Specifics please.
Lotharsson may or not be a fortune teller, but his prediction that chameleon would continue in the vein of tone trolling was spot on.
Something chameleon, unfortunately hasn't the self-awareness to recognize.
Only the ones that appear to be quite predictable.
It's a subtle hint that could provoke useful insight, but is unfortunately rarely grokked by those it is made about.
Paedophilia is a horrible and unacceptable behavioural practice in our society.
Debate about politics is common and accepted practice in our society.
Scientists and other academics like to argue and that is also common and tolerated.
Obviously, some here are also happy to tolerate questionable behaviour by jounalists or media personalities and think it is OK to invoke a comparison with paedophilia if the 'intent' was in line with one's beliefs?
My point remains that I don't think the behaviour at the ABC in this instance is any better or worse than the behaviour at the OZ.
I actually agree with most of the comments made about the media here. I just don't believe behaviour at the ABC is any better/worse.
I also don't think any of it has much to do with science.
There was no "comparison with paedophilia". It was analogy about making untrue statements - as has been pointed out to you repeatedly.
This is confected concern built on a deliberate misrepresentation.
Stick to the facts.
What you're failing to grasp, Michael, is that if Robin Williams used the word 'pedophile' in one sentence, and the Uriah Creep of the Telegraph used it in another, clearly that makes them exactly the same.
To the kind of mind that embraces Denial, this all makes sense...
I am loving how much you people can manage to write denial and/or denialist in your comments :-)
I have had fun discovering this site :-)
Good holiday entertainment :-)
Troll it is.
True, although it was obvious pretty early on ;-)
I like to give the benefit of the doubt until said doubt is completely gone.
William Connolley in response to a bit of tone trolling with regard to climate science [my emphasis]:
One must indeed wonder.
:-)
There is some eye-popping crankery on that thread Connolley commented on.
World class crankery indeed, including the obligatory and hardy perennial (maybe because it's Christmas) scientists-got-it-all-wrong - engineer disproves AGW.
What's most apparent though is that if there's one thing blog pseudo-scientists (oh yes, the Mosher'n'Fuller Roadshow shows up too) and worse, the fans of blog-pseudo-scientists loathe and detest it's actual scientists.
No surprise there.
Eli has a song for that and there are even T shirts.
Deniers are pretty damn predictable (as long as you don't try and work out what they're saying: it never makes any sense after the fact never mind before).
May I offer some of you some advice?
As a newcomer here I have been astounded at the name calling and the absolute blinkered view of the world.
If you truly want people to understand more about your view of the current debate around the politics of mitigating CC may I suggest that you read David B's and Yet Another Rob's posts at the previous thread?
They can manage to recognise the actual point of others' comments and deal with those without resorting to name calling.
Just because people may not agree with the current media and political hoo haa does not mean that they are trolls or denialists or any of the othef rude and dismissive insults you are so quick to throw around.
Has it occured to you that your behaviour does very little to endear anyone to your case?
Splitting hairs on definitions and leaping all over minor errors in expression or spelling or leaping to wierd and wonderful conclusions about others' personalities & psychlogies just makes you appear as petulant and argumentative.
I would also suggest that you might consider that scientists are first and foremost people. Most of them are also employees. As such, they are just as vulnerable as any other employed people. They are also capable of making errors, overstating a case or many other human foibles. Like the rest of humanity they are not above question.
But hey, if nothing else, my visit here in the last few days has been a remarkable education in how NOT to treat a new person.
Anyone more timid than I would feel highly insulted if not outright bullied.
This may also explain why there are so few regular commenters here.
But maybe you guys prefer it that way?
Self congratulatory and self confirmation via pointless name calling and personal insults?
chameleon,
Has it ever occurred to you that your misrepresentation of the basic facts of a matter "does little to endear anyone to your case"??
In any case your visit here has been a remarkable demonstration in how NOT to engage in good faith discussion.......and a remarkable demonstration of how certain individuals find it amusing to be annoying, then feign shock at others being becoming annoyed and wonder aloud art how those people can be rude as to act annoyed.
You do know it's all been done before, right?? That's why some here just skip right over the 'give-the-new-guy-a-chance' as soon as they get the first wiff of the above tactics.
Those who want a discussion in good-faith, will conduct themselves with good-faith, something you demonstrated that you had no interest in.
:-)
Chuckle
Ah, the traditional pompous, self-righteous homily from a pure troll who's only here to annoy people. A hypocrite as well as a fool. Feel free to sod off.
No thanks.
You have demonstrated from almost the very first comment that you are not here for a good faith discussion, have engaged in a bunch of tone trolling, and now you're doing the concern troll dance, complete with still more false assumptions on which you base some of your "advice".
As Michael says we've seen it all before - and done much better than you do it - and it wasn't persuasive then either.
May I offer you some advice?
If you want to pursue your particular kind of trolling and message promotion, try it somewhere where the readers are more likely to be persuaded by repetition of unsubstantiated and counter-factual claims than by the evidence, even when the evidence that undermines your claims is posted in response for all to see. There are any number of forums where your message will be received with open arms and very little critical examination.
So you do prefer it that way?
Explains a lot.
It's OK. You are free to form your opinions of others.
The reason it does nothing to endear people to your case is you draw quite definite conclusions about people you don't know yet expect these same people to agree with you about everything else because you only ever base your arguments on logic and irrefutable evidence according to yourselves.
So according to you I need to accept I am a troll, a moron, lacking in mental capabilities, a denialist, lacking in a desire for a good faith discussion etcetera before I can hope to make a comment?
How can you be so 'certain' that these things you claim are true about me or my supposed type?
You seem to base such absolute statements on no concrete evidence.
So consistently berating me for 'opinions' looks rather shallow folks.
Maybe I could do a stat run on the frequency of the usage of words like troll and denialist and to which 'type' of commentating style we can see an occurence of staistical significance?
chameleon,
No one is asking or expecting to you to agree with anything.
People do expect good faith in discusioin, and when it is absent, give short shrift.
Your lack of good faith simply means that no one could care less what you say, think or feel, and you get the response you deserve. No more, no less.
People who come here to discuss science, and do so with proper regard for objective reality, will find a respectful, if robust, forum.
Comprehension of nuance - as has been adequately demonstrated - is not your strong suit. One might almost describe your comprehension level as "shallow".
You are generally not being berated for your opinions.
Your opinions about matters of science which you appear to assert as factual are being berated as unsupported or even wrong - complete with supporting evidence for the berating.
Your unwillingness to discuss these observations and your reiteration of those claims is strong evidence of bad faith on your part. Your bad faith leads many people to dismiss many of your opinions on subjective matters (as opposed to various objective matters - see previous paragraph).
Au contraire. The concrete evidence is in your contribution to a number of threads here, and several commenters have all reached the same conclusion about that evidence.
It's a judgement, based on the evidence you have provided to date.
And based on that evidence, it is quite likely to be correct a.k.a. certain enough for now.
Commenters who act as you do extremely rarely change their spots and start discussing the science in good faith. I'm struggling to recall any one who did so (and managed to sustain it - there were one or two who appeared to do so for a time but couldn't actually change their basis for interaction).
If more evidence is provided that influences that judgement, my judgement of you will change. But that's up to you. I predict you won't do so (a very good chance, based on extensive past experience) - but I'm more than happy to be proved wrong on that point.
But Lotharsson,
go back and read your first comments to me.
Who was the one who passed absolute judgement?
My point still remains that invoking an analogy with paedophilia ( and Michael, an analogy is a literary comparative device so by definition it is in fact a comparison) is no better or worse behaviour than the OZ.
The headline at this post implies it was all about the science or denying the science.
I disagree.
It is more about the behaviour of the media and politics surrounding the science.
The ABC has not been exemplary in this instance and many others.
But neither has the OZ.
I'm unclear why me making this basic observation has created such a storm of personal attacks and insults?
Maybe you guys work for the ABC and that's what caused you to become so over defensive????
Look at the results of the behaviour of all of them (including the ABC).
What good outcome has it achieved? How has it helped to encourage a rational debate about anything, let alone the science?
"Michael, an analogy is a literary comparative device so by definition it is in fact a comparison)" - chameleon
There's nothing we can do about your illiteracy.
The comparison is not in the thing (paedophilia), but in the obvious untruthfulness of the statement about the thing.
I just find it hard to believe that such a simple concept can be misunderstood, unless you strive to do so.
You simply continue to demonstrate that you argue in bad faith.
Well, that would be you first by a country mile.
Don't believe me?
Let's check the historical record, shall we? Please note that by the time I first commented to you, you had already made eight comments on that thread (starting at Dec 18). You opened with an allegation that "The point of disagreement has sweet FA to do with ‘science’.", which was clearly incorrect with respect to the previous parts of the thread that discussed the difference between science and pseudo-science. Score 1 "absolute judgement" to you.
You continued with "Trying to pretend that the IPCC got it right either predictive or postdictive is looking sillier year by year." which is your second absolute judgment (with a bonus point for embedding the false claim that the IPCC does predictions), one which a careful look at the record would reject.
You continued with #3 claiming that "It is becoming increasingly evident that ‘real time’ data does not support the hypothesis that ACO2 is a powerful agent in climate change and/or SL variation." Yep, the data refute your 3rd absolute judgement too.
#4: "By all means keep updating the data, but please stop screeching unsupported alarmism."
#5: "The latest evidence is NOT alarming, in fact it appears that the hypothesised SLR trend was way too overstated."
#6: "Good job of missing the point Wow." This one was highly amusing - Wow was completely on point in his critique of your unsupported and frequently clearly wrong claims.
#7 is pretty judgemental: "Those IPCC models APPEAR to have grossly overstated the case for ACO2." And also wrong.
#8: "The emergjng evidence is falling below the predicted ranges." Er...no, it's not, as was subsequently pointed out to you and which you refused to acknowledge.
I've left out a bunch. There are a whole bunch of implied absolute judgements in your claims about the models and the evidence as Wow pointed out. There are judgements on your part about the motivations of the other commenters. And so on.
#9: "Not interested in talking about reality..." ROFL! You were the one clinging to unsubstantiated claims by that point, most of which run counter to a whole load of evidence. Yet your absolute judgement was that people trying to set you straight were "not interested in talking about reality".
You then tried the regretful exit "Anyway, unless recommended to do so, I won’t be visiting again as I find the supercilious attitude here rather distasteful." but failed to stick the flounce. And kept commenting anyway.
You then claimed that your hairdresser was expressing "shock" and laughter at "the rude behaviour", at which point I made my first comment. Here it is, quoted in entirety.
You can complain about judgement all you like, but by that point in time any "judgement" in that comment was strongly supported by the evidence you had so kindly provided in your eight previous comments.
And I have responded to your point by noting that it still remains premised on unsubstantiated assertions and dismissing key differences as unimportant.
Heck, you did it in that comment itself. The analogy on the ABC wasn't an analogy with paedophilia, it was an analogy to a hypothetical unsubstantiated (and strongly rebutted) claim that paedophilia is good for children. See, the fact that the claim runs strongly counter to the evidence is key to its appropriateness as an analogy. If you erase that inconvenient aspect you're not discussing the analogy that was actually used. Berating people for failing to salute your strawman only undermines any attempt at credibility.
(And it's not like this point hasn't already been made to you several times already!)
If you don't see the difference and why the difference matters then it's not surprising that you don't seem to be able to understand the critiques people are making of your claims. If you can't see the difference and why it matters then it suggests you simply aren't equipped to do the kind of analysis you are trying to do.
Ah, finally you're getting the core focus of the blog! (Although you don't seem to have twigged that discussing this necessitates discussing what is and what is not scientific.)
There's no evidence here that it's made your opinion of climate science any less accurate than it already was, for example. And since you haven't done anything like survey the readership and listenership, it's hard to know. It may have caused a bunch of people to re-evaluate where they are getting their beliefs about the science from, which could be a very good thing indeed.
Analogy:
n. correspondence or partial similarity;
a process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects;
the resemblance of function between organs essentially different;
from Latin analogia or french analogie.
Lotharsson,
The result as far as I can see is just more arguing about non specifics.
Using paedophilia as an analogy was not very appropriate no matter which side of the debate you may sit.
But I also agree that the OZ article was similarly unproductive.
cjamelein,
Crikey you're dense (or persistently disingenuine).
We know what an analogy is.
Both myself and L. have just explained that the analogy was about obviously false statements, ie a claim that paedophilia is not harmful.
Yet, you again repeat nonsense.
Bad faith - you continue your petty (and simply wrong) tut-tutting on style to ignore the point.
And you wonder why no one is even slightly convinced by your transparent charade?
That seems to be one of your fallback strategies when you've got no way to rebut the argument. It continues to remain unconvincing.
I don't think what you keep asserting I should think, no matter how many times you repeat it.
Do you find these tactics work for you in other places or do you simply have no other ideas for how to confront reasoned objections to your claims, or (in the case of subjective judgements) dissent from your opinion?
"So consistently berating me for ‘opinions’ looks rather shallow folks."
chammy, so you would say about someone with the opinion that paedophilia is harmless and should be legalised should not be berated and should be treated with respect for their opinion?
Except you demand exactly the opposite and demonise that opinion.
I guess you only like opinions that are your own. If so, say it.
Good job of missing the point Wow,
The analogy was inappropriate IMHO and did not do the ABC any favours.
Perhaps the 'intent' can be seen by some as a reason to 'excuse' it.
But as I keep saying, I don't think the behaviour at the OZ is any better/worse.
While you may not like it or agree, debate over the politics surrounding CC is quite acceptable.
Paedophilia is not.
And Lotharsson,
I'm seriously not interested in 'tactics' or engaging in insults or in making personal comments.
I merely want to offer my perspective re the reactions to the ABCs behaviour.
As far as I am aware I am free to offer that as you are free to offer yours.
"The analogy was inappropriate IMHO"
And why is that of any import? Don't like it? Who cares?
But it looks like you just want to berate people for opinions they hold, it seems.
If they think the analogy is fine, you really just hate all over them.
Tell me, do you know what hypocrite means?
"or engaging in insults or in making personal comments."
So why did you start off here with insults and personal comments?
"Paedophilia is not."
Why?
chameleon,
maybe this will help you straighten out your conceptual framework: Australian Press Council Criticizes Climate Denier Columnists For ‘Highly Offensive’ Comments.
Now can you see the differences between your opinions distorting the facts and the facts themselves?
Wow,
I'm not interested in having a discussion about paedophilia and why you think it was OK to use it as an analogy.
As you said....who cares?
My point was the use of that particular analogy did not do the ABC any favours and that I haven't found their presentation any better/worse than many other media representations.
But if you want to have a semantic argument about why it could be argued that invoking an analogy with paedophilia did something constructive for the scientific debate...you're trying to engage the wrong person.
I have clearly stated that I don't think either that analogy or the response from the OZ did anything constructive to advance a rational debate about anything at all; let alone the science.
But you seem to want to argue that means something else entirely about me?
It doesn't.
I was just making an observation about the outcomes from that type of behaviour.
I doesn't bother me that you don't agree.
"I’m not interested in having a discussion about paedophilia"
Then why have you been talking about it?
Seriously Wow?
Is it possible to go so far off tangent?
What are you trying to achieve?
I have not talked ABOUT paedophilia.
My point remains the same despite you trying to pretend it is about something else.
The ABC's choice to use it as an analogy did not achieve good results (IMHO) and further, IMHO, it is no better/worse than the the behaviour at the OZ.
Why are you trying to read something else into that rather basic point?
"I have not talked ABOUT paedophilia."
Yes you have:
+++
chameleon
December 28, 2012
...Using paedophilia as an analogy was not very appropriate...
+++
What do you hope to achieve by lying so openly?
Mind you, you're doing the exact same sort of blatant lie on the other thread.
Who'd've guessed. A denier pretending to be "fence sitting" and lying their arse off every time they post?
I think chammy here is Joan with a new pair of socks.
...except for talking about other people's tones or the analogies used in the media - but apparently talking about your own is just gauche. How precious!
Except when it's you doing it (usually by implication).
You really don't appear to be very self-aware - or don't care.
How very odd. No-one has indicated otherwise.
Er, wouldn't you be the person who asked:
So in future should we assume that either (a) when you ask a question, you're not actually interested in other people's answers, or (b) you may disclaim tomorrow what you claim today, so it can be happily ignored until you're a little more sure about it?
This thread turned boring.
I forgot the link. Here it is:
http://www.fotolia.com/id/41003550
Well, the chameleon was remarkably good at trolling, eh guys?
yes David B,
I think I agree; and I loved the funny link :-)
I also liked the one at the previous thread :-)
As the renowned genius Rita Mae Brown said, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. That includes debating with stupid, ignorant, dishonest AGW-denying trolls like janama -- who thinks that, if you don't share his grossly mistaken beliefs about Arctic storms or volcanoes then you haven heard of them -- and chameleon -- who can't distinguish being vitriolic from being wrong, just can't stick that flounce, the poor dear, and is one of those imbeciles who can't grasp that what's relevant in an analogy are the shared characteristics, not the distinct ones; in this case what is shared is a complete inversion of the truth, as in the notion that pedophilia is good for children -- it has nothing to do with pedophilia itself. The point of using using pedophilia as an example is that it is so undeniable ... even the stupidest and most dishonest person won't argue that pedophilia is good for children (unlike how morons like janama will argue that GW might be a good thing).
Now what was my point again? Oh yeah, that taking the time to counter the arguments of these cretins with the hope that it will bring about any change in their thinking or behavior is a form of insanity. Oops ...
when you ask a question, you’re not actually interested in other people’s answers
Like all of these cretinous unning-Krugerite trolls, all her questions are rhetorical because she can't even imagine being wrong.
Oops, icky eyboard.
I’m not interested in having a discussion about paedophilia and why you think it was OK to use it as an analogy.
Right, you're only interested in having a monologue about why you think it wasn't.
Analogy:
n. correspondence or partial similarity;
a process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects;
Does the imbecile even realize that these are two different definitions, and that only the first applies in this case? The second definition is of an argument by analogy ... which this is not an example of. An example of argument by analogy is Paley's argument from design, which says that, because entities with complex functions such as watches require an intelligent designer, all entities with complex functions (such as biological organisms) require an intelligent designer. But no one is claiming that AGW deniers are pedophiles or like pedophiles because of some similarity they have with pedophiles.
an analogy is a literary comparative device so by definition it is in fact a comparison
Wrong, imbecile, analogies are parallel constructions. For instance, one can argue that it isn't necessary for a intelligent computer to function like a human brain by noting that airplanes don't have wings ... but there is no comparison between computers and airplanes, or humans and birds, in that analogy.
Like all of these cretinous [D]unning-Krugerite trolls, all her questions are rhetorical because she can’t even imagine being wrong.
And a prime example is
Who was the one who passed absolute judgement?>
Despite Loth's 8-point demonstration, this foul putrid disgusting lying conniving shitstain on humanity -- "cameleon" -- still believes herself to be an innocent party. I'm almost inclined to share the godbot sentiment that GW will be a good thing because it will cleanse the Earth of this garbage. (But I realize that letting the place be overrun with real cockroaches isn't really an improvement.)
An insurmountable problem with making the claim that the segment quoted above entails comparing deniers with p&edoph|les is the composition of the class. One has to argue that the classes containing those who argue that p&edophi|ia is good for children or that asbestos is a good inhalant for those with asthma or that crack cocaine is a healthy part of a teenager's lifestyle is composed respectively, entirely, or almost entirely, of p&edophi|es, asbestophiles, or crack cocaine-o-philes.
To the best of my knowledge, there is nobody who argues any of these cases, still less about their life choices, so we simply have no way of making an inference about whom the ABC was comparing deniers to. The giveaway here is that the complainants ignore the other comparisons because in the case of the last two, there isn't even a name for people who might think that.
As unlikely as they are, one can imagine such arguments. If put, they would be seen as outrageous or extraordinary. The analogy, as Lotharsson points out, is to outrageous or extraordinary propositions and the likely responses these would elicit. It takes high levels of disingenuity and special pleading to ignore the obvious and compelled reading of words and to prefer a reading that makes no sense.
Extraordinary claims -- we have heard it often enough in these discussions -- demand extraordinary proof. If someone says something extraordinary, they'd better bring astonishing and compelling evidence if the claims are to be believed or even entertained. That's really all Williams is saying.
I recall many years ago tittering at Peter Cook and John Cleese doing a skit called "Interesting Facts" in which Cook puts the idea that the whale is not a fish at all --the audience giggles before Cook delivers the punchline -- It's an insect, and it lives on bananas. General laughter followed. Cleese responds: The whal and insect? I've never heard such nonsense! Cook follows drily ... no, it's a joke.
It wasn't his only claim. He claimed that "arable land" was "land what is tilled by Arabs" and that the intestines amounted to "four miles of tubin' in your stomach" and that it was a special material "so they can cram it all in".
Perhaps Williams should have used this skit for his analogy: That hedidn't doesn't found the claims of the filth merchant defencers of course.
Fran, you have 3 classes of people to deal with:
1. Those who see that Williams' analogy is nothing like The Australian's labelling of wind farm advocates as paedophiles and who accept that fact.
2. Those like Tony Abbott who are smart enough to see the truth of 1. but declare publicly that "it's crap".
3. Those like cardinal Pell or Maurice Newman who are too stupid to tell fact from fiction but unquestioningly follow the public statements of right-wing lunatic liars as in 2.
In each of the above 3 cases, your cogent and apt explanation achieves nothing.
We live in a society that celebrates belief over fact and lies over learning.
Austrailia's carbon tax has paved the way for more snow, even record levels:
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=…
:-)
Wow, more idiot. Just what we needed.
And now Wow calls himself an idiot, Tarzan style:
"Wow, more idiot."
To comfort you Wow, I don't think its possible. ;-)
Gee - try looking at May, June, July, etc., you pillock!
Another auto-humiliator who ain't here for the hunting...
Olap, who admits they don't know how you'd measure a change in temperature, obviously is out of their depth when it comes to understanding WINTER.
It's just not fair to mock the afflicted.
But when they're demanding mocking this badly, it's hardly our fault.
He also fails hard at reading comprehension.
His Sugar Daddy isn't here to read him his bedtime story :-O
Sorry Bill, the climate scare context seems lost to you:
"However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said."
Portentology Deltoid way. ;-)
Wow, my post to Bill is for you too. Winter it is – indeed. ;-)
What, and that makes those clear trends go away, does it?
Are you being this stupid for a bet?
And here's someone who actually knows what they're talking about when it comes to calculating trends.
Read it and gibber, monkey boy! Thanks for giving us the opportunity to rub your nose in it yet again!
Dear Bill, I suggest you take your probelms to Dr. Viner. ;-)
That's Olap. Always able to give out more shit that his nose can be rubbed in.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100126020922AAmFRVU
"It actually can get to be too cold to snow.
The atmosphere's ability to retain moisture ( what we know as relative humidity) changes with the lowering of the temperature. If you notice your coldest days/nights, they are usually cloudless or have clouds extremely high in the stratosphere. When the air is super cold, there is no way for moisture droplets to condense, because there isnt enough moisture TO condense
When you are witnessing a snow event, you often times will see the temperature RISE, and the best snow events usually have a temperature that is between 25-28 deg Farenheit when they start, and often times the temp at the surface will pop just above freezing, and it still be snowing.
You will see that lower temperature limits for snow are somewhere around 10-15 Deg F."
Olap thinks that there is no warming if you go from -30C to -20C !!!!
Olap, since you're the one claiming this, why can't you stand behind the words you proffer?
Just too chicken? Too stupid to understand it? Or merely avoiding any culpability in your idiocy, preferring to blame it on others?
Wow, why are you picking on me instead of Dr. Viner? ;-)
Because you're the one lying through their arse, Olap.
Or is it that you don't think Viner is right, therefore you can't know anything about his statements veracity as you have characterised them?
Anthony Watts admits 92% of Global warming Man made.
So it was me who predicted no snow, not Dr. Viner? I have been clear from the beginning that I don't preferr portentology. ;-)
I notice your reading ability hasn't improved since your examined the moonson paper. :-)
Yes, it IS you who is predicting no snow.
Dr Viner isn't.
Meanwhile Anthony Watts admits 92% of Global warming Man made.
Should be:
Yes, it IS you who preded no snow.
Should be:
Yes, it IS you who predicted no snow.
Backspace and enter are close.
Still not able to read what Dr. Viner claims Wow. And now I'm predicting no snow. Hilarious. :-D
No, I'm perfectly able to read his claims AND UNDERSTAND THEM.
However, those claims have NOTHING to do with snow this winter in the northerm hemisphere.
Something YOU fail to accept.
Meanwhile, even Anthony Watts agrees that AGW is real.
When you're getting lonelier and lonelier in your insanity, ever wondered whether you're losing?
And yes YOU are the one who has predicted no snow.
Of course, you may be saying nothing at all.
Is that what you're doing, Olap? Posting and demanding people ask Vines because you came here posting several times a whole load of nothing?
Are you finally admitting that none of your posts have any purpose or meaning at all?
Wow, your are somehting extra. The moonson sure is blowing uninhibited through your donkey ears. Dr. Viner said what he said, regardless of your skills in excegetics. ;-)
Get back rading your moonson-paper will ya, my friend. :-)
Yes, Dr Viner said what he said.
Well done for spotting the obvious.
So what?
So far, from the wisdom of Olap, we have:
1) It snows in winter.
2) Dr Vines said what he said.
Well, that is about as much wisdom as Petri possesses, so I think we can thank him for performing at his absolute peak and ask him to return to the only thread he is allowed to comment on.
And what is the trend in NH snow cover since the mid 1960s, you extraordinary little man? And is this, or is this not, consistent with AGW, regardless of the one quote you've managed to fish from the chum heap?
Thank you for drawing this further evidence of AGW to everyone's attention. Those hoping to actually learn something - e.g. is this a measure of the overall volume of snow, or the merely the area covered by it? - can read Tamino's article, and the discussion below it.
In the meantime; Olaus - you can get out your crayons if you promise not to draw on the walls.
Here's a little secret. This has blown up in your face, fool. But like the simpleton on the other thread, you're just going to dig your little hole deeper and deeper.
What do you imagine you're achieving? Seriously. The greatest single contribution you could make to your cause would be to keep your mouth shut.
"regardless of the one quote you’ve managed to fish from the chum heap? "
Remember, spanking donkeys here isn't saying anything about what Dr Vines said MEANS.
It has nothing to do with anything else, spanking dingleberry is merely posting random stuff with absolutely no meaning to their presentation.
Consider it to be the internet troll version of "Look! Squirrels!".
Folks, this is why deniers always put half-statements forward.
You then have to work to find out what the hell they are *trying* to say (which is impossible, since they are saying nothing), then explain why they are wrong (which is a fools errand since they do not hear any discouraging words like that) and then they get to pretend they didn't say anything.
Really.
Spanking Stupid here has so far posted
1) It snows in winter
2) When people have said something, they have said something (note: even tautologies are a blinding insight as far as these morons are concerned)
3) Hass never said anything
What we need to do is to get them to say what the hell they mean FIRST.
This will be, like all attempts to get RATIONAL discussion from denier idiots, completely impossible because of their intransigence (and, frankly, intelligence: they merely parrot what they heard, which probably ARE only fragments of thoughts of others).
But given that ANY rational discussion with them is impossilbe, this is no big loss.
Good strategy.
In almost every case it will soon become evident they don't know what they mean to say or they are unwilling to come right out and say it (exhibit A: chameleon) - or they're arguing something foolish.
"or they’re arguing something foolish."
Which is the reason for so many of them to be "unwilling to come right out and say it (exhibit A: chameleon)".
Others don't want to say anything since that can then be shown wrong.
Joan is too dumb to be worried about that, however.
Speaking of Jonas N et al, I had a quick skim of the last couple of pages of his eponymous thread, and Teh Stupid Still Burns.
Jonas appears to be refusing to define "hiatus" just like Curtin did. Maybe if and when he does so someone can point out the ocean heat accrual over the "hiatus" period which undermines his entire claim.
Then there was that whole "passive masses between you and a heat source provide cooling" thing, which was astonishingly asserted by one of the usual suspects to apply to the atmosphere with respect to the sun. Apparently they've never heard of the concept of "transparent to shortwave infrared radiation".
And someone seemed to be implying an argument from the 2nd law of thermodynamics that the greenhouse gas cannot exist, and someone else arguing that the 33 degrees C we experience above the non-greenhouse planetary temperature is not due to GHGs, and so on...
At this rate it will still be going for another year...
He was given the prompt with regard to the record arctic melt this summer (and the slower collapse in previous years) happening in the current phase of this alleged 'hiatus', but that was grandly brushed off as an irrelevance, but actually an inconvenience to the fairy story du jour.
I don't think this full update from the vile Delingpole has been noted to date.
So, here we have again perhaps the most prominent leader of the Denier community in the UK - at least since Monckton moseyed off to join Sheriff Arpaio and the Birthers - spouting the worst sort of slanderous hatespeech, with the repulsive Australian as active accomplice, and to no condemnation whatsoever from the wingnut community.
And people wonder why I think you lot have issues! BFPM / Chammy - ignore it as you will - these are your peers. You can have them.
OK, someone mentioned my name on this thread so now I gotta comment. But first, what is it with this Tim Lambert fellow who keeps posting graphs that show exactly the opposite of what he claims???
You'd think he'd try to avoid looking THAT foolish.
Now, CO2 has been increasing since what, the early 1800s, but it really took off in 1940 or so. Now, the rise until then was relatively slight, but we are asked to believe that almost immediately we got an increasing temp trend and sea level rise. OK... so after 1940 when CO2 went ballistic, we'd expect something similar with temps and SLR. And of course that's precisely how the scary scenarios we all read about and had shoved down our throats went. But... what really happened?
Well, as Tim Lambert seems pleased to show us, something rather different. First, SLR according to the graphs in the previous thread, has NOT accelerated in recent times. In fact, there's a fair case for a substantial slowing in the past decade or so. Oh sure, something happened back in the early part of the 20th century but since about 1930/40 it's been happily quite steady. No catastrophically acceleratingly scary SLR then? No.
Now, we get this graph. What the? So, we draw a trend line from 1980-1996 and then say oh look at that, temps are still in line with that trend... I guess if you are a bit thick you could say that.
A trend line is supposed to establish a trend over time, but you have to actually use that in an informed way. If something actually changes in the real world, you have to be able to identify that, not just bury your head in the (rapidly submerging) sand.
For example, if one had become ill and the doctor was checking one's temp over the course of several days and she noted that it had climbed steadily from say 36.8 to let's say 38 and then over the course of several hours spiked to 38.5, she'd say hmmm... not looking too good here, let's hope it breaks soon. When she then observes a decline from those spikes to below 38 she might say, hmmm... bit early to tell but this is a positive change. Looks like we may be on the improve.
You see, that graph shows us very clearly that on the whole, temps for the past 16 years have NOT increased noticeably, and the poster notes his own misdirection when he observes that "temperatures have been mostly above the trend line."
The claim is very specific. Temperatures have not risen in the last 16 years. It was not - were some temperatures above some spurious trend line. So, how about you draw us a trend line starting in 1996 and let's see how that looks. I have no idea, I haven't seen such a thing and haven't a clue on how to do it. But come on, simple challenge. Show me the trend line for the past 16 years using the same data source.
Time to dig out those bingo cards again.
Your 3rd paragraph appears to want to address the correlation between CO2 (a greenhouse gas) and temperature, and, temperature and sea level rise, but as it is completely incoherent, it is difficult to respond to.
Your analogy with a human body temperature is completely irrelevant for what should be obvious reasons: the earth is a system currently acquiring more heat than it is emitting. Temperatures will therefore continue to rise until a new equilibrium point is reached. It's a pretty simple concept really.
Perhaps we can help by doing this:
1/ Pointing out to you that you are fairly ignorant of these issues
2/ Suggesting that you read primary sources in order to inform your opinions
One place you could start is the NOAA:
Now, does that help, and does it put an end to your largely incompetent questions about sea level rise?
As to your statistically incompetent misinterpreting the data to convince your self that global warming isn't happening, have you not seen the following graphic?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif
And, having now seen it, would you even consider ever asking such a stupid question again?
Gee, BFPM turns out to be a BSD - Bog-Standard Denier - running with the imbecile trope du jour. Who'd'a'thunkit?
Calculate it yourself.
Seriously.
Well, cut and paste some half-arsed crap from the Deniosphere from which you emerged, anyway.
Then you'll only have the CSIRO, the BOM, NASA, NOAA, and every major relevant scientific institution in the world disagreeing with you. But that's OK, because despite false-modesty being part of your schtick, you actually think you're a genius.
I think not.
So I sincerely suggest that no-one else do any more running-around after this arseclown, who has wasted enough of everyone's time on the 'BTP' thread.
I suggest we instead task the simpering cretin to refute this - the Federal Advisory Committee's Draft Climate Assessment Report.
Better get cracking, Bolt-Boy!
HAHAHAHAHA... I love the way you guys do warble on. Just tilt at one of your sacred cows and watch the BS meter peg itself out.
Here is what Tim Lambert posted:
Tim challenged us to look at his graph and then judge whether there'd been no warming for 16 years. Now I dunno about you, but in my version of English that means THE LAST 16 YEARS. And that graph clearly shows no warming, or very little warming, for the last 16 years.
And thanks Vince, for the graphic from Skeptical Science. What's that I see? No warming in the past 16 years? Even a decline in the past decade? Gosh... then in answer to Tim's challenge, Skeptical Science answers clearly "No, there HASN'T been any warming in the past 16 years".
You apparently remain unequipped with the basic intellectual tools required to discern between fact and fiction.
Cherry-picking is a logical fallacy. Anybody who does it is a complete fool.
How could there be "no warming" when the mechanism that is causing the imbalance between heat coming in and heat going out to remain in play?
Have the laws of physics been abrogated and CO2 has brand new properties, different from its old ones?
Or - this question might sound familiar to you - is it possible that you are a complete ignoramus who is completely missing the point?
Vince me old China, "how could there be no warming" indeed? But there it is. Maybe... gasp... maybe the hypothesis of CO2 driven catastrophic global warming is not well... you know... right?
It's not 'ignorance', it's mendacity.
What we have here is a Lucy Troll.
This kind of troll gets its jollies from making others go 'round the houses' with it, and positively delights in playing Lucy, Charlie Brown and the football with anyone foolish enough to believe it might really have a good-faith wish to learn anything.
At the very least it should always be instructed to DYObloodyR.
But what it really can't stand is being ignored. Hence I suggest doing just that.
BFPM:
16 years before the last reading,20 Skeptical Science's HadCrut4 was 0.14 deg C and 16 years later it was 0.51 deg C, a warming of 0.37 deg C.
As usual, Bolt for PM should have gone to Spec Savers.
What is it with this standard model incompetent troll who keeps claiming the opposite of what the data says - and then admits he HASN'T LOOKED AT IT?
You might think he'd try to avoid looking THAT FOOLISH.
You'd be wrong.
Bolt, it is fairly well agreed among those with the knowledge and skills to investigate these things that a doubling of CO2 will lead to something like a 3 degree temperature rise.
The information you appear to have acquired is at odds with this, although it is in agreement with the kind of stuff that can be found on all the kook-sites run by nutters and liars who aren't scientists but who are paid political agitators for political lobbies who admitted goal is to sow confusion and misunderstanding.
You apparently choose to get your "information" from the latter.
The only thing you have demonstrated is a lack of critical thinking skills.
Here's a simple one for you Bolt - in the absence of any increases in CO2 (which creates an energy imbalance and inarguably causes warming), is every year's temperature exactly the same as the year that preceded it, or do they vary?
"Skeptical Science answers clearly “No, there HASN’T been any warming in the past 16 years”."
Says fuck all about whether the trend is up or down.
"how could there be no warming” indeed? But there it is"
B4PM, my gullible old fart, where do you suppose the heat that caused the record Arctic melted ice low this past summer came from, in the sixteenth year of your claimed 'no warming'?
Logic would dictate that it should have been healthily recovering after 15 years of no warming, but it wasn't it was slowly collapsing to a record minimum.
Here's another simple one for you Bolt:
If you get 1,000 grammes of H2O in the form of ice at 0 degrees C and apply 300,000 Joules of energy (heat) to it,
- has the heat of this H2O increased?
- has the temperature of this H2O increased.
Bolt is in fact a textbook case of Dunning-Kruger.
He mistakenly thinks he is capable of collecting the facts on this issue and analysing them, when in fact is blissfully unaware of
- the facts
- how facts are collected
- basic physics
- basic geology
- statistics and other maths
- logic
He is in other words utterly unequipped for this conversation, and his idiotic opinions gleaned from liars and kooks like Anthony Watts and Jo Nova bear this out.
Look!
Rate of warming doubled!
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/to:2008/trend/plot/ha…
Denialists debunked once and for all!
That should set the cat amongst the pigeons, Vince ;-)
I'm sold. This one questionable example is sufficient to entirely convince me that I may safely ignore the weight of evidence and need never entertain any idea that contradicts my preconceptions again. Well played that man!...
I'm looking forward to a lecture from Bolt on the subject of the heinous crime of cherry-picking data to suit a preconceived notion.
Cute Vince, but if warming has actually stopped in the last 10-15 years and we are plunging towards a new ice age, then we could expect to see that trend very clearly in the data for this century. Let's check the last decade.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/trend
Well, whaddya know?
But I just proved *using more recent data* that the rate of warming between 2008-2011 was twice the rate of warming 1998-2008.
So warming has clearly accelerated.
You're just using older data to suit your argument, just like all the world's climate experts do, all of whom disagree with you, and therefore all of whom are obviously completely wrong.
Indeed, Dolt.
There is a figure there that PROVES that warming has accelerated recently.
I think it's time for you to look at this one again, Bolt:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif
Do you get it yet?
"Cute Vince, but if warming has actually stopped in the last 10-15 years"
And if it hasn't..?
Vince has already shown you that it has accelerated recently.
"and we are plunging towards a new ice age,"
then if we're NOT actually plunging, SOMETHING must be warming to counteract that plunge to a new ice age.
Oh come on, ya gotta have a sense of humour. I am obviously just playing the cherry picking game too. I did do one for 1996-2012 too and it DID show a rise, so on that dataset at least it does seem to have risen in the past 16 years. I'll have to pop over to JoNova or WUWT and find out why they claim that one. I'm sure they'll be right tho.
So now you agree you weren't "just asking questions" you were trolling.
We are getting some honesty from you now.
Yes, that really is funny.
Think about it in some *depth*, Bolt - there is a physical mechanism that has caused in imbalance in the Earth's energy budget. Currently, energy coming in is not balanced by energy going out. It is accumulating.
Where is that energy going? This is absolutely not something a random blogger that runs a kook-site like Jo Nova is going to be able to answer for you.
Researchers at BoM & CSIRO might be able to answer it to some extent.
Find out what they have to say, and stay away from the nonsense-blogs that have misled you so much so far.
Well gosh eh? Hansen's Global Temperature Update Through 2012 says "Global Warming Standstill. The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for
the past decade. "
Gee, if even he agrees that things are 'flat' I guess that sorta supports some of those claims that Timmy is ridiculing, hmmm?
Of course, just like Timmy and the (few) commentators here, he observes that the nefarious warming is lurking, just waiting for that natural variability to drop away.
Any time now...
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
I also rather liked "Also, the airborne fraction of
fossil fuel CO2 emissions has declined and the forcing per CO2 increment declines slowly as CO2
increases due to partial saturation of absorption bands, so the CO2 forcing growth rate has been steady
despite the rapid growth of fossil fuel emissions"
"Also, the airborne fraction of fossil fuel CO2 emissions has declined"
Excellent news. Sensible decarbonisation policies are working.
Thank god we ignored the "do-nothing" crowd.
"the CO2 forcing growth rate has been steady"
Bummer, CO2 is still accumulating and its effect on the energy budget continues to increase.
We need to do more.
Nice selective quoting from Hansen's update.
What else did he say?
Have you asked John McLean how his "coldest year since 1956" is coming along? Maybe next year, huh?
"The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for the past decade. ”
Still says fuck all about the trend.
Nor, since we've had cooling phases of the ocean deep current circulation AND a cooler sun, does it say anything other than CO2 is still having an effect as predicted.
Oh, I see, Bolt, you didn't read it, you're just parroting the misinformational crap off WUWT.
Here it is, it's a good read:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
Check out the graph at the bottom of p1, Bolt - and look at the La Nina years and the global temperature associated for those years. Notice something?
2012 looks like it was the hottest La Nina ever, despite being the 3rd biggest La Nina (from 9) since 1976.
Any intellectually competent analysis of this data couldn't possibly result in the spin Watts puts on it, and which you dumbly repeat.
Of course. Because we already know that if remove most of the effects of three main sources of variability we see this.
No "pause" there.
But Watts won't tell you that.
I believe the idiomatic BFPM response is "Any time now...".
Not fair, Lotharsson - how is Tallbloke going to peddle his graphs if you adjust the richest cherry-picking points out of the data?
Vince W unfortunately I am back at work and little time to follow up comments (and a good thing too you're thinking). And yes, I did read the paper and yes it says a lot more despite my selective quoting.
My point was in the context of this current post. Mr Hansen's update in no small part is attempting to explain why, despite the 'flat' temps of the past decade in particular, we can still be confident AGW proceeds as expected.
Thus even he, a doyen of global warming, acknowledges the 'pause' in warming. Now remember, we were all treated to arguments about how that couldn't happen not that many years ago.
But the point is, Tim Lambert's post ridicules various people for suggesting that temps have been relatively flat in recent years. The fact is, they have.
Tim Lambert ridicules various people for making ridiculous assertions.
People who pick and choose whichever little snippets of the results of science research that suit their ignorant idee-fixes are likewise suitable targets for ridicule.
What I get out of Hansen's update is that we just had the warmest La Nina ever, even warmer than the last one which was the tiniest La Nina imaginable.
Seeing as CO2 hasn't magically vanished form the atmosphere or magically changed its physical properties, it is difficult how anybody could even begin to imagine that warming isn't continuing.
If, however, deep down, you're in denial of the basic physics of greenhouse gases (like most of the denizens of the crank blogs that you misinform yourself from) then you could convince your self that these ridiculous people making ridiculous assertions are worth listening to.
Really? By scientists? Because I recall seeing papers and discussion pointing out the very opposite of that claim. Is this one of those "in the 70's all the scientists thought an Ice Age was coming" things that turns out to have been a somewhat retrospectively edited "memory" that was more about a couple of media stories than about science?
That, and the electrical engineers have known for, what? A century now? That a noisy signal on top of a linear trend will experience periods of what you call "pause".
Methinks you're having at a strawman.
Well Lotharsson, it may be the case. But remember, I've cast myself as an 'interested layperson', in other words, Joe Public. And Joe Public doesn't get his info from science papers or the reviewed literature, he gets it from what media he is most familiar with. That'll be TV, newspapers, maybe some websites. And I recall very clearly when I first heard about global warming, it was argued in that the popular media that it was proceeding apace and that natural variability was largely over-shadowed by it.
I did read a few bloggy type sites way back then which opined that it was difficult to argue the case for CAGW as it was possible that natural variation was the culprit, and I remember well how various 'experts' popped along to howl that down with some spectacularly derisive comment and links to the 'literature'.
Now, of course that's just anecdotal and perhaps poorly remembered, but it was the ferocity with which those who suggested natural variation were criticised that piqued my interest. So, perhaps 'real scientists' always expected to see the CAGW signal occasionally swamped by other noise in the system, but it certainly was never made clear to us average thickies out here on dumb street. Nope, that CAGW was gonna get us real soon if we didn't act NOW... So pardon me if I take your protestations with a (large) grain of salt.
Of course you'll no doubt be quick to jump on those who happily spread disinformation about CAGW and what its impacts are. For example, the young lady whose column in the local Canberra rag once noted how it was so easy to see CAGW in action, why all those earthquakes and tsunamis were proof of it... Oh yes?
You see, regardless of the real nature of AGW, it suits those with an axe to grind to allow the public to develop a rather unbalanced view of what weather and climate really is. The current fascination with the Australian 'extreme heatwave' is a prime example of this.
It seems likely that was directed at the concept that natural variation explained ALL the warming, not that natural variation exists, or can temporarily overwhelm a warming trend.
I'll be happy to jump on dodgy claims if and when it looks like there's a serious chance that they'll be used to inform government policy. You can demonstrate that young lady's letter is leading to a policy over-reaction, I take it?
(BTW, IIRC there is a plausible link to earthquake activity.)
A good way to look at global temperatures is decade by decade. Then much of the so-called natural variation is averaged out. From NOAA/NCDC
http://kgcdevelopment.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/30-year-heat-wave-gra…
one sees that after the 1950s every decade has been warmer than the one before.
'Joe Public' does not use the term 'CAGW'; Deniers, on the other hand, do.
If you're trying to carry off the 'honest broker' thing, don't use the term.
Now Bill, I haven't presented myself as 'honest broker' as far as I recall. I have always come from the angle that I am an average Joe, but hopefully a little better informed than most. I've even read Skeptical Science. BUT, I am sceptical.
Now to put that in perspective, that is my opinion. If I were the government, I would act on climate change based on the advice of experts, as after all, they ARE the experts. But me, I don't have to believe them nor act upon their advice.
Lotharsson, don't be obtuse. You say:
I did not say anything about policy, I talked about public perception. And when the public start to think that climate change causes earthquakes and tsunamis, I start to get a bit uneasy about where science is letting public opinion wander. I think it has been made very clear in the past that climate change is above natural variation and that the science is certain. You can disagree, but I think it rather uncertain.
As for public policy, well in a somewhat oblique sense that young lady's opinion and the same sorts of views held by others will influence public policy by way of how the public may vote. I don't really have a problem with that by and large, but as an influence I think it has substance.
As for climate change causing earthquakes, spare me. The extra water in the oceans increases its weight and leads to greater instability in existing faults. By that reasoning the number of people in the world and their buildings increase earthquake risk. Or the number of dinosaurs in past eras. Yes, but it's part and parcel of natural variability and the effect is likely negligible.
And I talked about one of my personal thresholds for seeking someone out who has only been identified by an anecdote on a blog to try and correct their misunderstanding.
But to be fair, I suspect you're using the example as a hypothetical. And interpreted in that light, the game you are trying to play is the same one chameleon indulges in - false balance. "They both do it!". Sure - but not in anywhere near the same degree.
When the misrepresentation is 100 times as bad on one side as the other, I don't feel a need to prioritise dealing with the minor errors. I'd rather try and eliminate the major ones first.
BFPM, try estimating the total mass of humanity. Then compare with the total mass of ice that would generate (say) 1m of global sea rise.
Or even 0.1m.
Thoughts?
BFPM:
There is no statistically significant decline in the rate of global warming. The confidence interval for warming in any period can be found with this calculator: http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
The "average Joe" doesn't inform himself from crank-disinformation site WUWT, nor does he use the denialist term , CAGW.
You're not any kind of "average joe", you're in the tiny minority of cranks who enjoy spreading - for whatever reason - disinformation abou tscience.
Hmmm, BFPM went quiet once I asked him to do some back of the envelope calculations in response to some of his thining.
Funny that.
Presumably his funding got cut off after the accumulation of egg on his face reached crisis point.
Lucky they sent Brad in here to pick up the baton, though, eh?
Deniers do that.
Ignore (deny the existence of) questions they can't or won't answer.
Of course, Wow, because their intention isn't to collate information in order to analyse it and arrive at a sustainable conclusion: their intention is to carefully select whatever information supports their ideological/superstitious beliefs.
It beggars belief that so many in the Liberal Party are blindly allowing themselves to have their credibility sabotaged by thinking they are under some obligation to join this thought-free club of climate-retards.
This is a fascinating bit of research on Liberal politicians:
https://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/election-2013/