The NZ Climate Science Coalition has put out a press release attacking NIWA for casually altering its temperature series from time to time, without ever taking the trouble to maintain a continuous record.
Adjusting or discarding real world data, that doesn't agree with the model, is insanity writ large.
The folly of el gordo's selective reading. Keep up el gordo your denialist propaganda was debunked long ago. el gordo even posted [in that thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…). Perhaps reading the thread topic was not as important as making his post.
What is your source for debunked outdated story? Whose pushing it now, and how much thought did you invest before you took their bait?
You guys can hardly talk. (#5). Any source El Gordo presents has to be better than the IPCC 4th assessment which now turns out really is just a spectacular piece of fiction.
So who is now 'debunking' that ?
Maybe a real 'denier' like jakerman for example can have a go !
After all, a good Scientist should always be trying to 'debunk' their favorite hypotheses. Indeed if more did so, then we would probably not be in this unnecessary god-awful mess.
> Keenan accepts that his allegations do not on their own change the global picture.
Or the physics, or the sheer mountain of overwhelming evidence across multiple fields, etc etc. That doesn't stop the Guardian and the BBC giving prominent time to this and regurgitating previous (false) allegations of wrongdoing with virtually no rebuttal. Not that a rebuttal would actually make a difference anyway, given that this is a continuing smear campaign - simply making the allegation suffices...
> But he told the Guardian: "My interest in all this arises from concern about research integrity, rather than about global warming per se.
Excellent. I'll be interested to see what other research integrity Keenan has been investigating. Surely he's looked into allegations of a [cabal of scientists corrupting peer-review of stem cell research](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8490291.stm)? Or is he in fact wrongfully misrepresenting his own position as a rabid and repeated alleger of fraud as it relates to AGW and AGW alone?
As in book & film, I'm sure the good guys will triumph in the end. Keep at 'em Tim - & tomorrow I set off for NZ and in a month I will be close to you in OZ.
In other news, Lord Monckton reckons NASA deliberately crashed their own satelite to avoid giving accurate data.
That cite is a great read. Not only is Monckton a proponent of science denial and conspiracy theories, he also makes snake oil:
'he has also manufactured a cure to a long-term illness that attacked his endocrine system and patented the cure in conjunction with a British surgeon.
Though stressing it was in its early stages, he said the drug had had positive results treating HIV and multiple sclerosis. ''It also has been used to cure cases of colds, flu,'' he said.'
It never fails to amaze me how doggedly the denialists cling onto UHI. Whenever people have tried to quantify the actual effect the phenomenon has on reported global temperature trends, the answer invariably ranges from very little to negligible (there are numerous papers by different groups on this). Also, the fact the sea surface temperature trend is in broad agreement with the land surface trend should tell you the overall story is sound.
And yet the denialists just keep coming back with case studies, thinking that it somehow proves a point. I mean, is digging the dirt on a 20-year-old paper the best they can come up with right now?
Much as I like the Guardian for its overall political bent, its science writing is sloppy to say the least (the way I remember it, they started the story that the LHC might open a portal to other dimensions). In this instance, it does state very clearly in the article in question that other independent studies duplicated the findings of the 'flawed' paper and this whole thing doesn't undermine the key conclusions of climate science, but do they really expect the denialists to read those bits?
JamesA @ 16
As much as I like the Guardian ( I grew up reading it in the 70's due to my parent's having it delivered) I am aware that they are as much a part of the British media as The Sun and The Daily Express. There is every propensity that some dickhead subeditor will decide that "climate change" is the new "Brangelina" and paste some shitty fantasy on the front page as an exciting scoop. One has to be a bit perspicacious when it comes to one's sources. The Grauniad, as Private Eye likes to call it, isn't without its faults.
David Edwards and David Cromwell of 'Medialens' have written two outstanding books exposing the myth of the liberal mainstream media in Britain - "Guardians of Power" (2006) and "Newspeak in the 21st Century" (2009). In these books they show how fully beholden the supposed left-leaning Guardian, Observer, Independent and BBC are to commerical elites and concentrated power.
Using the propaganda model first described in the groundbreaking book, "Manufacturing Consent", by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky (1988), Edwards and Cromwell describe in detail how coverage of issues such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as climate change, are systematically distorted by the MSM. I used to be a devoted Guardian reader, but in the past 10 years it has become clear to me that the paper, like much of the other MSM, promotes (in the words of British historian Mark Curtis) the "mass production of ignorance".
Given that the MSM, including the Guardian, is mostly owned by powerful publishing conglomerates, whose main objective is profit, it is no small wonder that much of the news goes through a filter promoting the views of the political and corporate establishment, the groups that 'dominate domestic society and the state' in the words of Herman and Chomsky.
Speaking of us serious computer programmers coming out of the woodworks in the E.M. Smith piece, I had a bit of spare time and took a look at the claim that those 9999 values were bleeding through to cause a warm Dec 2009 in Alaska...
Re: 16 and 17 on the Guardian: I posted this on the old open thread just before it got superseded, but the science writer Fred Pearce wrote three articles on the same day. One effectively accusing Phil Jones of fraud, one reporting the story with a very 'neutral' viewpoint (as in, all voices deserve equal credence) and one dismissing the contrarians as irrelevent and wrong. I've got no idea what's going on there.
Hello Gordo our old friend,
We see you're trolling once again,
And the articles you're posting,
Aren't really what you're boasting,
Stolen emails,
That were planted in your brain,
Still remain,
With in the sound of denial.
Monkeywrench @ 17: I totally agree, but I find it a bit daft that it's the same newspaper that acts as a vehicle for the likes of George Monbiot and Ben Goldacre and such. But at the end of the day, they know just as they all do that it's headlines that sell papers, not accurate reporting.
I must say, credit to the crazies when credit is due. It looks like very few WUWT commenters accepted the idea that the missing data 9999s were causing whatever hotspots EM Smith didn't like. Once in a blue moon, they exercise a bit of critical thinking about a claim made by one of their own.
"David Edwards and David Cromwell of 'Medialens' have written two outstanding books exposing the myth of the liberal mainstream media in Britain - "Guardians of Power" (2006) and "Newspeak in the 21st Century" (2009). In these books they show how fully beholden the supposed left-leaning Guardian, Observer, Independent and BBC are to commerical elites and concentrated power."
That's funny, because the Guardian had a pop at Phil Jones yesterday, and even brought Wang into it.
There's a massive ding-dong going on in the comments section. The AGW side are throwing in all sorts of scientific stuff, and the anti-AGW are throwing in.... ad homs, conspiracy theories, and very, very poor science (especially the guy with a degree in maths and the other one with no meteorological qualification at all)... that's right; amateurs.
"This question of whether we can get real matters. The truth is, we know our world by stories - we may inquire into truth and attempt to remove bias, but we live in our world through stories. We tell them and listen to them and they organize the meaning we find in events. This is what literature, high and low is ultimately about - and we have not yet, as a people, figured out what kind of stories we will tell. We are stuck between two false ones - the techno-utopian future in which our problems are solved, the consequences disappear and we emerge into sunny perfection, with plenty of time to meditate on our personal alienation, or the end of the world, at which there is nothing, at which even language ultimately collapses." http://scienceblogs.com/casaubonsbook/2010/02/on_a_dark_mountain_1.php
> the idea that the missing data 9999s were causing
> whatever hotspots EM Smith didn't like.
Fixing problems that only attract fools is done silently everywhere as a routine.
You can't make anything foolproof, really -- putting up "then don't do that" and "well duh, don't go there" warnings attracts increasingly clever fools looking for new ways to get things to break so they can complain about them.
Hank: Well, when you don't idiot-proof something, you'll eventually catch an idiot.
In the end, a couple crazies will vaguely remember it and think it was something more than just a display glitch, but those crazies buy into every conspiracy anyway. Everybody else moves on.
I looked at the WWUT article on Jones and Wang, trying to figure out what's really going on. I also skimmed through much of the Jones 2008 paper.
1)Jones et al 1990 study showed that 1954-1983 data shows negligible differences between the trends of urban and rural stations. (Portman 1993 showed ~0.04C/decade). There are criticisms with regard to the reliability of rural data due to whether they are appropriate classified as rural or urban. These concerns do appear to have some legitimacy, as acknowledged by Jones in the 2008 study, as it is difficult to develop a list of exclusively rural sites. However, Jones 2008 demonstrates that concerns regarding site moves do not impact the results. Jones 2008 updates the rural and urban stations, and there continues to be neglible differences in trend for the period 1951-2004 amongst the original surface stations (except for two rural stations, whose records have disappeared, for no known reason).
2)Jones 2008 also calculates the UHI by comparing to SSTs, rather than rural stations (which is the focus of the WWUT article). This shows a 1951-2004 UHI impact of 0.10C per decade (which is the value stated in the abstract), leaving a 0.15C per decade non-UHI signal. The 0.1C appears to be an upper bound estimate, as the methodology compares to SST, not rural land stations. Rural land stations generally have been warming faster than SSTs. (The first commenter at WWUT mistook the total 0.81C as the total warming, but the total warming would have been closer to 1.35C when including UHI.)
3)China is urbanizing very quickly (especially since Jones earlier paper), and so unlike London and Vienna, it would be reasonable to expect a statistically significant UHI trend at a local or regional level. This isn't too surprising given that noone really denies the UHI effect. One would expect a larger UHI trend in regions (such as China) where urbanization is growing the fastest. On a global scale, however, it doesn't seem evident that UHI trend is a significant bias contributor to the global temperature record. Even the most extreme anecdotes (e.g. China) doesn't seem to suggest much bias.
4)There isn't necessarily a large inconsistency between Jones 1990 and Jones 2008. There are material methodological differences, (the biggest being rural vs SST), and the time periods (1954-1983 vs 1951-2004) have different urban growth characteristics. Jones found that most of the UHI trend is from the more recent decades. With an updated rural vs urban analysis, the trend difference is about 0.02C/decade over the 54 year period. Urban vs SST is 0.1C/decade. Jones puts it well when he says:
"The use of an SST series as a rural surrogate is very much an inferior choice to the more normal designation of a specifically-selected rural network. We would expect, a priori, the land series to warm more than the SST and if it were urban related we'd expect the warming to be gradual. We would also expect SST warming to be delayed compared to the land, because of the much greater thermal capacity of the coastal seas."
---
Meanwhile the non-UHI signal in rural Eastern China is 0.56C per decade between 1981-2004. The "It's all UHI" hypothesis has a long way to go in China!
Yeah, I don't like the comparison to SST because you'd expect SST to lag. It's sad that this is all they could figure to do. China needs a CRN much more than the US did.
But what's perhaps lost on the crowd is that Jones et al went specifically looking for the place where there might be UHI trends, and even there, they are not dominant.
I thought half the kerfuffle was over the locations of the stations in the original paper, and whether those locations were properly disclosed. What's the status on that part of the story?
Indeed, some groups advocate the benefits of global warming, including the Greening Earth Society and the Subtropical Russia Movement. Some in the latter group even advocate active intervention to accelerate the process, seeing this as an opportunity to turn much of cold, austere northern Russia into a subtropical paradise.
I've seen the SRM cited before as a serious movement (or at least, not an obviously satirical one). It isn't, though, as you can see from their manifesto.
Probably won't stop credulous skeptics from sending 'em cash donations, though...especially when they get wind of their plan "to award the constellation Cygnus the rank of general and declare it a Zodiac sign."
" I used to be a devoted Guardian reader, but in the past 10 years it has become clear to me that the paper, like much of the other MSM, promotes (in the words of British historian Mark Curtis) the "mass production of ignorance"."
Well Jeff, I still read the Guardian but have considerable sympathy with your views - although I guess I am approaching it from a very different angle to you.
"But at the end of the day, they know just as they all do that it's headlines that sell papers, not accurate reporting."
Strange then that blogs like this are so keen to promote articles in those newspapers etc if they happen to agree with the blogs' preconceived notions!
Dave "Wrong Again" Andrews:
"Blogs like this" are keen to promote the scientific literature. It's idiots like you are are interested in what journalists write.
I'm a bit confused regarding what the issue is exactly regarding station location. Is this regarding the movement of rural stations? (I think they know where the stations currently are, if not where they used to be). My sense after reading Jones 2008 is that there are credibility issues with rural station data, and whether they are truly rural. Jones argues that the movement of rural stations has shown to be immaterial, citing a more exhaustive study by Li, which showed only a 0.02C UHI trend in Eastern China. If I remember correctly, Jones argues that homogeneity biases are small with the larger sample.
(My main focus while reading the paper was to evaluate the context of the 0.1C / decade claim, not the data credibility issue. After reading much of it, I don't think the abstract was worded very well, particularly with regard to China).
I would agree with your assessment that Jones was looking for a UHI trend. It's clear to me that the 0.1C / decade figure was an upper bound that didn't include the effects of ocean thermal inertia. I don't think the abstract was clear with regard to this.
I don't think we should say there is no UHI trend in China, but it would be a stretch to classify it as highly material. 20% of the global population lives in China, which is rapidly becoming more and more like the US. The best rural vs urban analysis only shows 0.02C /decade UHI trend. The bias is even less when you consider that not all surface stations in China are urban. It may be in reality more than 0.02C / decade, though probably not a lot more than that. But even at 0.10C / decade, the influence of China's UHI trend on the global temperature record would be very immaterial.
The Guardian appears to have gone over to the dark side, first Monbiot and now Fred Pearce are behaving like journalists of old.
The Bolters blog is doomed, now that Rupert is testing his theory that you can squeeze blood from a stone. First cab off the rank is the Standard Times, but it won't end there.
A senate seat is the only option for Andrew Bolt and he is being primed to make the transition. (Vomit bags at the ready)
What part of 'rarely' don't you understand? Through the good grace of Tim, this is my home now.
Todd F, those are reasonable thoughts. I haven't read the paper recently; my main memory of it was the background section where they listed prior works on China and found something wrong with pretty much all of them.
There are scandals aplenty to come I think on this issue. How did the ole speech go ? Maybe we have only seen the 'end of the beginning'....?
Just my opinion of course - just so that I'm clear.
Oh and speaking of scandals, one of our prime alarmists, the good Mr Falnnery and his prediction (fiction) of the Murray River 'drying up'... well, 'word has it' there is some 'floodin happenin in that thar river'. :-)
Today's guardian articles are incoherent and evil. Pearce basically recycles all the lying denialist blogger crap as if it were an undisputed fact.
This, for example, is somehow meant to be breaking the peer review process:
In March 2004, Jones wrote to ÂProfessor Michael Mann, a leading climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University, saying that he had "recently rejected two papers [one for the Journal of ÂGeophysical Research and one for Geophysical Research Letters] from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised".
He did not specify which papers he had reviewed, nor what his grounds for rejecting them were. But the Guardian has established that one was probably from Lars Kamel a Swedish astrophysicist Âformerly of the University of Uppsala. It is the only paper published on the topic in the journal that year.
How is talking to a mate about an unidentified paper you reviewed breaching the process? Also, in this paragraph Pearce claims that the article was published, but in the next paragraph that it wasn't. The article is full of this self-contradictory crap, which inflates nothing events into "attempts to subvert the peer review process". It includes a bunch of occasions when the accusations come straight from denialist bloggers, and are denied by the people who were supposedly the victims of the climate scientists.
This is really shoddy journalism, and I really don't understand why people continue to show the Guardian any respect. I suppose it's another example of the low standards British people accept.
"Oh boy, Newsnight on BBC2 here in the UK are doing a hatchet job on climate science!
They have Roger Pielke being interviewed. And the word 'scandal' is being thrown around like it cost nothing.
Don't know if it can be viewed outside the UK. But it will probably be on BBC iPlayer later.",
That'll be because Pielke Jr is here to debate with Bob Ward on Friday at the Royal Society. Lawson's mob of shills would've made sure he gets airtime (Balance Fallacy).
A statistical analyst can't preach on the general climate science. A climate scientist can find fault with a statistical analyst's work because they've been trained in it anyway.
Maybe Pielke Jr will be in Manhattan on a paid-for jolly when a storm surge hits.
Sir David King, the UKâs former chief scientist, strongly believes that the theft of hundreds of emails from the Climatic Research Unit in East Anglia was carried out by highly-paid professionals, perhaps a foreign intelligence agency, and was deliberately designed to destabilize the Copenhagen climate talks last December.
Pearce, Pearce, Pearce. Where have I heard that name before? Oh yeah, I know. He was the reporter for Nude Scientist (tm Eli Rabett) which got Latif's remarks at WCC-3 wrong and led to some deeply wrong reporting in the press.
He was also the reporter for Nude Scientist which got the date in the ICGC report wrong. 2035 for 2350 anyone? This led to the recent IPCC kerfuffle via a game of telephone.
For his latest magnum opus UEA has already issued a statement outlining his errors.
@sg "hey silkworm, I think King has backed away from that claim already."
This is not the case, sg. This error is actually the result of a remarkably pernicious and shoddy piece of journalism from Guardian writers David Leigh and Charles Arthur. The following is my [comment on the article](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/david-king-climate-em…) (yes, I know it's snarky, but I've had a busy and overworked night):
Mr Leigh and Mr Arthur, do you have any shame whatsoever?
"I've no inside knowledge except for the fact that I did work with our [intelligence] agencies, and the American agencies, that I have some experience," he added.
What you then write above:
The government's former chief scientist has backed away from his sensational claim that a foreign intelligence agency or wealthy US lobbyists were behind the hacking and release of controversial emails between climate scientists.
Sir David King admitted he possessed no inside information about the leaks of embarrassing emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, and had merely been speculating on material already in the public domain.
How, tell me, do you later "admit" something that you already made crystal fucking clear at the first time of asking? Basically, the entire premise of your article - that King has "backed away" from a statement he made earlier - is based on either flagrant dishonesty or an inability to check the initial source of the claim.
Why have you even included the word "admitted" in there at all? Is it for any reason other than it's a classic tabloid weasel-word in what is becoming a disturbingly tabloid-style series of articles from yourselves and Fred Pearce. Long on sensation, short on facts or perspective. Still, I hope it sells a lot of papers for you, eh?
There is an issue that seems begging for some policy action, and it ties in several areas.
Under current mining law mineral deposits are worked by companies on a mining lease agreement and the companies pay royalties on the extracted minerals to the government. Also under current mining law, if a company takes a mining lease to exploit a resource (i.e. a coal deposit) and a period of time elapses during which the resource is not worked, the lease lapses and can be taken up by another company better willing or able to exploit that resource.
As such mineral resources including coal and oil are not commodities that can be owned WHILE IN THE GROUND.
As a separate issue, carbon offsets currently revolve (essentially) around paying someone in a far-off country such as India to plant some trees.
Why not allow people to offset by purchasing carbon while in the ground and not mine it? I mean, if we make unmined carbon a tradeable commodity, will this not encourage offsetting in this way, and effectively compete with coal destined for mining to increase the price of carbon while still in the ground? It seems a bit ridiculous to have to mine the coal, burn it, calculate the CO2 emitted and then pay somebody to plant a tree, doesn't it?
Two reasons why I'm pessimistic that this would ever work: the mining companies would lose profit if they're not able to cash in on extracting the resource from the ground and selling it... unless they become traders in unmined carbon.
More importantly Governments would derive no tax benefit, thus have nothing to gain and are unlikely to have the political will to do something about it.
About David King's speculation, it seems just as plausible to me that it was done by black hats payrolled by the Russian mafia. They are engaged in breaking into corporate computers stealing sensitive information and then selling it back, or to a competitor -- this is big business, lots of money going round. No reason why these folks should be any less sophisticated than an intelligence service. In fact, from the DoS attack against the Estonian Republic a couple years ago we know that they have close contacts with Russian intelligence. Perhaps they learned something.
Stealing from a university and offering it to a think tank is just a variant.
I picked up a copy of the Guardian in actual newspaper format. To be fair to Pearce he did have another article on the same pages, pretty much nailing down how the lobbyists and think tanks, and the likes of Palin and Inhofe, distorted the facts and suckered in the media. It was a hyper-critical article that said, in no uncertain terms, that organisations like the Heartland and Cato Institutes are anti-science and completely wrong, and their accusations are baseless.
Rattus, Todd F: the argument seems to be that the 1990 paper says that station selection was based on station history, and for 49 out of 84 stations that history is nowhere to be found anymore, now, two decades later.
Fred Pearce gets another thing very wrong BTW: he writes
Wang, however, maintained to the university that the 1990 paper's claim that "few, if any" stations had moved was true. The inquiry apparently agreed.
This is a serious misrepresentation. The original article
The stations were selected on the basis of station history: we chose those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times.
...so what it says is that, for each station separately, "few, if any changes" occurred. A very different thing!
Whether five station moves in 29 years over a total of 41 km counts as "few", will always be a matter of taste. But of course as Rattus' link shows, it makes no real difference: homogenization does, contrary to popular belief and denialist conventional wisdom, an amazingly good job of removing the discontinuities even if you have no independent knowledge when they happened.
I was really surprised to see your e-mail (below) after I logged into SUNYA webmail in Nanjing/China, after several days of disconnection (from internet) while travelling in central China.
I flew to China early morning on 4/14, the day after your call to my office when I was in a meeting. My understanding was that you are going to call me again, but you never did.
In any case, becuase of 4/14 trip to China, I origionally plan to respond to your 4/11 e-mailed questions when I return to Albany the end of this month. To answer your questions more accurately, I need to look into the file (if I can find it since it has been a long time), and also contact the co-author, Ms. Zeng, who brought the data and visited SUNYA as a visiting scientist from the Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, during that time.
and a week later
Dr. Keenan,
The discussion with Ms. Zeng last week in Beijing have re-affirmed that she used the hard copies of station histories to make sure that the selected stations for the study of urban warming in China have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times over the study period (1954-1983).
"You appear to think the article makes some point you support, Betula, so why don't you tell us what the article says?"
Yes Lee, It's called doubt. Doubt in the way AGW consequences are predicted, resulting in doubt of the predictions themselves. As I have said many times....the worst case scenarios are speculations built on hypotheticals derived from inaccurate models. Of course, speaking truth and exposing doubt makes me a skeptic, therefore, I am labeled a denier.
Now, in regards to the article posted @11 by connor. Since the scientists at woods hole are skeptical of both the accuracy of the prediction process and the prediction itself, they earn the right to be labeled skeptics, which of course we all know is code for denier.
And before you get your skirt all bunched up, here are a few examples from the article:
1."This is a daunting task but is necessary before we can confidently rely on models to predict future climate change."
2."Besides needing believable models that can accurately predict climate change, we also need data that can properly initialize them."
3."For the ocean, our data coverage is wholly inadequate."
4."Our knowledge about past climate change is limited as well."
5."Global warming can induce a colder climate for many of us."
6."we may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur."
7."And now perhaps you begin to see the scope of the problem."
Let's sum it up Lee....can't confidently rely, need more believable models, need more accuracy, wholly inadequate ocean data, limited knowledge about past climate, scenarios opposite of what might occur......HEY, this is starting to sound like me!
Yet, here you are telling me....."The scientists in the Woods Hole article are very good, as is the article itself"
@doskonaleszare: "re Pearce
From the beginning Keenan was barking the wrong tree."
Many thanks for that. I posted the info in the Guardian article's comments. Hopefully Fred Pearce will get to see it. Given his concurrent outspoken criticism of the media and how they're being fooled by the shills and unqualified, especially over those blasted redacted emails, you never know...
J. Bowwers #51- do you have any information on that Royal society debate you mention? I can't see anything on their events calendar, but would like to attend, seeing as we need all the pro-science people at every such event as we can get.
> Of course, speaking truth and exposing doubt makes me a skeptic, therefore, I am labeled a denier.
Let me see if I follow your logic...
-- I claim to speak truth
-- Skeptics speak truth
-- Therefore I am a skeptic
-- I claim all skeptics are labelled deniers
-- Therefore I am labelled a denier because I am a truth-speaking skeptic
This is of course self-indulgent, self-pitying, passive-aggressive drivel.
> And before you get your skirt all bunched up, here are a few examples from the article:
Rather than cherry-picking out of context quotes, lets look at what the article is actually saying: that abrupt changes in climate - both global and regional - are possible and with historical precedent, especially with a rising temperature trend.
Basically, it states that we don't know enough, and don't have enough data, to rule out a massive and paradoxical cooling in eg. the north atlantic region over a *very* short (ie, catastrophic) period of time if present *warming* trends continue.
That there is warming and that humans are in part responsible is taken as a given by the authors. The IPCC are if anything castigated for being too conservative in their assessments, and too focused on gradual changes rather than considering the serious possibility of dramatic and sudden shifts. Of course, much more data and modelling work would be needed to predict those shifts, *and it would be better all round if man-made warming wasn't happening in the first place*.
I never took you for a doomsday abrupt climate change alarmist Betula, but there you go. At least you've accepted both the clear and dangerous warming trend, and the obvious cause.
I think you have confused yourself just enough to believe what it is you're saying....
We don't know enough and don't have enough data to rule out what might happen if the warming trend continues, in fact we can't rule out cooling in certain areas. In addition, we take it as a given that humans are in part responsible, even though we don't know how much of a part that is.
And with this information, you conclude that at least I have "accepted both the clear and dangerous warming trend, and the obvious cause."
We don't know enough and don't have enough data to rule out what might happen if the warming trend continues, in fact we can't rule out *sudden and catastrophic shifts in climate the like of which have happened before* in certain areas. In addition, we *obviously accept the mountain of evidence showing to what extent humans are responsible*.
"The paper became a key reference source for the conclusions of succeeding reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change â including a chapter in the 2007 one co-authored by Jones. It said that globally "the urbanisation influence ⦠is, at most, an order of magnitude less than the warming seen on a century timescale". In other words, it is tiny."
Pearce seems to imply this conclusion is challenged or undermined by new findings. At the century timescale, global warming has been about 0.8 C, so the upper bound on the urban influence is 0.08 C (order of magnitude), or 10% of the observed global warming, according to the IPCC conclusion. So if China makes up 1% of the Earth's surface, and their max. urban influence is 40% of observed warming (as others have noted, such a technique of comparing to SSTs ignores thermal inertia), this would imply the global urban influence would be 0.0032 C, or 0.4%, far less than the 10% upper bound provided by the IPCC. They are indeed putting too much stock in UHI.
Now this doesn't mean adjusted trends in other land regions have a zero remaining UHI influence, but the U.S. adjusted trends have the influence removed (arguably it's overcorrected for) as do other land regions, so it would require a massive stretch to come close to the 10% upper bound determined by the IPCC.
The trend through most of China is smaller than that of surrounding areas, including the oceans. Could the impacts of alleged undocumented station moves have resulted in a cool bias in the China land trend? That discussion seems lost in all the global warming denialist fuss.
Comparing the 1990 study to the 2008 study is certainly apples and oranges.
There is considerably more warming from 1983 to 2004 in China than the surrounding oceans, but keeping in mind thermal inertia (oceans responding more slowly to warming than land), using the SST to land comparison technique makes it difficult to determine the accurate UHI influence.
To summarize some of the key problems with the Pearce article:
1. It makes assertions regarding undocumented station moves not accounted for in a 1990 study.
2. It uses those assertions, and a subsequent 2008 study, to imply that not accounting for this information
a. resulted in a significant UHI influence not being accounted for in the study
b. that the IPCC conclusion regarding UHI's effect on the global adjusted trend is in doubt.
The facts, which take a bit of investigate work and analysis to discover, indicate that such conclusions are clearly not supported.
This is discouraging. I thought the Guardian generally did a reasonable job at covering science in comparision to other media outlets.
Given that you have not availed yourself of the opportunity to respond to my long-running request of deniers that they [answer these questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame…
), perhaps you would do so now if I specifically direct them at you.
Then, with your freshly laid-out answers foremost in your mind, perhaps you would indicate to us the science upon which you base your expectation that the current temperature trajectory of the globe will, in the future, defy basic physics and return, over a longer term, to any of the 20th reference century baselines.
In relating this science, it would be most benefical if you could share your perspicacious understanding of the mechanism(s) involved, and the time-frames over which they will operate.
perhaps you might explain why the specific prediction of such contradicts models of global warming to the extent that said warming will not actually occur, or if it occurs, that it does not represent a danger to the stability of ecosystem integrities, and to human societal integrity.
Finally, perhaps you would deign to explain to the scientists of the world why the application of statistical process does not render irrelevant your comments that:
we don't know enough and don't have enough data to rule out what might happen if the warming trend continues...
And most especially, could you detail to all, using statisitcal process, why your comment that:
[i]n addition, we take it as a given that humans are in part responsible, even though we don't know how much of a part that is
You say:
"Yes Lee, It's called doubt. Doubt in the way AGW consequences are predicted, resulting in doubt of the predictions themselves."
Betula, the "G" is "AGW" means Global. The predictions of GLOBAL warming, predictions made from the physics, from applying constrains derived from the observed system, and from the models, all agree that the globe is going to warm, and those predictions all converge on a climate sensitivity value of 3C / 2x CO2, with some range around that value, and more potential error on the upper side than on the lower. This is GLOBAL warming, it is caused by a shift in the amount of energy in the system overall, and there ain't a lot of controversy about that.
It also IS NOT what the Woods Hole article is about. So, when you use the Woods Hole article to proclaim that there is doubt about A Global W, you are wrong.
What the Woods Hole article is about, is possible abrupt changes in heat transport WITHIN a warming globe. The article is discussing what we know about REGIONAL changes in heat transport in the context of a warming planet, and what the impact of that will be on REGIONAL temperatures. We know that there is great uncertainty in REGIONAL predictions. We also know that this has little impact on the global predictions. We don't know enough to know whether the Atlantic conveyor will slow or stop as the planet warms, but we do know that the planet warms about the same amount under either scenario - heat that doesn't get transported to the north atlantic, simply stays more in the tropics where it originated. We also know that the consequences if it does stop are probably even more extreme than if it does not.
This seems to be a new favorite tactic of the denialists - find an article exploring our current uncertainty about REGIONAL effects of AGW, and use it to argue that there is doubt about GLOBAL warming. Betula here is just one of several recent examples. I used to think that this kind of tactic was necessarily dishonest and venal, because no one could actually be that stupid. I think I'm changing my mind.
Dave Andrews,
"The Australian's War on Science" is clearly a series of blog entries designed to draw attention to bad science journalism, not to promote it.
"J. Bowwers #51- do you have any information on that Royal society debate you mention? I can't see anything on their events calendar, but would like to attend, seeing as we need all the pro-science people at every such event as we can get."
I see Pielke's been on Newsnight tonight. Funny how immediately afterwards he blogged about it with his summation of his debate. So much for "considered opinion" I guess. POLITICAL science must have its virtues.
Let me emphasize Betula's misrepresentation with one example:
Betulat quotes the partial sentance:
>*"we may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur."*
And Betual uses this with other cherry picks to contruct the arguemnt that "*this is starting to sound like me!*. But what did Joyce's words look like in context? He sums up his concern being that:
>*global climate is moving in a direction that makes abrupt climate change more probable, that these dynamics lie beyond the capability of many of the models used in IPCC reports, and the consequences of ignoring this may be large. For those of us living around the edge of the N. Atlantic Ocean, we may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur.*
In wider context Joyce is concerned with our resolution ability to model the response of ocean heat conveyors. And is specifically concerned about a potential regional impact around the edge of the N. Atlantic Ocean. (Did anyone see The Day After Tomorrow?).
Betula, did you think we wouldn't check the quotes you provided? Why did you leave out the half of the sentance that clarified Joyce was refering to a regional cooling response not a global cooling?
What do yo think Joyce was communicating in the previous (contextualising and lead in) sentance where he said: "*global climate is moving in a direction that makes abrupt climate change more probable*"?
Here is a hint:
>"*Abrupt climate changes were especially common when the climate system was being forced to change most rapidly. Thus, greenhouse warming and other human alterations of the earth system may increase the possibility of large, abrupt, and unwelcome regional or global climatic events. The abrupt changes of the past are not fully explained yet, and climate models typically underestimate the size, speed, and extent of those changes. Hence, future abrupt changes cannot be predicted with confidence, and climate surprises are to be expected."*
Who do you think directed me to this source, with the commendaiton:
>"*This very readable compilation contains a breadth and depth of discussion that we cannot hope to match here*"
[Tip for cherry pickers: before you select the bits you like from the NAS quote, read what else the NAS say about AGW, or It'll come back and haunt you, (yes you Betula)].
hi, I found [this blog](http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/) when I was searching the net for material on global warming. Are any of the issues he raises relevant?
I am not an expert and I've been reading about global warming on the net for about a week now, so I cant judge.
Thought this would be the best place to ask.
At the start of this latest post in the series of what you grandiosely term an 'investigation', you repeat the following claim:
Even Sir David King, the government's former chief scientist, remains confused. This week, he sought to blame the leak on a foreign intelligence agency, only to admit later he had no evidence.
This is despite the fact that following your last article, which was based entirely on the claim that David King had retracted a previous statement he had made in an interview to you, I demonstrated that this was not the case at all and that King had volunteered that he had no inside information when originally talking to the Independent.
In other words, you have published, and repeated, a demonstrable falsehood.
Now, are you going to do the decent thing and admit your - lets be generous - mistake, or are you going to continue to ride roughshod over the truth? Your court."
There is, of course, plenty more wrong with what they have been writing, but this is an obvious and clearly demonstrable falsehood. Complaints can be addressed to comment.is.free@guardian.co.uk, if anyone else is as annoyed about it as I am.
Hmmm... formatting went weird again. Here is the untrue claim in the article:
"Even Sir David King, the government's former chief scientist, remains confused. This week, he sought to blame the leak on a foreign intelligence agency, only to admit later he had no evidence."
Your questions regarding my comments can all be answered by the scientists at Woods Hole in the link provided by connor @11, and by your friend Dave on this site.
You see, I was just repeating what was said, and since you didn't know that, you chose to question how I could come up with such statements.
Can you smell the hypocrisy?
Let me walk you through your exposure...
1.You ask me to explain this statement: "we can't rule out
cooling in certain areas"
The actual quote from the "very good scientists in the article is..."Global warming can induce a colder climate for many of us."
2.You ask me to explain this statement: "we don't know enough and don't have enough data to rule out what might happen if the warming trend continues"
This from Dave @66...."we don't know enough, and don't have enough data, to rule out a massive and paradoxical cooling in eg. the north atlantic region over a very short (ie, catastrophic) period of time if present warming trends continue."
3.Finally, you ask me to explain this: "i]n addition, we take it as a given that humans are in part responsible, even though we don't know how much of a part that is"
This from the "very good" scientists in the artice @11...."Evidence has mounted that global warming began in the last century and that humans may be in part responsible."
Bernard, since the scientists use the word "may", this means they aren't positive we are even partially responsible. If they aren't positive of that, how could they know how much of a part that is?
Now, if you want to be itellectually honest, instead of questioning me, you will ask yourself why you are questioning the scientists and Dave.
Either you are blind, or your entire comment is dishonest.
First, you start off by quoting me with this line...
"Yes Lee, It's called doubt. Doubt in the way AGW consequences are predicted, resulting in doubt of the predictions themselves."
You then go on to explain Global Warming instead of Anthropogenic Global Warming and then you say this....
"So, when you use the Woods Hole article to proclaim that there is doubt about A Global W, you are wrong."
Lee, as you can see by my quote above, I wasn't talking Global Warming, I was talking about doubt in the way AGW consequences are predicted. As was the article.
Are you really so blind that you can't see that?
Your point of emphasizing the word REGIONAL is also dishonest. If you look at my comment @67 you will see this...
"We don't know enough and don't have enough data to rule out what might happen if the warming trend continues, in fact we can't rule out cooling in certain areas."
You know why you didn't see the part about "certain areas" Lee?
Anybody up for some fun fact checking of stuff posted up at CA and Pielke Jr's blog and my counter claims?
CA and Pielke claim here and here that this article shows the IPCC claim that "The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level where 60% of its population lives and 65% of its Gross National Product (GNP) is produced."
is in error.
See here for the correct page of the WG II report.
On the face of it those criticisms appears correct. However, I'm not sure that sentence means what they think it means. I think the first claim regarding 55% is not a stand alone claim that 55% of the Netherlands is below sea level. I think that claim applies only to the area of land occupied by 60% of the population. Presumably 65% of Dutch GDP is produced within the land occupied by 60% of the population given that it covers some of their largest cities. This would make sense given that these claims highlight how close some of the most densely populated areas in the Netherlands are to low lying areas.
It is poorly worded, for sure, and open to equivocation of meaning, but when has that stopped McI or Pielke before.
Looking at some info on the Netherlands the claim the IPCC makes doesn't seem far-fetched at all. See here for a map relating population density to proximity to low lying elevations. You can verify the elevations using Google Earth.
Maybe I'm suffering from reading comprehension problems and I have this wrong. I would appreciate your criticisms and comments on this issue.
This goes to show how limited the value of a âglobal temperatureâ metric is...
Jakerman, this is the same Steve Goddard who published crap about arctic ice conditions (in The Register) so wrong that NSIDC felt compelled to take him down. Goddard was forced to publish acknowledgement in The Register.
This was followed by a guest post at WUWT in which he "proved" that there are CO2 snowstorms in the Antarctic.
It will show a warming trend during an El Nino that is stronger than the IPCC trend with no El Nino
If youâre trying to hang your hat an El Nino for a long term tend, youâll be disappointed.
This from the crowd that hung their hat on an exceptionally strong El Niño in 1998 to "prove" cooling, and the 2008 cool La Niña to "prove" even more drastic "cooling" ...
>Bernard, since the scientists use the word "may", this means they aren't positive we are even partially responsible.
No, Betula, the construction is "__Evidence has mounted__...that humans may be partly responsible..." Evidence has increased from plausible to probable to likely to very likely to damn near certain.
Contrary-wise, no falsifying evidence has emerged that humans may not be responsible. The evidence is that most 20th century warming cannot be explained without anthropocentric cause. Because we don't know everything and scientific knowledge is ultimately empirically inferential and not deduced from a priori absolutes, some unknown cause can never be entirely or completely ruled out, scientists are always cautious about making absolutly certain statements. Such an unknown cause is becoming ever increasingly unlikely, whether you are intelligent enough to understand the subtley of such caveats or not, which, from all available evidence, you may very well not be.
Ah, Steven Goddard was the origin of the CO2 snow idea? Not surprising, if so. Came across him recently, and he seems to have a fairly poor understanding of lots of things. And given to changing the subject rapidly.
I found Spencer's thread at WWUT quite interesting, especially seeing some of the posters try to come to grasps with it.
This one takes the cake:
Mark - "I wonder if that satellite was hacked⦠I find it hard to believe that Jan was this warm in the northern hemisphere."
Anyway, is this really all so surprising? No. There are bigger shocks in the lower troposphere data than the surface data. Temperatures rise proportionally more in the LT than the surface during El Ninos (and the same explanation goes for why the satellite anomalies are so darn cold during La Ninas).
Some posters also compared this El Nino to the one in 97/98, and said there is no warming. It appears thus far the 97/98 was a lot stronger than this one. My model suggests that February 1998 was about 0.20C warmer due to El Nino than current. (surface impact is about 0.12C). My model also suggests about an 8 month (exponential weighted) lag for Nino on UAH data. (It's 6 months for surface data.) So even though the Nino index has essentially peaked, the temperature impact of Nino hasn't peaked yet. Another thing is that the sun is about 0.06C cooler now than in 1998 (the sun is a tricky thing to get a robust estimate on, though). 1998 and 2010 are still apples and oranges comparisons.
I might have to try a non-linear Nino model, though. My model tracks moderate Ninos and Ninas pretty well, but tends to underestimate the stronger ones, especially with the troposphere data.
The anthropogenic contribution is about 0.14C / decade, given UAH data (0.16C with RSS, and 0.19C with GISS). The interesting thing about UAH data is that it seems to be catching up to RSS over the last decade.
You might wriggle and twist, but it is plain to see that you really do not want to provide straight answers to my questions, and more importantly, to establish the real facts of the matters.
perhaps you might explain why the specific prediction of such contradicts models of global warming to the extent that said warming will not actually occur, or if it occurs, that it does not represent a danger to the stability of ecosystem integrities, and to human societal integrity.
to come up with:
1.You ask me to explain this statement: "we can't rule out cooling in certain areas" The actual quote from the "very good scientists in the article is..."Global warming can induce a colder climate for many of us."
which in no way addresses any of the several separate aspects of my question.
In repsonse to my question:
Finally, perhaps you would deign to explain to the scientists of the world why the application of statistical process does not render irrelevant your comments that:
we don't know enough and don't have enough data to rule out what might happen if the warming trend continues...
[My latter emphasis]
you come up with
2.You ask me to explain this statement: "we don't know enough and don't have enough data to rule out what might happen if the warming trend continues"
This from Dave @66...."we don't know enough, and don't have enough data, to rule out a massive and paradoxical cooling in eg. the north atlantic region over a very short (ie, catastrophic) period of time if present warming trends continue."
which has nothing to do with my actual question. Seriously, did you even read it?!
Once more confusing the intent of another of my questions:
And most especially, could you detail to all, using statisitcal [sic] process, why your comment that:
[i]n addition, we take it as a given that humans are in part responsible, even though we don't know how much of a part that is
is accurate
[My latter emphasis]
you muddled through an answer:
3.Finally, you ask me to explain this: "i]n [sic] addition, we take it as a given that humans are in part responsible, even though we don't know how much of a part that is"
This from the "very good" scientists in the artice [sic] @11...."Evidence has mounted that global warming began in the last century and that humans may be in part responsible."
which has nothing to do with the thrust of my question.
Your answers remind me of some of the first-year essays and reports that I've marked, where the (completely clueless) student thinks that repeating some of the key words, and making vague hand-wavings toward the hemisphere in which they think the original question resides, will somehow bamboozle the assessor.
Ok then, I thought everyone else was pointing out your dishonest misrepresentation of the article in question, but if you want me to join the chorus...
> We don't know enough and don't have enough data to rule out what might happen if the warming trend continues, in fact we can't rule out cooling in certain areas.
Your use of the word "cooling" is a greatly reduced interpretation of what the article actually states. One of their main criticisms of current models is that they are too conservative, dealing mostly with gradual warming processes and lacking the mechanisms and data to predict sudden regional shifts. The balance of your sentence places an equivalence between the word "warming" in the first section, and "cooling" in the second - when in fact the rate and extent of the two phenomena as discussed in the article are radically different. The implication is that while the globe gets *gradually warmer*, some areas will get *gradually cooler* - when in actuality the stark warning is of sudden climatic shifts of several degrees over a timescale of less than a decade. It is dishonest to downplay the major thrust of the article by understating its major concerns in favour of highlighting its criticism of modelling (as you did earlier in the thread) as in fact the criticism of current models *only makes sense* if you accept that the "cooling" discussed is of a sudden, and dramatic nature, and is no way equivalent to the gradual predicted warming.
> In addition, we take it as a given that humans are in part responsible, even though we don't know how much of a part that is.
When we have a range of possible contribution, along with error bars, simply saying "we don't know how much" is a misrepresentation. We don't know *precisely* but we have a range that we can be pretty confident in. There is a world of difference between "we have an approximate idea, that we are refining all the time" and "we have no idea at all", and your choice of words leans towards the latter. Because of your choice of words, this *weakens* the first part of the sentence - the "we take it as a given" section. Because you imply we have no idea (or at least, much less of an idea than we actually do), you further imply we are wrong to take it as a given that humans are responsible (through your use of the words "even though").
The particular stresses and emphasis you use are completely unsupported by the article in question in the tone that you employ, hence the accusation of dishonest misrepresentation.
> And with this information, you conclude that at least I have "accepted both the clear and dangerous warming trend, and the obvious cause."
I conclude that (facetiously) based on your declared approval of an article that does precisely that. Of course, your approval only went so far as to choose some select, out-of-context quotes and ignore the central thrust of the article which alters the nature of your quotes substantially, clearly highlighting that you approve of it only insofar as you read what you want to read and hear what you want to hear. Hopefully my attempt to point out that the article *does not say what you think it says* has not gone unnoticed, and that by accepting it you are accepting a position that you have in previous threads denied vociferously.
I thought you were better than that, but at the same time I understand your dilema. Once exposed, covering yourself with a blanket is only natural.
Let's review:
First you ask me to explain my comments, which were mimicking those that were made by Woods Hole Scientists and Dave. Then you call me a hypocrite for pointing out the hypocrisy of not directing your questions to them.
Of course, you weren't aware my comments were nearly identical to those of the "very good" scientists until after the fact, so now you stumble for your blanket.
In addition, you are upset that I didn't answer a question you posed to someone else on a different post, and then directed at me as a way to change the subject.
Fascinating comment here at 105 that I recommend all read.
Apparently, I am dishonest because I used the term "cooling" instead of the actual term that was used in the article (@11), that being the word "cooling"
You see, what I said was....."in fact we can't rule out cooling in certain areas."
And what the article states is...."Model calculations indicate the potential for cooling of 3 to 5 degree Celsius in the ocean and atmosphere should a total disruption occur."
Dave then goes on to expose my dishonesty with this fine piece of detective work....
I said...."In addition, we take it as a given that humans are in part responsible, even though we don't know how much of a part that is."
Dave points out how dishonest a statement this is, because I didn't say..."we don't know precisely how much of a part that is"
Of course, Dave forgets to mention "precisely" how much of a part that is, though I suspect he can find out while sharing the blanket with Bernard.
Really, you're getting more than a little tiresome with your strawmen and context-snipping quotations and paraphrasals. I provided far more detail and criticism than you address in your response, specifically through implication, omission, downplaying or over-simplification, especially placed in the wider context of your other comments on this thread (ie. your initial quotation of the article that yet again was highly selective and dishonest in its presentation of key phrases without context).
Do I take your inability to form a coherent response without mangling my argument as a concession that you are, in fact, utterly dishonest?
And you can do your own homework on the prevailing opinion on warming attribution (although you could do worse than start at IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 9). Pretending such things do not exist simply because they are not cited in detail every time they are mentioned in passing is childish, tedious, and a double-standard of the highest order.
"specifically through implication, omission, downplaying or over-simplification, especially placed in the wider context of your other comments on this thread (ie. your initial quotation of the article that yet again was highly selective and dishonest in its presentation of key phrases without context)."
Dave, you dance much better than you talk, so I'm going to give you a big dance floor to work with.
Here are the quotes and my comment from #62.All quotes are from the article @11. Remember, these are "very good" scientists from Woods Hole...
1."This is a daunting task but is necessary before we can confidently rely on models to predict future climate change."
2."Besides needing believable models that can accurately predict climate change, we also need data that can properly initialize them."
3."For the ocean, our data coverage is wholly inadequate."
4."Our knowledge about past climate change is limited as well."
5."Global warming can induce a colder climate for many of us."
6."we may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur."
7."And now perhaps you begin to see the scope of the problem."
My comment:
"....can't confidently rely, need more believable models, need more accuracy, wholly inadequate ocean data, limited knowledge about past climate, scenarios opposite of what might occur...."
So Dave, let me see you do the implication, omission, downplaying or over-simplification dances..... or get off the dance floor.
Betula's tactic to avoid facing his dishonesty; build some more strawmen:
>*Apparently, I am dishonest because I used the term "cooling" instead of the actual term that was used in the article (@11), that being the word "cooling"*
Dave this is classic Betula, he is overwhelmingly empty but will argue a non-point eternally. Though your efforts are not totaly in-vain, as Betula's antics do provide a case study in the style of empty argumentative denial buttressed with his army of strawmen.
Betula, that articl eis aobut REGIONAL mpacts, so let me fix yor post by putting back in the context that you lose when you quote mine those sentencfes.
1."This is a daunting task but is necessary before we can confidently rely on models to predict future [REGIONAL] climate change."
2."Besides needing believable models that can accurately predict [REGIONAL] climate change, we also need data that can properly initialize them."
3."For the ocean, our data coverage is wholly inadequate [TO PREDICT REGIONAL IMPACTS ON OCEAN CONVEYORS]."
4."Our knowledge about past [REGIONAL] climate change is limited as well."
5."Global warming can induce a 'REGIONALLY] colder climate for many of us."
6."we may be planning for [LOCAL AND REGIONAL] climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur [IN A GIVEN LOCALE OR REGION]."
7."And now perhaps you begin to see the scope of the problem [OF MAKING REGIONAL PREDICTIONS]."
See, Betula that question does not call GLOBAL warming into question at all - it is pointing out the difficulties in making accurate regional predictions with the current state of the observations and models. Duh! - we've known that all along.
I agree with Betula (#108). In the face of the obvious, the 'alarmist deniers' are intellectually bankrupt, and incapable of accepting an alternative point of view. Unlike me of course ! :-)
The alarmists must listen to us! We needn't listen to them! Therefore, I'm open-minded.
* * *
More news on the SwiftHack front: According to the Guardian, UEA climatologist Paul Dennis was interviewed by the Norfolk police, and gave a former statement to them. I don't think he was the one who Did Itâ¢, though.
Once again, I querie if you have actually read what I asked of you, and I invite everyone here to re-read the exchange between you and myself, and decide for themselves who is hiding under a blankie of cognitive dissonance.
I know that it's not me tugging a forelock and sucking my thumb...
"Cover your eyes Betula, and pretend that you haven't been called out for truncating quotes to remove the context that puts that "cooling" in terms of a regional impact in the greater global warming."
Jakerman, please explain in detail what you believe my comment "cooling in certain areas" means.
"See, Betula that question does not call GLOBAL warming into question at all - it is pointing out the difficulties in making accurate regional predictions with the current state of the observations and models. Duh! - we've known that all along."
Lee, after inserting your own words into the Woods Hole scientists comments, you reach an imaginary conclusion about something I never said. In other words, you have managed to convince your own imagination into believing something by confusing it with your own imagination.
Dig deep and try to pay attention.
1.First, @38 you state this...
"You appear to think the article makes some point you support, Betula, so why don't you tell us what the article says?"
2.I respond @68 with this...
"It's called doubt. Doubt in the way AGW consequences are predicted, resulting in doubt of the predictions themselves."
3.You use your imagination @78 and believe the above comment has something to do with doubting GW.
"So, when you use the Woods Hole article to proclaim that there is doubt about A Global W, you are wrong."
4.I respond @91 to the absurdity of your comment with a conclusion...
"Either you are blind, or your entire comment is dishonest."
5.Your response @112 proves you refuse to ignnore the fact that I was referring to "Doubt in the way AGW consequences are predicted."
"See, Betula that question does not call GLOBAL warming into question at all"
Possible Conclusions....
1.Since you fail to see the words in front of your face you are blind.
2.You saw the words, but lack the ability to put them together to form an understanding of their meaning.
3.You interpret everything you read to fit into your preconcieved conclusion.
4.You are dishonest.
5.You are retarded, in which case I apologize for making fun of you.
"The long and the short of it is that you cannot answer my very simple and straight-forward questions, and thus you have to construct your own version of events."
Bernard, the questions you refer to are @77. Did you happen to notice that before each question, you post comments from which you base your questions? You do know you did that don't you?
Did you also happen to notice that the comments you posted are based on comments from Woods Hole Scientists? Did you know that Bernard?
So, despite the fact that I already gave you the answer, I am going to give it to you again so you can sleep at night, under your blankie of course.
Are you ready?
Your questions are insincere.They should be directed at the people who made them, the people you agree with, rather than the person who repeated them, the person you disagree with.
You can pretend I can't see you under the blanket, but I know your there.....right under #77.
Betula, here is what that article says, placed intot eh broader context of the wider field.
Current models mostly show a continuing atlantic conveyor, and those models show that AGW will have substantial negative regional consequences for the North Atlantic region. However, making the models a bit more realistic reveals a bistable state - either the conveyor continues, or it shuts down. If it shuts down, the consequences for the north Atlantic region are likely to be even more severe, with Little Ice Age conditions for northern europe.
We don't currently know enough to distinguish between those possibilities, but either one sucks if you're in Europe or dependent on European services and economics.
The 'doubt' in that article is not doubt about whether there will be bad consequences from AGW. It is 'doubt' about WHICH really suck-full consequence is the one to prepare for. With those suck-full consequences superimposed on top of sea level rise and acidification, etc, which happen either way.
The point you're trying to make is like this - informed people tell you that the door you're about to walk through has someone lurking behind it who is bent on doing you some damage. You ask what kind of damage, and they tell you that you will either be shot or stabbed, they don't have enough information to know which. So you say, 'well, there's doubt, so your warning is worthless,' and you walk blindly and confidently through that door anyway, to be either shot or stabbed. Because, hey, the guy might stab you so why worry about being shot, and he might shoot you so why worry about being stabbed? Right?
You've even resorted to snipping your own quotes - you do yourself a disservice, what you actually said was:
> It's called doubt. Doubt in the way AGW consequences are predicted, resulting in doubt of the predictions themselves. As I have said many times....the worst case scenarios are speculations built on hypotheticals derived from inaccurate models.
So you read an article, take a few sentences out of context about weaknesses with models, and use that to back your case about worst case scenarios being doubtful because of model innacuracy.
Except... the whole point of the article is pointing out that *the models don't go far enough* and that there are entirely reasonable scenarios that are far worse than the current conservative predictions, but we cannot yet assess those specific cases with any confidence due to a lack of knowledge.
So if your position is that the models are too uncertain to be useful and that the IPCC's worst-case scenarios are purely hypothetical (and by extension unconvincing and/or unlikely), this article really doesn't support that viewpoint, and your attempts to take sections out of context to make that point are (drumroll please) dishonest.
>*Betula,
You've even resorted to snipping your own quotes...*
Classic!
And Betula asks me:
>*Jakerman, please explain in detail what you believe my comment "cooling in certain areas" means.*
I'll do better than that strawman Betula, I'll redirect you back to where you were called out truncating quotes to fabricate a false alignment between Joyce's and your views.
And here is the outstanding question that Betula tries to ignore: Why did you truncate the highlighted part of this (following) sentance?
>*For those of us living around the edge of the N. Atlantic Ocean, we may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur.*
Let me once again remind you of the essence of deception you tried to fabricate with this truncated quote, Betula writes:
>*this [Joyce's article] is starting to sound like me! Yet, here you are telling me....."The scientists in the Woods Hole article are very good, as is the article itself"
I'll take that as a compliment.*
Difference is of course that you Betula are disingenuously cherry picking and truncating quotes to argue that we don't know enough about anything to act seriously to mitigate global warming. Joyce is not, his article concerns a regional impact. For the broader contexts he cites the likes of the NAS.
Wiggle as much as you like Betula, its gotten to the state that you are way past unreliable, you are making your self look more and more delusional. The more you blather, the worse you look.
You are making claims about anthropogenic global warming in contradiction of the consensus of experts scientists working in climatology, you are very selectively quote-mining phrases from them, and in so doing you are distorting the meaning of their statements.
My questions to you are very sincere. If you truly believe that the imputations of your 'interpretation' are correct, you will be quite prepared to say why they are so in the context of my questions, which seek to clarify exactly where your understanding concords with the mainstream science.
That you persist in refusing to do answer is telling.
So what is your point? Just making inane conversation or have you anything more substantial to say? Last week temperatures in western Europe were well above normal, and this week they will drop a few degrees below normal. This thing is called WEATHER. Ever heard of it?
Bernard beautifully sums up the main streatgy of the entire anti-environmental movement when he describes Betula's latest gibberish:
*You are making claims about anthropogenic global warming in contradiction of the consensus of experts scientists working in climatology, you are very selectively quote-mining phrases from them, and in so doing you are distorting the meaning of their statements*
Given that most of the deniers do little or no actual research, they are forced to resort to whatever tricks they can to downplay the findings of empirical research and to blunt the views of the vast majority of the scientists conducting this research. Betula is only illustrating this with his nonsensical musings. Bjorn Lomborg, for instance, selectively quotes scientists to draw conclusions that the scientists in question had not intended (check out his partial quote of Paul Colinvaux's discussion about the importance of biodiversity loss and how Lomborg distorts that to alter the meaning of Colinvaux's original quote making it appear that Colinvaux is downplaying what we know about the issue).
As I have said before: Betula's aim is to bait and switch - he unwisely jumped into the debate on the effects of climate change on biodiversity on another thread, was hammered on it, and fled with his tail between his legs, only to resurface here in an attempt to distort the meaning of the Wood's Hole Research.
As I have said before many times, most of the deniers are driven by their owbn political ideologies and could not give a damn about the "truth", as elusive as that is in science.
Jeff, if you keep your eye on the weather you may catch a glimpse of real climate change.
It may sound absurd, but the Old Farmer's Almanac is more accurate in their seasonal forecasts than anyone else. They predict weather trends and events by comparing solar patterns and historical weather conditions, with current solar activity.
Britain will again be under snow by week's end and the UK Met will be red faced.
Appologies Billy Bob, you make an apt quartet. Does Duff or Keith or Lank and Janama want make it the orchestra? Then perhaps you could swap details and form a support group or something?
Is it Bathurts el gordo? Unfortunatley betula and ducky are OS, but does el gordo seem like someone you could spend more time with Biilly Bob? el gordo's family make him keep his denialist under his hat, so he keen for more contact.
Your both white middle aged right? El gordo in his 50s? Maybe close to sixty? Billy Bob just a little younger? How close did I get?
PS Billy Bob, you might do some reserach to verify where you sit in the noob rankings. My inclination is that only el gordo is noober to Deltoid than you.
Back to the science, Karoly and Rudd are being abused over at Watts. Something to do with their incorrect comments that AGW is responsible for drought in the Murray-Darling basin.
You all seem hellbent on the idea that I am intentionally "truncating" the comments of the Woods Hole scientists for the following reasons:
1.I misrepresent the fact that they are talking about "regional" areas....
Yet somehow you purposely ignore that I quoted them as saying "cooling for many of us". For all you brilliant scientists out there, "many of us" does not mean "all of us", and therefore does not and cannot insinuate "all of us".
In addition, you ignore that I said "we can't rule out cooling in certain areas". Once again for all you arrogant, condescending, willfully ignorant scientists, "certain areas" doesn't mean "all areas", and therefore does not and cannot insinuate "all areas".
2.I "use the Woods Hole article to proclaim that there is doubt about A Global W"
Yet somehow, I never once mentioned Global Warming or proclaimed anywhere, that Global Warming doesn't exist. Unless you believe you are some sort of genius, in which case I did.
What I did say @66 was that there is "Doubt in the way AGW consequences are predicted, resulting in doubt of the predictions themselves" and "scientists at woods hole are skeptical of both the accuracy of the prediction process and the prediction itself"
None of you are willing to dispute the fact that the predicted worst case scenarios cannot be assessd with any confidence due to a lack of knowledge (the point of the article), yet you act like they can.
Old, tired, willfully ignorant, purposely misrepresenting, dishonest, groupthink geniuses....all blind in the dark and unwilling to change the bulb.
>None of you are willing to dispute the fact that the predicted worst case scenarios cannot be assessd[sic] with any confidence due to a lack of knowledge (the point of the article), yet you act like they can.
Not at all, Betula. The fact that the worst case scenarios of sudden climate change cannot be confidently predicted within some narrow time frame does not discount the fact that as the relatively gradual stress on the climate system increases the likelihood of sudden climate change likewise increases. Particularly since the most likely and conservatively gradualist scenarios that can be assessed with a high degree of confidence are themselves catastrophic enough to give any rational person reason for concern.
What I did say @66 was that there is "Doubt in the way AGW consequences are predicted, resulting in doubt of the predictions themselves
@Betula: You could make that argument about anything. Try tobacco. We can't be sure exactly how much lung cancer and other health complications will be caused by smoking X packs a day. We can't be sure about the precise effects of second-hand smoke and so forth.
I believe those are true statements, but what would be the reason for anyone to argue them? Clearly, they would be designed to promote inaction.
Betula:
"None of you are willing to dispute the fact that the predicted worst case scenarios cannot be assessd with any confidence due to a lack of knowledge (the point of the article), yet you act like they can."
Betula, my post at 125 is about EXACTLY THAT. Do you imagine no one notices?
Betula attempts to addresses the fact that he's been called out for quote mining and distorting Joyce's article. But to defend himself Betula used quite bazaar claims:
>*"Yet somehow, I [Betula] never once mentioned Global Warming"*
The first point is, what an odd logic? Betual is trying to defend against his misrepresenting of Joyce (via quote mining, truncating quotes etc) by reasoning that he didn't mention global warming.
The second point is, he contradicts himself even about this:
>*I never once mentioned Global Warming [...].What I did say @66 was that there is "Doubt in the way AGW consequences are predicted, resulting in doubt of the predictions themselves" and "scientists at woods hole are skeptical of both the accuracy of the prediction process and the prediction itself".*
Betula, are you so blind that you can't see you immediately contradicted yourself? Apparently for Betula mentioning AGW is not mentioning Global Warming. But worst of all, betula totally failed to address the quote at issue.
I'm happy to show Betula his dishonesty as many times as he dodges it:
>And here is the outstanding question that Betula tries to ignore: Why did you truncate the highlighted part of this (following) sentance?
>*For those of us living around the edge of the N. Atlantic Ocean, we may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur.
>Let me once again remind you of the essence of deception you tried to fabricate with this truncated quote, Betula writes:
>*this [Joyce's article] is starting to sound like me! Yet, here you are telling me....."The scientists in the Woods Hole article are very good, as is the article itself" I'll take that as a compliment.*
>Difference is of course that you Betula are disingenuously cherry picking and truncating quotes to argue that we don't know enough about anything to act seriously to mitigate global warming. Joyce is not, his article concerns a regional impact. For the broader contexts he cites the likes of the NAS.
Keep writheing like a snake Betula, you keep looking he worse and worse. Now, in the spirit of either his ignorance or dishonesty Betula tries to shift the heat on him by complaining:
>*None of you are willing to dispute the fact that the predicted worst case scenarios cannot be assessd with any confidence due to a lack of knowledge (the point of the article), yet you act like they can.*
I asked you about most likely estimates, more commonly referred to as 'best estimates'. These most likely estimates are bad enough to warrant intensive mitigation. The worst estimates of which you pretend to have knowledge leave Earth as a Venus like dead planet.
A couple of papers came out recently which puts a dampener on global warming.
The Solomon et al. paper says the warming of the 1990's came about because there was more moisture in the stratosphere and the flatness in temperatures since 2000 can be accounted for by stratospheric dryness.
Dampner is an apt term el gordo, as like a shock absorber such phenomena shift the load of warming, they don't stop it.
Unfortunately the stratosphere cannot get perpetually drier and drier, so this ain't no permament end to warming. And more unfortunately the stratosphere can get more moist.
1) Do you contend that the science is insufficient to warrent serious greenhouse-gas mitigation?
2) If so, do you claim that the article by Joyce supports the above contention? Or does Joyce's article imply that failure to mitigate against further global warming may risk leading to harmful cooling in regions close to the North Atlantic?
A new paper by Rohling et al. 'Comparison between Holocene and Marine Isotope Stage-11 sea level histories', claims our current interglacial is similar to the MIS-11 of around 400,000 years ago.
Previous studies have suggested the Holocene should have ended 2-2.5 thousand years ago, but because of the anthropogenic connection it has remained warm due to deforestation, plus methane and CO2 buildup.
I dismiss the Gaia theory out of hand, too few trees had been chopped down to have any impact over natural variability.
The authors are putting their money on the amount of solar energy reaching the earth on the same latitude in summer and they suggest the Holocene may not end anytime soon, with or without AGW.
1."Apparently for Betula mentioning AGW is not mentioning Global Warming."
It isn't, unless you believe all global warming is caused by man. Global warming has alternated with periods of global cooling throughout history in regular, natural cycles.
2."Betula, are you so blind that you can't see you immediately contradicted yourself?"
Please answer this one.....If I were contradicting myself, than why did I explain to Lee @95 that I was talking about AGW and not GW?
3."Why did you truncate the highlighted part of this (following) sentance?"
"For those of us living around the edge of the N. Atlantic Ocean, we may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur."
Because it was a huge scheme on my part to hide the fact that we don't know what will happen in a given region, not a "certain area" and not "for many of us", but for a region.
And this makes a big difference when we ask the tough questions, doesn't it Jake?
So please tell me, who is planning for climate scenarios that may be the opposite of what occurs? Where did they get their information for this planning that may be opposite?
Should they keep the old plan or create a new one? What should be different in the new plan? What if the new plan is wrong and the old plan turns out to be right? Can they still rely on the information from the old plan?
Of course it doesn't really matter, because it's a regional issue.
1) Do you contend that the science is insufficient to warrent serious greenhouse-gas mitigation?
I contend that the science is biased and the predictions are exaggerated, not just by scientists, but by politicians, advocacy groups and various representatives of countries that have a stake in recieving big money from rich nations. There are also those that see this as a way to advance their ideology, mainly through fear.
I contend that many aspects that may affect future outcomes are intentionally ignored, including some of the potential outcomes themselves.
If this is what you mean by "the science", then the answer is yes.
2."If so, do you claim that the article by Joyce supports the above contention? Or does Joyce's article imply that failure to mitigate against further global warming may risk leading to harmful cooling in regions close to the North Atlantic?"
The article implies that we may be planning for warming, but get sudden cooling, due to warming.
The article also implies that because of our limited knowledge, we don't know what will happen, in fact it may be the opposite of what we think.
In other words, the article implies it doesn't know.
Also, you might notice the article implies that the consequences of ignoring the unknown "may be large", only after they request more money for research.
> The article implies that we may be planning for warming, but get sudden cooling, due to warming.
Planning for warming *globally* but get sudden dramatic *regional* shifts that may encompass *dramatic cooling*, within a continued *overall global warming* trend.
> The article also implies that because of our limited knowledge, we don't know what will happen, in fact it may be the opposite of what we think.
Yes - if what you are talking about it prediction of specific tipping points where a global warming trend triggers regional events far outside the currently anticipated gradual warming.
> In other words, the article implies it doesn't know.
This is reductio ad absurdum. That's not at all what the article says - certainly not in the way you've tried to extend that to cover uncertainty in other predictions.
It says *nothing* about the predictions for an overall warming trend globally, and indeed takes that *as a necessary precursor* for triggering dramatic events *within that context*. The thing it says we don't know about is whether our current predictions are *far too conservative*.
Tell me again - why do you think this article supports your contention that:
> As I have said many times....the worst case scenarios are speculations built on hypotheticals derived from inaccurate models.
Perhaps it would help if you described in detail which worst case scenarios you are talking about that you have expounded on before - because I've seen you characterise the IPCC assessment as scaremongering in precisely this way.
Tell me - is the current IPCC assessment reasonable, or a hypothetical worst case scenario? Do you accept it or not?
>Do you claim that the article by Joyce supports the above contention? [that the science is insufficient to warrent serious greenhouse-gas mitigation?] Or does Joyce's article imply that failure to mitigate against further global warming may risk leading to harmful cooling in regions close to the North Atlantic?
You arrive at your answer that "the article implies it doesn't know" [that the science is insufficient to warrent serious greenhouse-gas mitigation]. But to construct that answer you selectively misrepresent the article with this summary:
>*The article implies that we may be planning for warming, but get sudden cooling, due to warming.*
And you write:
>*we don't know what will happen, in fact it may be the opposite of what we think.*
Would you like us to believe that you recognise the Joyce artical is concerned with regional cooling in a global warming context or that you think the artical is about global cooling in response to global warming? Which is it?
>*for all you arrogant, condescending, willfully ignorant scientists, "certain areas" doesn't mean "all areas", and therefore does not and cannot insinuate "all areas".*
>>."Apparently for Betula mentioning AGW is not mentioning Global Warming."
To which Betual responds:
>*It isn't, unless you believe all global warming is caused by man. Global warming has alternated with periods of global cooling throughout history in regular, natural cycles.*
Spot your error yet Betula?
I'll give you a clue; All mice are mammals, but not all mammals are mice.
Betula keeps using 'doubt' as if it means 'we don't know anything.'
Even regionally, that article points out that we know a lot. We know that the probable regional response to AGW is either:
1: Warming on pace with the planet, which will have bad consequences for the region.
2: Sudden catastrophic cooling which will have even worse regional consequences.
We know what the switch is that decides which it will be - it is the Atlantic conveyor. There is pretty good evidence that the conveyor can shut off. If it does Europe gets really fucking cold. If it doesn't, Europe keeps warming. We just don't know enough to be able to decide which it is going to be - thus the call for better models and more data, to try to figure out which of 2 bad consequences is the most probable.
Not, as Betula keeps implying, to decide if there will be any consequence at all.
I state...."I contend that the science is biased and the predictions are exaggerated"
Vince agrees with me that the science is biased and exaggerated with..."Sure they are"..., but believes my comments about bias and exaggeration are biased and exaggerated with...."but your bias and exaggeration is many orders of magnitude higher."
My answer to your first question was...."If this is what you mean by "the science", then the answer is yes."
Your second question was structured in 2 parts, "If" being the first part and "Or" being the second.
I answered the "Or" part of your question.
So by answering the "or" part, we eliminated the need to answer the "if" question. It is already answered by choosing "or".
Your "or" question is this...
"Or does Joyce's article imply that failure to mitigate against further global warming may risk leading to harmful cooling in regions close to the North Atlantic?"
A more clarified answer would be.... the article implies it, but does not directly state it, because it doesn't know.
Apparently, Jakerman believes mentioning man made global warming is like mentioning global warming, just like mentioning mice is like mentioning a mammal.
So mentioning man made mice is like mentioning mice, just like mentioning warming is like mentioning a temperature.
**Let me recap my second question:** [Emphasis added]
Do you claim that the article by Joyce supports the above contention? [that the science is insufficient to warrent serious greenhouse-gas mitigation?] Or does Joyce's article imply that failure to mitigate against further global warming may risk leading to harmful cooling in regions close to the North Atlantic?
You arrive at your answer that "the article implies it doesn't know" [that the science is insufficient to warrent serious greenhouse-gas mitigation]. But to construct that answer you selectively misrepresent the article with this summary:
>*The article implies that we may be planning for warming, but get sudden cooling, due to warming.*
And you write:
>*we don't know what will happen, in fact it may be the opposite of what we think.*
Would you like us to believe that you recognise the Joyce artical is concerned with regional cooling in a global warming context or that you think the artical is about global cooling in response to global warming? Which is it?
>*for all you arrogant, condescending, willfully ignorant scientists, "certain areas" doesn't mean "all areas", and therefore does not and cannot insinuate "all areas".*
Why not try it and see if this new approach helps your growth and advancement in knowledge.
I've seen you apply your approach in such a consistent manner, that I don't expect you will take this advice; however laying out what a reasonable person would do makes quite a contrast to your dishonest, empty and argumentative approach.
"Please in your answer consider what you meant at the moments that you made statments such as:
for all you arrogant, condescending, willfully ignorant scientists, "certain areas" doesn't mean "all areas", and therefore does not and cannot insinuate "all areas"."
Mark,
What I meant was all you arrogant, condescending, willfully ignorant scientists think using the phrase "certain areas" is a scheme used to avoid the phrase "regional areas".
Of course, "certain areas" was my phrasing, but I notice you didn't include that I posted the scientists as stating....."cooling for many of us". Another scheme on my part to avoid the word "region"
I find it hard to believe this is so difficult for you.
Perhaps you missed the part about "willfully ignorant". < look, it's there.
As I have said before, its a waste of time debating pseudo-intellects like Betula. His strategy is hit-and-run; he gets creamed in one thread and pops up in another. He wades into areas beyond his competence, much like Bruce Barrett does on another thread.
I recall Betula making an arse of himself on the subject of polar bear demographics a couple of weeks ago and then trying to add his five cents worth on the effects of climate change on response and effect traits in ecological communities (granted, he does not know what these terms mean, but he comments anyway). Then he surfaces here.
The fact is this: Betula never admits he is wrong, even when the facts clearly prove it. I would not be at all surprised if he is right wing Republican or else holds strongly libertarian views. This has everything to do with his views of climate change.
I've answered your question twice to no avail. Perhaps you should cut to the chase of what you want the answer to be, or explain how my answer doesn't fit into your preconcieved notion.
I love the tactic. Claim someone is wrong, but don't mention or link what they are wrong about. Just that they are wrong.
Here, let me try....
Jeff Harvey is wrong and never admits it. Hey, this is fun!
By the way, you remind me that you never directly answered my question about how many polar bears have died or been affected as a direct result of AGW?
To be fair, you did explained what might happen if warming trends continue, time lags, long term effects, everything effects everything else, if, maybe, might, possibly, could, you never know, most likely, perhaps and all those other terms that are way to complicated for me to understand.
Unfotunately, I still don't know the number of cute cuddly polar bears that have died to date, due to some selfish senior citizen trying to stay warm with oil heat. You're the ecologist, isn't there some study stating this number?
It's a simple question really, and rather than assume it implies something, why not just answer it.
Let me know, I'll answer it if you find it too hard.
In the meantime, here's another one. Do you remember that picture of that cute polar bear stranded on the ice cap that Al Gore showed? You know the one. Anyway, do you think he died right after that photo, you know, from drowning?
JH @167, showing his true colors as a non biased scientist, who refuses to form scientific opinions based on politics states.....
"I would not be at all surprised if he is right wing Republican or else holds strongly libertarian views. This has everything to do with his views of climate change."
Your continued failure to answer my question provides an element of confirmation to my judgment that: *Given your evasiveness I believe it likely that you feel you have been caught in your own contradictions.*
Betual asks:
>*Perhaps you should cut to the chase of what you want the answer to be, or explain how my answer doesn't fit into your preconcieved notion.*
Betula, the reason you find it so difficult is that the truthful answer undermines your prior claims. Some of your misrepresentation have come round to contradict themselves.
You could answer that you'd *like us to believe that you recognise the Joyce artical is concerned with regional cooling in a global warming context*, but that would exposes the selective misrepresentation that Betula depended on as the basis for Betula's prior answer:
>Do you claim that the article by Joyce supports the above contention? [that the science is insufficient to warrent serious greenhouse-gas mitigation?] Or does Joyce's article imply that failure to mitigate against further global warming may risk leading to harmful cooling in regions close to the North Atlantic?
>You arrive at your answer that "the article implies it doesn't know" [that the science is insufficient to warrent serious greenhouse-gas mitigation]. But to construct that answer, Betula selectively misrepresent the article with this summary:
>*The article implies that we may be planning for warming, but get sudden cooling, due to warming.*
>And this:
>*we don't know what will happen, in fact it may be the opposite of what we think.*
And this is the same misreprentation that you claimed you weren't making when you truncated quotes to turn remove the localized regional nature of cooling (in the greater context of global warming).
So after denfending yourself against that charge, to answer truthfully you would be confirming your critics charges.
Quite a quandary for you Betula. Little wonder that you are being so evasive.
I was going to imply that you are retarded, but your reasoning speaks for itself.
You are stuck in a loop with this question.....
"Do you claim that the article by Joyce supports the above contention? [that the science is insufficient to warrent serious greenhouse-gas mitigation?]"
Obviously, your handicap played a large roll in your inabiliy to see my answer @152....
"If this is what you mean by "the science", then the answer is yes."
Your retardedness seems to grow exponentially by claiming I misrepresented the article when I said this..
"The article implies that we may be planning for warming, but get sudden cooling, due to warming."
and this....
"we don't know what will happen, in fact it may be the opposite of what we think."
I have 2 questions for you.....
1.Where did I say or infer the article is talking about "the greater context of global warming".
2.What does the article say about areas along the Atlantic....are they going to warm or suddenly get cold?
The more I think about it, I aplologize to all mentally Handicapped people for putting you in the same catagory.
How unsurprising Betula's response is. Once more he evades the question. Though I see implied in Betula's evasive response was an angling to toward trying to hope that he can agrue that the potential cooling refereed to by Joyce was more than regional cooling.
>*You all seem hellbent on the idea that I am intentionally "truncating" the comments of the Woods Hole scientists for the following reasons:
>*1.I misrepresent the fact that they are talking about "regional" areas....Yet somehow you purposely ignore that I quoted them as saying "cooling for many of us". For all you brilliant scientists out there, "many of us" does not mean "all of us", and therefore does not and cannot insinuate "all of us".*
>*In addition, you ignore that I said "we can't rule out cooling in certain areas". Once again for all you arrogant, condescending, willfully ignorant scientists, "certain areas" doesn't mean "all areas", and therefore does not and cannot insinuate "all areas".*
There you go Betula, even you acknowledge you are only faithfully representing Joyce's point in the article when you clarify that the potential cooling he discusses is limited to "certain areas" & that does not mean for "all of us".
So you skewer yourself once again Betula. If you keep being dishonest for too long, it can come back to snooker you.
In summary Betula is now arguing against his earlier attempted defense of his truncating and use of these truncated quotes.
When Betula was called out for truncating quotes which misrepresented the context of Joyce's article, he defended himself by arguing that he had mentioned (separate from when he trucated quotes) that Joyce was referring to a potential region cooling, quoting himself as citing ["certain areas"](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2257…).
Now Betula is contradicting this earlier defense of his trunation of quotes, by once again trying to misrepresent Joyce's cooling comments in a fabricated global context rather than a regional context.
Betula is so caught up is his cycle of dishonesty that he seems to be on the verge arguing that Joyce's article was not in the context of global warming at all.
>*Where did I say or infer the article is talking about "the greater context of global warming".*
Betula, I think you need to see someone about your pathology.
This episode is called....."The reverse of the non answered question answer"
Question.... "Where did I say or infer the article is talking about "the greater context of global warming"
Jakerman...by asking the question, I seem "to be on the verge arguing that Joyce's article was not in the context of global warming at all."
Notice how "the greater" is missing? This is called truncating to make a question appear to be the reverse of what it is, which allows Jakerman to avoid giving an answer while appearing to give an answer.
Of course, it was Mark who assumed I was refering to "the greater context of global warming", not based on the words I used, but on the one word I didn't use..."regional"
So Jakerman was truncating Marks words in my question to satisy a delusion that needs to be continuously fed with assumptions.
Meanwhile, Mark is caught in the Jakerman Zone and can't get out.
Luckily, I'm just enjoying this episode from the confines of my computer screen.
Return for the next episode of the Jakerman Zone, when Jakerman's non answer will be used as a way to continue to avoid answering this question...
What does the article say about areas along the North Atlantic....are they going to warm or suddenly get cold?
Betula, if it wasn't so sad it would be a pleasure to watch you twist our your own petard.
BTW which Betula are you saying is correct now, and which is incorrect. Its not clear from your latest empty rant which Betula is winning and which is losing.
> Dave, do I really need to explain the terrifying worst case scenarios to you? This is scary, scary stuff. Where have you been?
Yes. In detail. Because you claimed the article supported your contention that the "terrifying worst case scenarios" were unsound. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps you were speaking of "terrifying worst case scenarios" that lay beyond the IPCC forecasts, but it turns out those were the very scenarios you were referring to.
So, given that the article shows that these "terrifying worst case scenarios" are a sound basis, but that they likely represent an optimistic minimum bound for warming effects and thus are overly conservative in terms of predicting sudden rapid (and potentially catastrophic) events, please expand at length as to how the article somehow supports your position in the way you describe.
"Return for the next episode of the Jakerman Zone, when Jakerman's non answer will be used as a way to continue to avoid answering this question..."
"What does the article say about areas along the North Atlantic....are they going to warm or suddenly get cold?"
And today's episode answers the question with...
"BTW which Betula are you saying is correct now, and which is incorrect. Its not clear from your latest empty rant which Betula is winning and which is losing."
Stay tuned for our next episode, where Jakerman explains to us that the reason the article doesn't know whether there will be warming or sudden cooling "in certain areas" is due to the lack of information we have about the effects of man made mice on future climate.
Did you see it that time? I understand if you didn't, it's called a continuous loop and it's one of the main facets of the Jakerman Zone....
You see, one of the reasons you didn't see it is because you forgot (another facet of the Jakerman Zone) you phrased the original question like this...
"Perhaps it would help if you described in detail which worst case scenarios you are talking about that you have expounded on before - because I've seen you characterise the IPCC assessment as scaremongering in precisely this way"
Ah yes, you've seen me characterize the IPCC assessment as scaremongering. How about this.... is this scaremongering based on the IPCC assessment?:
I know, you didn't notice the scare mongering because you're in the "Jakerman Zone". Sorry Dave, I can't help you.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for someone to answer this question, or should I say, I'm anticipating the answer to this question as asked in the Jakerman Zone......
What does the article say about areas along the North Atlantic....are they going to warm or suddenly get cold?
I know, you didn't see it. Here, let me post it again...
What does the article say about areas along the North Atlantic....are they going to warm or suddenly get cold?
If you still didn't see it, just ask and I'll post it again, and be sure to stay tuned for the next episode of The Jakerman Zone titled...."As The Loop Continues"
You seem to put a staggering amount of effort into missing the point. Tiresome though it is, I'll try and spell it out in very simple terms yet again.
You seem to be under the impression I am offended by your use of the term "terrifying worst case scenarios", or that all you have to do to answer all of my points is link to a trailer for a movie (which I haven't seen, BTW) that by all accuonts gives a broad, populist, digestable presentation of the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.
This is all a complete tangent.
In this thread you have claimed that the Woods Hole article supports your view that the IPCC conclusions are unsound. The article has been shown to do no such thing, and no matter how you dance around it, what is required now is for you to admit that you did not understand the article at first, and applied your own (mis)interpretation to the matters under discussion.
Seeing as how I'm a polite sort, I'll answer your question, that you address to me for the first time in your typically abrasive style, and no matter that it is a pointless repetition of a topic already well discussed in this very thread.
> What does the article say about areas along the North Atlantic....are they going to warm or suddenly get cold?
The article says that the globe is going to warm, and that the areas along the north atlantic *may* warm in line with IPCC predictions of gradual increase in temperature, but that there is insufficient data and understanding available to rule out a sudden and dramatic shift to a colder climate if the north atlantic conveyer is disrupted, as has happened at other points in Earth's history. Clearly the possibility of events such as these become more likely with an increasingly unstable climate system, so further study is warranted, and the IPCC models should be treated with caution for being potentially too conservative.
So - what was your point again?
...
Perhaps it is worth noting here that one point of the judgement against An Inconvenient Truth in the UK (mandating it was largely accurate but could only be shown in schools with supplementary material on 9 specific points) was that the judge felt it was "very unlikely" that the north atlantic conveyer would shut down. Given your newfound love of this Woods Hole article, and its concern that this scenario is underplayed in IPCC predictions, are you in fact leaping to the defence of AICT?
>*Betula,
You seem to put a staggering amount of effort into missing the point.*
Dave I see you are catching on to one of Betula's tactics. Betula is the opposite of a truthseeker, his dishonest traits seem to so fully dominate him that he âbelievesâ what he is saying even when he argues against himself.
Let me recap why Betula is being so evasive this time, he is trying to create us much dis-clarity as he can, in an effort to make his egregious errors less apparent.
>How unsurprising Betula's response is. Once more he evades the question. Though I see implied in Betula's evasive response was an angling [] toward trying to hope that he can argue that the potential cooling refereed to by Joyce was more than regional cooling.
>One answer to Betula's current dishonest angling is in his own words. Remember when you wrote this Betula:
> *You all seem hellbent on the idea that I am intentionally "truncating" the comments of the Woods Hole scientists for the following reasons:*
>*1.I misrepresent the fact that they are talking about "regional" areas....Yet somehow you purposely ignore that I quoted them as saying "cooling for many of us". For all you brilliant scientists out there, "many of us" does not mean "all of us", and therefore does not and cannot insinuate "all of us".*
>*In addition, you ignore that I said "we can't rule out cooling in certain areas". Once again for all you arrogant, condescending, wilfully ignorant scientists, "certain areas" doesn't mean "all areas", and therefore does not and cannot insinuate "all areas".*
>There you go Betula, even you acknowledge you are only faithfully representing Joyce's point in the article when you clarify that the potential cooling he discusses is limited to "certain areas" & that does not mean for "all of us".
>So you skewer yourself once again Betula. If you keep being dishonest for too long, it can come back to snooker you.
Betula responds with typical evasion, but does ask two questions:
>*1.Where did I say or infer the article is talking about "the greater context of global warming".*
>*2.What does the article say about areas along the Atlantic....are they going to warm or suddenly get cold?*
Betula should know the answer to this as it has been pointed out many times Joyce says:
>*For those of us living around the edge of the N. Atlantic Ocean, we may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur.*
A quote that [Betula truncated]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2258…) to make the **same misrepresentation that he keeps trying to make**; that is, **except for the moments when Betula tried to deny that he was truncating for that purpose, and tried to pretend he was faithfully representing Joyceâs argument**.
In Betulaâs words again:
>*You all seem hellbent on the idea that I am intentionally "truncating" the comments of the Woods Hole scientists for the following reasons:*
>*1.I misrepresent the fact that they are talking about "regional" areas....Yet somehow you purposely ignore that I quoted them as saying "cooling for many of us". For all you brilliant scientists out there, "many of us" does not mean "all of us", and therefore does not and cannot insinuate "all of us".*
>*In addition, you ignore that I said "we can't rule out cooling in certain areas". Once again for all you arrogant, condescending, wilfully ignorant scientists, "certain areas" doesn't mean "all areas", and therefore does not and cannot insinuate "all areas".*
This is hilarious: [E.M. Smith](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/01/chiefio-asks-why-does-giss-make-u…) finds a divide-by-zero error in Gistemp's online graphing toys, and proceeds to thoroughly confuse himself.
The NZ Climate Science Coalition has put out a press release attacking NIWA for casually altering its temperature series from time to time, without ever taking the trouble to maintain a continuous record.
Adjusting or discarding real world data, that doesn't agree with the model, is insanity writ large.
You mean this NZ Climate Coalition?
More taking the piss?
Pete: I rarely read WUWT, so thanks for the pointer.
He's amazingly incompetent.
'Word has it', the Darling and Murray Rivers will soon be in 'flood'.
It's funny how 'cyclical' everything seems to be. :-)
Thanks John,
The folly of el gordo's selective reading. Keep up el gordo your denialist propaganda was debunked long ago. el gordo even posted [in that thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…). Perhaps reading the thread topic was not as important as making his post.
What is your source for debunked outdated story? Whose pushing it now, and how much thought did you invest before you took their bait?
El Gordo is a time waster. He never has anything substantive to say.
>*El Gordo is a time waster. He never has anything substantive to say.*
Yes they dominate the deniosphere, but having him on hand provides an example to illustrate some of their traits, tactic and follies.
You guys can hardly talk. (#5). Any source El Gordo presents has to be better than the IPCC 4th assessment which now turns out really is just a spectacular piece of fiction.
So who is now 'debunking' that ?
Maybe a real 'denier' like jakerman for example can have a go !
After all, a good Scientist should always be trying to 'debunk' their favorite hypotheses. Indeed if more did so, then we would probably not be in this unnecessary god-awful mess.
El Gordo is a serial Boltophile and can (read: should)be ignored.
Regarding el gordo's posts, I just want to know who types it in for him.
Rarely go there, Monkeywrench.
The Guardian is running a story suggesting that Jones and Wang's 1990 Chinese temperature study, used in the 2007 IPCC Report, is flawed.
The 84 stations were supposed to be half rural and half urban, but over the last 20 years they think some of those rural sites may now be urban.
In the past Jones has downplayed the impact of UHI on increasing temperatures, so he was biased to a degree.
Australia's Tom Wigley, once thought to be the Climategate whistleblower, may come out of this looking pretty good.
Has anyone heard of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution?
Apparently we are o the brink of an ice age lol
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=10046
El Gordo @ 10
Nuts, and a liar to boot:[Description](http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/searc…) You'll get bored after the first few pages.....
@ el gordo
From the article:
> Keenan accepts that his allegations do not on their own change the global picture.
Or the physics, or the sheer mountain of overwhelming evidence across multiple fields, etc etc. That doesn't stop the Guardian and the BBC giving prominent time to this and regurgitating previous (false) allegations of wrongdoing with virtually no rebuttal. Not that a rebuttal would actually make a difference anyway, given that this is a continuing smear campaign - simply making the allegation suffices...
> But he told the Guardian: "My interest in all this arises from concern about research integrity, rather than about global warming per se.
Excellent. I'll be interested to see what other research integrity Keenan has been investigating. Surely he's looked into allegations of a [cabal of scientists corrupting peer-review of stem cell research](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8490291.stm)? Or is he in fact wrongfully misrepresenting his own position as a rabid and repeated alleger of fraud as it relates to AGW and AGW alone?
25 pages of el gordisms!
Re:- thread title,
As in book & film, I'm sure the good guys will triumph in the end. Keep at 'em Tim - & tomorrow I set off for NZ and in a month I will be close to you in OZ.
From Open Thread 39:
That cite is a great read. Not only is Monckton a proponent of science denial and conspiracy theories, he also makes snake oil:
'he has also manufactured a cure to a long-term illness that attacked his endocrine system and patented the cure in conjunction with a British surgeon.
Though stressing it was in its early stages, he said the drug had had positive results treating HIV and multiple sclerosis. ''It also has been used to cure cases of colds, flu,'' he said.'
It never fails to amaze me how doggedly the denialists cling onto UHI. Whenever people have tried to quantify the actual effect the phenomenon has on reported global temperature trends, the answer invariably ranges from very little to negligible (there are numerous papers by different groups on this). Also, the fact the sea surface temperature trend is in broad agreement with the land surface trend should tell you the overall story is sound.
And yet the denialists just keep coming back with case studies, thinking that it somehow proves a point. I mean, is digging the dirt on a 20-year-old paper the best they can come up with right now?
Much as I like the Guardian for its overall political bent, its science writing is sloppy to say the least (the way I remember it, they started the story that the LHC might open a portal to other dimensions). In this instance, it does state very clearly in the article in question that other independent studies duplicated the findings of the 'flawed' paper and this whole thing doesn't undermine the key conclusions of climate science, but do they really expect the denialists to read those bits?
JamesA @ 16
As much as I like the Guardian ( I grew up reading it in the 70's due to my parent's having it delivered) I am aware that they are as much a part of the British media as The Sun and The Daily Express. There is every propensity that some dickhead subeditor will decide that "climate change" is the new "Brangelina" and paste some shitty fantasy on the front page as an exciting scoop. One has to be a bit perspicacious when it comes to one's sources. The Grauniad, as Private Eye likes to call it, isn't without its faults.
I'm not sure which is more amusing; Smith himself, or all the 'serious computer programmers' coming out of the woodwork to talk utter bollocks.
David Edwards and David Cromwell of 'Medialens' have written two outstanding books exposing the myth of the liberal mainstream media in Britain - "Guardians of Power" (2006) and "Newspeak in the 21st Century" (2009). In these books they show how fully beholden the supposed left-leaning Guardian, Observer, Independent and BBC are to commerical elites and concentrated power.
Using the propaganda model first described in the groundbreaking book, "Manufacturing Consent", by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky (1988), Edwards and Cromwell describe in detail how coverage of issues such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as climate change, are systematically distorted by the MSM. I used to be a devoted Guardian reader, but in the past 10 years it has become clear to me that the paper, like much of the other MSM, promotes (in the words of British historian Mark Curtis) the "mass production of ignorance".
Given that the MSM, including the Guardian, is mostly owned by powerful publishing conglomerates, whose main objective is profit, it is no small wonder that much of the news goes through a filter promoting the views of the political and corporate establishment, the groups that 'dominate domestic society and the state' in the words of Herman and Chomsky.
Possible IPCC source predicts longer winter...
http://www.pittsburghpost-gazette.com/pg/10033/1032831-258.stm
Speaking of us serious computer programmers coming out of the woodworks in the E.M. Smith piece, I had a bit of spare time and took a look at the claim that those 9999 values were bleeding through to cause a warm Dec 2009 in Alaska...
http://blog.motheyes.com/2010/02/is-something-rotten-in-alaska/
tl;dr: they weren't.
Re: 16 and 17 on the Guardian: I posted this on the old open thread just before it got superseded, but the science writer Fred Pearce wrote three articles on the same day. One effectively accusing Phil Jones of fraud, one reporting the story with a very 'neutral' viewpoint (as in, all voices deserve equal credence) and one dismissing the contrarians as irrelevent and wrong. I've got no idea what's going on there.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/climate-emails-scepti…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate…
Hello Gordo our old friend,
We see you're trolling once again,
And the articles you're posting,
Aren't really what you're boasting,
Stolen emails,
That were planted in your brain,
Still remain,
With in the sound of denial.
I'm shocked to discover that EM Smith is, once again, wrong about a trivial matter of fact. Shocked.
Q: What is the difference between [Betula](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2244…) and [Phil Connors](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundhog_Day_%28film%29)?
A: Phil Connors was eventually able to overcome his infinite loop of stupid.
Monkeywrench @ 17: I totally agree, but I find it a bit daft that it's the same newspaper that acts as a vehicle for the likes of George Monbiot and Ben Goldacre and such. But at the end of the day, they know just as they all do that it's headlines that sell papers, not accurate reporting.
LB.
Phil Connors, another potential IPCC source, has a prediction just for you...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWmbuKSWLDE
Hey Joel. I see you noticed my comments on WUWT.
I must say, credit to the crazies when credit is due. It looks like very few WUWT commenters accepted the idea that the missing data 9999s were causing whatever hotspots EM Smith didn't like. Once in a blue moon, they exercise a bit of critical thinking about a claim made by one of their own.
"David Edwards and David Cromwell of 'Medialens' have written two outstanding books exposing the myth of the liberal mainstream media in Britain - "Guardians of Power" (2006) and "Newspeak in the 21st Century" (2009). In these books they show how fully beholden the supposed left-leaning Guardian, Observer, Independent and BBC are to commerical elites and concentrated power."
That's funny, because the Guardian had a pop at Phil Jones yesterday, and even brought Wang into it.
There's a massive ding-dong going on in the comments section. The AGW side are throwing in all sorts of scientific stuff, and the anti-AGW are throwing in.... ad homs, conspiracy theories, and very, very poor science (especially the guy with a degree in maths and the other one with no meteorological qualification at all)... that's right; amateurs.
http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2010/01/treason-against-conservatism.html
http://daggatt.blogspot.com/2010/01/nihilism.html
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_A0OjNbJK3p0/S2KEzUJcRPI/AAAAAAAAAOE/a-RCilEt-…
> we are o the brink of an ice age lol ...
> http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=10046
> Posted by: Connor
Connor didn't even read the title of that article correctly.
http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2010/01/treason-against-conservatism.html
http://daggatt.blogspot.com/2010/01/nihilism.html
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_A0OjNbJK3p0/S2KEzUJcRPI/AAAAAAAAAOE/a-RCilEt-…
"This question of whether we can get real matters. The truth is, we know our world by stories - we may inquire into truth and attempt to remove bias, but we live in our world through stories. We tell them and listen to them and they organize the meaning we find in events. This is what literature, high and low is ultimately about - and we have not yet, as a people, figured out what kind of stories we will tell. We are stuck between two false ones - the techno-utopian future in which our problems are solved, the consequences disappear and we emerge into sunny perfection, with plenty of time to meditate on our personal alienation, or the end of the world, at which there is nothing, at which even language ultimately collapses."
http://scienceblogs.com/casaubonsbook/2010/02/on_a_dark_mountain_1.php
J Bowers....
Do you consider the scientists in Connors link @11 to be amatuers?
Betula has confused 'Connor' and 'Connors' and isn't reading the text either.
Dang, my killfile quit again. Fixed.
> the idea that the missing data 9999s were causing
> whatever hotspots EM Smith didn't like.
Fixing problems that only attract fools is done silently everywhere as a routine.
You can't make anything foolproof, really -- putting up "then don't do that" and "well duh, don't go there" warnings attracts increasingly clever fools looking for new ways to get things to break so they can complain about them.
Hank..
I read the link, are you capable of answering the question?
Betula,
The scientists in the Woods Hole article are very good, as is the article itself.
You appear to think the article makes some point you support, Betula, so why don't you tell us what the article says?
Hank: Well, when you don't idiot-proof something, you'll eventually catch an idiot.
In the end, a couple crazies will vaguely remember it and think it was something more than just a display glitch, but those crazies buy into every conspiracy anyway. Everybody else moves on.
I looked at the WWUT article on Jones and Wang, trying to figure out what's really going on. I also skimmed through much of the Jones 2008 paper.
1)Jones et al 1990 study showed that 1954-1983 data shows negligible differences between the trends of urban and rural stations. (Portman 1993 showed ~0.04C/decade). There are criticisms with regard to the reliability of rural data due to whether they are appropriate classified as rural or urban. These concerns do appear to have some legitimacy, as acknowledged by Jones in the 2008 study, as it is difficult to develop a list of exclusively rural sites. However, Jones 2008 demonstrates that concerns regarding site moves do not impact the results. Jones 2008 updates the rural and urban stations, and there continues to be neglible differences in trend for the period 1951-2004 amongst the original surface stations (except for two rural stations, whose records have disappeared, for no known reason).
2)Jones 2008 also calculates the UHI by comparing to SSTs, rather than rural stations (which is the focus of the WWUT article). This shows a 1951-2004 UHI impact of 0.10C per decade (which is the value stated in the abstract), leaving a 0.15C per decade non-UHI signal. The 0.1C appears to be an upper bound estimate, as the methodology compares to SST, not rural land stations. Rural land stations generally have been warming faster than SSTs. (The first commenter at WWUT mistook the total 0.81C as the total warming, but the total warming would have been closer to 1.35C when including UHI.)
3)China is urbanizing very quickly (especially since Jones earlier paper), and so unlike London and Vienna, it would be reasonable to expect a statistically significant UHI trend at a local or regional level. This isn't too surprising given that noone really denies the UHI effect. One would expect a larger UHI trend in regions (such as China) where urbanization is growing the fastest. On a global scale, however, it doesn't seem evident that UHI trend is a significant bias contributor to the global temperature record. Even the most extreme anecdotes (e.g. China) doesn't seem to suggest much bias.
4)There isn't necessarily a large inconsistency between Jones 1990 and Jones 2008. There are material methodological differences, (the biggest being rural vs SST), and the time periods (1954-1983 vs 1951-2004) have different urban growth characteristics. Jones found that most of the UHI trend is from the more recent decades. With an updated rural vs urban analysis, the trend difference is about 0.02C/decade over the 54 year period. Urban vs SST is 0.1C/decade. Jones puts it well when he says:
"The use of an SST series as a rural surrogate is very much an inferior choice to the more normal designation of a specifically-selected rural network. We would expect, a priori, the land series to warm more than the SST and if it were urban related we'd expect the warming to be gradual. We would also expect SST warming to be delayed compared to the land, because of the much greater thermal capacity of the coastal seas."
---
Meanwhile the non-UHI signal in rural Eastern China is 0.56C per decade between 1981-2004. The "It's all UHI" hypothesis has a long way to go in China!
Yeah, I don't like the comparison to SST because you'd expect SST to lag. It's sad that this is all they could figure to do. China needs a CRN much more than the US did.
But what's perhaps lost on the crowd is that Jones et al went specifically looking for the place where there might be UHI trends, and even there, they are not dominant.
I thought half the kerfuffle was over the locations of the stations in the original paper, and whether those locations were properly disclosed. What's the status on that part of the story?
Re: this quote from the WHOI article:
Indeed, some groups advocate the benefits of global warming, including the Greening Earth Society and the Subtropical Russia Movement. Some in the latter group even advocate active intervention to accelerate the process, seeing this as an opportunity to turn much of cold, austere northern Russia into a subtropical paradise.
I've seen the SRM cited before as a serious movement (or at least, not an obviously satirical one). It isn't, though, as you can see from their manifesto.
Probably won't stop credulous skeptics from sending 'em cash donations, though...especially when they get wind of their plan "to award the constellation Cygnus the rank of general and declare it a Zodiac sign."
Jeff Harvey,
" I used to be a devoted Guardian reader, but in the past 10 years it has become clear to me that the paper, like much of the other MSM, promotes (in the words of British historian Mark Curtis) the "mass production of ignorance"."
Well Jeff, I still read the Guardian but have considerable sympathy with your views - although I guess I am approaching it from a very different angle to you.
JamesA,
"But at the end of the day, they know just as they all do that it's headlines that sell papers, not accurate reporting."
Strange then that blogs like this are so keen to promote articles in those newspapers etc if they happen to agree with the blogs' preconceived notions!
Dave "Wrong Again" Andrews:
"Blogs like this" are keen to promote the scientific literature. It's idiots like you are are interested in what journalists write.
37,
I'm a bit confused regarding what the issue is exactly regarding station location. Is this regarding the movement of rural stations? (I think they know where the stations currently are, if not where they used to be). My sense after reading Jones 2008 is that there are credibility issues with rural station data, and whether they are truly rural. Jones argues that the movement of rural stations has shown to be immaterial, citing a more exhaustive study by Li, which showed only a 0.02C UHI trend in Eastern China. If I remember correctly, Jones argues that homogeneity biases are small with the larger sample.
(My main focus while reading the paper was to evaluate the context of the 0.1C / decade claim, not the data credibility issue. After reading much of it, I don't think the abstract was worded very well, particularly with regard to China).
I would agree with your assessment that Jones was looking for a UHI trend. It's clear to me that the 0.1C / decade figure was an upper bound that didn't include the effects of ocean thermal inertia. I don't think the abstract was clear with regard to this.
I don't think we should say there is no UHI trend in China, but it would be a stretch to classify it as highly material. 20% of the global population lives in China, which is rapidly becoming more and more like the US. The best rural vs urban analysis only shows 0.02C /decade UHI trend. The bias is even less when you consider that not all surface stations in China are urban. It may be in reality more than 0.02C / decade, though probably not a lot more than that. But even at 0.10C / decade, the influence of China's UHI trend on the global temperature record would be very immaterial.
Oh boy, Newsnight on BBC2 here in the UK are doing a hatchet job on climate science!
They have Roger Pielke being interviewed. And the word 'scandal' is being thrown around like it cost nothing.
Don't know if it can be viewed outside the UK. But it will probably be on BBC iPlayer later.
The Guardian appears to have gone over to the dark side, first Monbiot and now Fred Pearce are behaving like journalists of old.
The Bolters blog is doomed, now that Rupert is testing his theory that you can squeeze blood from a stone. First cab off the rank is the Standard Times, but it won't end there.
A senate seat is the only option for Andrew Bolt and he is being primed to make the transition. (Vomit bags at the ready)
What part of 'rarely' don't you understand? Through the good grace of Tim, this is my home now.
Todd F, those are reasonable thoughts. I haven't read the paper recently; my main memory of it was the background section where they listed prior works on China and found something wrong with pretty much all of them.
Thanks for the tip Paul UK. (#47).
There are scandals aplenty to come I think on this issue. How did the ole speech go ? Maybe we have only seen the 'end of the beginning'....?
Just my opinion of course - just so that I'm clear.
Oh and speaking of scandals, one of our prime alarmists, the good Mr Falnnery and his prediction (fiction) of the Murray River 'drying up'... well, 'word has it' there is some 'floodin happenin in that thar river'. :-)
... '2010 and all is well'... :-)
Today's guardian articles are incoherent and evil. Pearce basically recycles all the lying denialist blogger crap as if it were an undisputed fact.
This, for example, is somehow meant to be breaking the peer review process:
How is talking to a mate about an unidentified paper you reviewed breaching the process? Also, in this paragraph Pearce claims that the article was published, but in the next paragraph that it wasn't. The article is full of this self-contradictory crap, which inflates nothing events into "attempts to subvert the peer review process". It includes a bunch of occasions when the accusations come straight from denialist bloggers, and are denied by the people who were supposedly the victims of the climate scientists.
This is really shoddy journalism, and I really don't understand why people continue to show the Guardian any respect. I suppose it's another example of the low standards British people accept.
"Oh boy, Newsnight on BBC2 here in the UK are doing a hatchet job on climate science!
They have Roger Pielke being interviewed. And the word 'scandal' is being thrown around like it cost nothing.
Don't know if it can be viewed outside the UK. But it will probably be on BBC iPlayer later.",
That'll be because Pielke Jr is here to debate with Bob Ward on Friday at the Royal Society. Lawson's mob of shills would've made sure he gets airtime (Balance Fallacy).
A statistical analyst can't preach on the general climate science. A climate scientist can find fault with a statistical analyst's work because they've been trained in it anyway.
Maybe Pielke Jr will be in Manhattan on a paid-for jolly when a storm surge hits.
http://www.desmogblog.com/cru-hack-was-highly-sophisticated-spy-job-pro…
hey silkworm, I think King has backed away from that claim already.
Pearce, Pearce, Pearce. Where have I heard that name before? Oh yeah, I know. He was the reporter for Nude Scientist (tm Eli Rabett) which got Latif's remarks at WCC-3 wrong and led to some deeply wrong reporting in the press.
He was also the reporter for Nude Scientist which got the date in the ICGC report wrong. 2035 for 2350 anyone? This led to the recent IPCC kerfuffle via a game of telephone.
For his latest magnum opus UEA has already issued a statement outlining his errors.
@sg "hey silkworm, I think King has backed away from that claim already."
This is not the case, sg. This error is actually the result of a remarkably pernicious and shoddy piece of journalism from Guardian writers David Leigh and Charles Arthur. The following is my [comment on the article](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/david-king-climate-em…) (yes, I know it's snarky, but I've had a busy and overworked night):
Heh, for some reason the linkage didn't work above. [Indy article link](http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-emails-…)
There is an issue that seems begging for some policy action, and it ties in several areas.
Under current mining law mineral deposits are worked by companies on a mining lease agreement and the companies pay royalties on the extracted minerals to the government. Also under current mining law, if a company takes a mining lease to exploit a resource (i.e. a coal deposit) and a period of time elapses during which the resource is not worked, the lease lapses and can be taken up by another company better willing or able to exploit that resource.
As such mineral resources including coal and oil are not commodities that can be owned WHILE IN THE GROUND.
As a separate issue, carbon offsets currently revolve (essentially) around paying someone in a far-off country such as India to plant some trees.
Why not allow people to offset by purchasing carbon while in the ground and not mine it? I mean, if we make unmined carbon a tradeable commodity, will this not encourage offsetting in this way, and effectively compete with coal destined for mining to increase the price of carbon while still in the ground? It seems a bit ridiculous to have to mine the coal, burn it, calculate the CO2 emitted and then pay somebody to plant a tree, doesn't it?
Two reasons why I'm pessimistic that this would ever work: the mining companies would lose profit if they're not able to cash in on extracting the resource from the ground and selling it... unless they become traders in unmined carbon.
More importantly Governments would derive no tax benefit, thus have nothing to gain and are unlikely to have the political will to do something about it.
Well done MFS (#57). You have very well answered your own questions there.
Here is another way of looking at it.
It will always be the case that 1 tonne of coal will always be worth more than 1 tonne of CO2 'off-sets'.
There are 2 main reasons for this :-
1. Coal is tangible.
2. CO2 'off-sets' are not.
Hope this alleviate some of the anguish you may have regarding this matter. :-)
About David King's speculation, it seems just as plausible to me that it was done by black hats payrolled by the Russian mafia. They are engaged in breaking into corporate computers stealing sensitive information and then selling it back, or to a competitor -- this is big business, lots of money going round. No reason why these folks should be any less sophisticated than an intelligence service. In fact, from the DoS attack against the Estonian Republic a couple years ago we know that they have close contacts with Russian intelligence. Perhaps they learned something.
Stealing from a university and offering it to a think tank is just a variant.
Re Fred Pearce and the Guardian article.
I picked up a copy of the Guardian in actual newspaper format. To be fair to Pearce he did have another article on the same pages, pretty much nailing down how the lobbyists and think tanks, and the likes of Palin and Inhofe, distorted the facts and suckered in the media. It was a hyper-critical article that said, in no uncertain terms, that organisations like the Heartland and Cato Institutes are anti-science and completely wrong, and their accusations are baseless.
J. Bowers, yes that article also exists on-line:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/climate-emails-scepti…
Rattus, Todd F: the argument seems to be that the 1990 paper says that station selection was based on station history, and for 49 out of 84 stations that history is nowhere to be found anymore, now, two decades later.
Fred Pearce gets another thing very wrong BTW: he writes
This is a serious misrepresentation. The original article
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/pub/williams/AGC\_presentation/Grindin\_2009/PDJones\_1990.pdf
stated:
...so what it says is that, for each station separately, "few, if any changes" occurred. A very different thing!
Whether five station moves in 29 years over a total of 41 km counts as "few", will always be a matter of taste. But of course as Rattus' link shows, it makes no real difference: homogenization does, contrary to popular belief and denialist conventional wisdom, an amazingly good job of removing the discontinuities even if you have no independent knowledge when they happened.
re Pearce
From the beginning Keenan was barking the wrong tree.
After receiving a retraction request in April 2007, Wang [explained](http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=802):
and a week later
Zhaomei Zeng confirmed that in her [statement](http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620/b080222.pdf).
Lee @138...
"You appear to think the article makes some point you support, Betula, so why don't you tell us what the article says?"
Yes Lee, It's called doubt. Doubt in the way AGW consequences are predicted, resulting in doubt of the predictions themselves. As I have said many times....the worst case scenarios are speculations built on hypotheticals derived from inaccurate models. Of course, speaking truth and exposing doubt makes me a skeptic, therefore, I am labeled a denier.
Now, in regards to the article posted @11 by connor. Since the scientists at woods hole are skeptical of both the accuracy of the prediction process and the prediction itself, they earn the right to be labeled skeptics, which of course we all know is code for denier.
And before you get your skirt all bunched up, here are a few examples from the article:
1."This is a daunting task but is necessary before we can confidently rely on models to predict future climate change."
2."Besides needing believable models that can accurately predict climate change, we also need data that can properly initialize them."
3."For the ocean, our data coverage is wholly inadequate."
4."Our knowledge about past climate change is limited as well."
5."Global warming can induce a colder climate for many of us."
6."we may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur."
7."And now perhaps you begin to see the scope of the problem."
Let's sum it up Lee....can't confidently rely, need more believable models, need more accuracy, wholly inadequate ocean data, limited knowledge about past climate, scenarios opposite of what might occur......HEY, this is starting to sound like me!
Yet, here you are telling me....."The scientists in the Woods Hole article are very good, as is the article itself"
I'll take that as a compliment.
@doskonaleszare: "re Pearce
From the beginning Keenan was barking the wrong tree."
Many thanks for that. I posted the info in the Guardian article's comments. Hopefully Fred Pearce will get to see it. Given his concurrent outspoken criticism of the media and how they're being fooled by the shills and unqualified, especially over those blasted redacted emails, you never know...
I'll take that as Lee having read it for content, rather than to quote mine ...
J. Bowwers #51- do you have any information on that Royal society debate you mention? I can't see anything on their events calendar, but would like to attend, seeing as we need all the pro-science people at every such event as we can get.
@Betula
> Of course, speaking truth and exposing doubt makes me a skeptic, therefore, I am labeled a denier.
Let me see if I follow your logic...
-- I claim to speak truth
-- Skeptics speak truth
-- Therefore I am a skeptic
-- I claim all skeptics are labelled deniers
-- Therefore I am labelled a denier because I am a truth-speaking skeptic
This is of course self-indulgent, self-pitying, passive-aggressive drivel.
> And before you get your skirt all bunched up, here are a few examples from the article:
Rather than cherry-picking out of context quotes, lets look at what the article is actually saying: that abrupt changes in climate - both global and regional - are possible and with historical precedent, especially with a rising temperature trend.
Basically, it states that we don't know enough, and don't have enough data, to rule out a massive and paradoxical cooling in eg. the north atlantic region over a *very* short (ie, catastrophic) period of time if present *warming* trends continue.
That there is warming and that humans are in part responsible is taken as a given by the authors. The IPCC are if anything castigated for being too conservative in their assessments, and too focused on gradual changes rather than considering the serious possibility of dramatic and sudden shifts. Of course, much more data and modelling work would be needed to predict those shifts, *and it would be better all round if man-made warming wasn't happening in the first place*.
I never took you for a doomsday abrupt climate change alarmist Betula, but there you go. At least you've accepted both the clear and dangerous warming trend, and the obvious cause.
Dave @66..
I think you have confused yourself just enough to believe what it is you're saying....
We don't know enough and don't have enough data to rule out what might happen if the warming trend continues, in fact we can't rule out cooling in certain areas. In addition, we take it as a given that humans are in part responsible, even though we don't know how much of a part that is.
And with this information, you conclude that at least I have "accepted both the clear and dangerous warming trend, and the obvious cause."
Rinse and repeat.
@Betula
Rephrased without your dishonest weasel twisting:
We don't know enough and don't have enough data to rule out what might happen if the warming trend continues, in fact we can't rule out *sudden and catastrophic shifts in climate the like of which have happened before* in certain areas. In addition, we *obviously accept the mountain of evidence showing to what extent humans are responsible*.
Dave,
When I said rinse and repeat, you didn't have to take it literally.
Perhaps your next response can pinpoint where it is that I have been dishonest.
Sloppy reporting by Fred Pearce:
"The paper became a key reference source for the conclusions of succeeding reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change â including a chapter in the 2007 one co-authored by Jones. It said that globally "the urbanisation influence ⦠is, at most, an order of magnitude less than the warming seen on a century timescale". In other words, it is tiny."
Pearce seems to imply this conclusion is challenged or undermined by new findings. At the century timescale, global warming has been about 0.8 C, so the upper bound on the urban influence is 0.08 C (order of magnitude), or 10% of the observed global warming, according to the IPCC conclusion. So if China makes up 1% of the Earth's surface, and their max. urban influence is 40% of observed warming (as others have noted, such a technique of comparing to SSTs ignores thermal inertia), this would imply the global urban influence would be 0.0032 C, or 0.4%, far less than the 10% upper bound provided by the IPCC. They are indeed putting too much stock in UHI.
Now this doesn't mean adjusted trends in other land regions have a zero remaining UHI influence, but the U.S. adjusted trends have the influence removed (arguably it's overcorrected for) as do other land regions, so it would require a massive stretch to come close to the 10% upper bound determined by the IPCC.
Going from Todd's comment #40, here are the global adjusted trends for 1954-1983, the time period of the 1990 study:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&mon…
The trend through most of China is smaller than that of surrounding areas, including the oceans. Could the impacts of alleged undocumented station moves have resulted in a cool bias in the China land trend? That discussion seems lost in all the global warming denialist fuss.
Comparing the 1990 study to the 2008 study is certainly apples and oranges.
There is considerably more warming from 1983 to 2004 in China than the surrounding oceans, but keeping in mind thermal inertia (oceans responding more slowly to warming than land), using the SST to land comparison technique makes it difficult to determine the accurate UHI influence.
Vince Whirlwind,
""Blogs like this" are keen to promote the scientific literature. It's idiots like you are are interested in what journalists write."
Wow you are so right and that's why today's blog header is the Australian's War on Science 44
You do read the blog don't you?
Attempting to correct my link above:
[Trend, 1954-1983](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/donmap.py?yearlast=2009&month…;)
Trying again:
[Trend, 1954-1983](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&mon…)
MarkB
Not likely, I think. This data was homogenized, and as I noted earlier, homogenization is very good at removing also undocumented station moves.
Good point, Martin.
To summarize some of the key problems with the Pearce article:
1. It makes assertions regarding undocumented station moves not accounted for in a 1990 study.
2. It uses those assertions, and a subsequent 2008 study, to imply that not accounting for this information
a. resulted in a significant UHI influence not being accounted for in the study
b. that the IPCC conclusion regarding UHI's effect on the global adjusted trend is in doubt.
The facts, which take a bit of investigate work and analysis to discover, indicate that such conclusions are clearly not supported.
This is discouraging. I thought the Guardian generally did a reasonable job at covering science in comparision to other media outlets.
Betula.
Given that you have not availed yourself of the opportunity to respond to my long-running request of deniers that they [answer these questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame…
), perhaps you would do so now if I specifically direct them at you.
Then, with your freshly laid-out answers foremost in your mind, perhaps you would indicate to us the science upon which you base your expectation that the current temperature trajectory of the globe will, in the future, defy basic physics and return, over a longer term, to any of the 20th reference century baselines.
In relating this science, it would be most benefical if you could share your perspicacious understanding of the mechanism(s) involved, and the time-frames over which they will operate.
And [as you have raised the issue](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2247…) of local cooling:
perhaps you might explain why the specific prediction of such contradicts models of global warming to the extent that said warming will not actually occur, or if it occurs, that it does not represent a danger to the stability of ecosystem integrities, and to human societal integrity.
Finally, perhaps you would deign to explain to the scientists of the world why the application of statistical process does not render irrelevant your comments that:
And most especially, could you detail to all, using statisitcal process, why your comment that:
Betula, this is really simple.
You say:
"Yes Lee, It's called doubt. Doubt in the way AGW consequences are predicted, resulting in doubt of the predictions themselves."
Betula, the "G" is "AGW" means Global. The predictions of GLOBAL warming, predictions made from the physics, from applying constrains derived from the observed system, and from the models, all agree that the globe is going to warm, and those predictions all converge on a climate sensitivity value of 3C / 2x CO2, with some range around that value, and more potential error on the upper side than on the lower. This is GLOBAL warming, it is caused by a shift in the amount of energy in the system overall, and there ain't a lot of controversy about that.
It also IS NOT what the Woods Hole article is about. So, when you use the Woods Hole article to proclaim that there is doubt about A Global W, you are wrong.
What the Woods Hole article is about, is possible abrupt changes in heat transport WITHIN a warming globe. The article is discussing what we know about REGIONAL changes in heat transport in the context of a warming planet, and what the impact of that will be on REGIONAL temperatures. We know that there is great uncertainty in REGIONAL predictions. We also know that this has little impact on the global predictions. We don't know enough to know whether the Atlantic conveyor will slow or stop as the planet warms, but we do know that the planet warms about the same amount under either scenario - heat that doesn't get transported to the north atlantic, simply stays more in the tropics where it originated. We also know that the consequences if it does stop are probably even more extreme than if it does not.
This seems to be a new favorite tactic of the denialists - find an article exploring our current uncertainty about REGIONAL effects of AGW, and use it to argue that there is doubt about GLOBAL warming. Betula here is just one of several recent examples. I used to think that this kind of tactic was necessarily dishonest and venal, because no one could actually be that stupid. I think I'm changing my mind.
Dave Andrews dribbles:
Vince does, but it isn't clear that Dopey Dave does. I suspect he just goes straight to the comments and regurgitates his usual inanities.
TAWoS 44 draws attention to the science on the GBR. Perhaps Dave finds it beyond his capacity to follow the links?
When I visited Deltoid today, I thought for sure I'd see a post entitled "Confirmed: The Lancet's War on Science."
Dave Andrews,
"The Australian's War on Science" is clearly a series of blog entries designed to draw attention to bad science journalism, not to promote it.
"J. Bowwers #51- do you have any information on that Royal society debate you mention? I can't see anything on their events calendar, but would like to attend, seeing as we need all the pro-science people at every such event as we can get."
First off, it's the Royal Institution. Apologies.
Details here:
http://www.rigb.org/contentControl?action=displayEvent&id=1000
I see Pielke's been on Newsnight tonight. Funny how immediately afterwards he blogged about it with his summation of his debate. So much for "considered opinion" I guess. POLITICAL science must have its virtues.
In the meantime, the deniers' latest shipment of fail has arrived :)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/science/earth/04climate.html
Betula the Strawman Specialist writes:
>*As I have said many times....the worst case scenarios are speculations built on hypotheticals derived from inaccurate models.*
Betula, interesting that you speak so "many times" about the the "*worst case scenarios*", what do you say about the most likely scenarios?
Lee, thanks for taking the trouble to [point out](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2248…) for Betula how [his cherry picking](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2246…) misrepresented [Joyce's article].
Let me emphasize Betula's misrepresentation with one example:
Betulat quotes the partial sentance:
>*"we may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur."*
And Betual uses this with other cherry picks to contruct the arguemnt that "*this is starting to sound like me!*. But what did Joyce's words look like in context? He sums up his concern being that:
>*global climate is moving in a direction that makes abrupt climate change more probable, that these dynamics lie beyond the capability of many of the models used in IPCC reports, and the consequences of ignoring this may be large. For those of us living around the edge of the N. Atlantic Ocean, we may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur.*
In wider context Joyce is concerned with our resolution ability to model the response of ocean heat conveyors. And is specifically concerned about a potential regional impact around the edge of the N. Atlantic Ocean. (Did anyone see The Day After Tomorrow?).
Betula, did you think we wouldn't check the quotes you provided? Why did you leave out the half of the sentance that clarified Joyce was refering to a regional cooling response not a global cooling?
What do yo think Joyce was communicating in the previous (contextualising and lead in) sentance where he said: "*global climate is moving in a direction that makes abrupt climate change more probable*"?
Here is a hint:
>"*Abrupt climate changes were especially common when the climate system was being forced to change most rapidly. Thus, greenhouse warming and other human alterations of the earth system may increase the possibility of large, abrupt, and unwelcome regional or global climatic events. The abrupt changes of the past are not fully explained yet, and climate models typically underestimate the size, speed, and extent of those changes. Hence, future abrupt changes cannot be predicted with confidence, and climate surprises are to be expected."*
Who do you think directed me to this source, with the commendaiton:
>"*This very readable compilation contains a breadth and depth of discussion that we cannot hope to match here*"
[Tip for cherry pickers: before you select the bits you like from the NAS quote, read what else the NAS say about AGW, or It'll come back and haunt you, (yes you Betula)].
J Bowers- thanks.
hi, I found [this blog](http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/) when I was searching the net for material on global warming. Are any of the issues he raises relevant?
I am not an expert and I've been reading about global warming on the net for about a week now, so I cant judge.
Thought this would be the best place to ask.
Hey guys.
Previous to my comment #55 above, which showed Leigh and Arthur's 'error' in their article on David King, it seems they have [still not retracted their claims and are in fact repeating them](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/04/climate-change-email-…).
My comment on the article:
"Dear Messrs Leigh and Arthur.
At the start of this latest post in the series of what you grandiosely term an 'investigation', you repeat the following claim:
This is despite the fact that following your last article, which was based entirely on the claim that David King had retracted a previous statement he had made in an interview to you, I demonstrated that this was not the case at all and that King had volunteered that he had no inside information when originally talking to the Independent.
In other words, you have published, and repeated, a demonstrable falsehood.
Now, are you going to do the decent thing and admit your - lets be generous - mistake, or are you going to continue to ride roughshod over the truth? Your court."
There is, of course, plenty more wrong with what they have been writing, but this is an obvious and clearly demonstrable falsehood. Complaints can be addressed to comment.is.free@guardian.co.uk, if anyone else is as annoyed about it as I am.
Hmmm... formatting went weird again. Here is the untrue claim in the article:
"Even Sir David King, the government's former chief scientist, remains confused. This week, he sought to blame the leak on a foreign intelligence agency, only to admit later he had no evidence."
Bernard @77
Your questions regarding my comments can all be answered by the scientists at Woods Hole in the link provided by connor @11, and by your friend Dave on this site.
You see, I was just repeating what was said, and since you didn't know that, you chose to question how I could come up with such statements.
Can you smell the hypocrisy?
Let me walk you through your exposure...
1.You ask me to explain this statement: "we can't rule out
cooling in certain areas"
The actual quote from the "very good scientists in the article is..."Global warming can induce a colder climate for many of us."
2.You ask me to explain this statement: "we don't know enough and don't have enough data to rule out what might happen if the warming trend continues"
This from Dave @66...."we don't know enough, and don't have enough data, to rule out a massive and paradoxical cooling in eg. the north atlantic region over a very short (ie, catastrophic) period of time if present warming trends continue."
3.Finally, you ask me to explain this: "i]n addition, we take it as a given that humans are in part responsible, even though we don't know how much of a part that is"
This from the "very good" scientists in the artice @11...."Evidence has mounted that global warming began in the last century and that humans may be in part responsible."
Bernard, since the scientists use the word "may", this means they aren't positive we are even partially responsible. If they aren't positive of that, how could they know how much of a part that is?
Now, if you want to be itellectually honest, instead of questioning me, you will ask yourself why you are questioning the scientists and Dave.
Dave...
You still haven't responded to my comment @69....
"Perhaps your next response can pinpoint where it is that I have been dishonest."
LEE @78...
Either you are blind, or your entire comment is dishonest.
First, you start off by quoting me with this line...
"Yes Lee, It's called doubt. Doubt in the way AGW consequences are predicted, resulting in doubt of the predictions themselves."
You then go on to explain Global Warming instead of Anthropogenic Global Warming and then you say this....
"So, when you use the Woods Hole article to proclaim that there is doubt about A Global W, you are wrong."
Lee, as you can see by my quote above, I wasn't talking Global Warming, I was talking about doubt in the way AGW consequences are predicted. As was the article.
Are you really so blind that you can't see that?
Your point of emphasizing the word REGIONAL is also dishonest. If you look at my comment @67 you will see this...
"We don't know enough and don't have enough data to rule out what might happen if the warming trend continues, in fact we can't rule out cooling in certain areas."
You know why you didn't see the part about "certain areas" Lee?
Because you are either blind, dishonest or both.
Betula continues his dishonesty:
Now Betula claims its dishonset to emphasise that he abriviated quotes to remove refrence to regional nature of Joyces cooling concern.
I remind Betula that he perpetrated this act to construct the argument tha Joyce is aligned with Betula.
You are a fraud Betula. Come on give us your next empty and argumentative effort.
Dr Roy plots another data point:
+.72 C (at what stage does worm-touge owe True Skepic money?)
Would be an opportune time for Watts to start focusing on the long term trend rather than single data points.
But he'll probably find some region that has cooled to try and nurture doubt.
Looks like I misjudged the Watts crowed, first comment takes a different tact:
>*This goes to show how limited the value of a âglobal temperatureâ metric is...*
There it is, Lars comes to my rescue:
>*Stockholm Sweden, has had the coldest January for 23 years. and thatâs Official.*
>*This goes to show how limited the value of a âglobal temperatureâ metric is...*
If the data don't match your preconceptions...
Spencer show us the code! Has the new world order manipulated the satelites?
Anybody up for some fun fact checking of stuff posted up at CA and Pielke Jr's blog and my counter claims?
CA and Pielke claim here and here that this article shows the IPCC claim that "The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level where 60% of its population lives and 65% of its Gross National Product (GNP) is produced."
is in error.
See here for the correct page of the WG II report.
On the face of it those criticisms appears correct. However, I'm not sure that sentence means what they think it means. I think the first claim regarding 55% is not a stand alone claim that 55% of the Netherlands is below sea level. I think that claim applies only to the area of land occupied by 60% of the population. Presumably 65% of Dutch GDP is produced within the land occupied by 60% of the population given that it covers some of their largest cities. This would make sense given that these claims highlight how close some of the most densely populated areas in the Netherlands are to low lying areas.
It is poorly worded, for sure, and open to equivocation of meaning, but when has that stopped McI or Pielke before.
Looking at some info on the Netherlands the claim the IPCC makes doesn't seem far-fetched at all. See here for a map relating population density to proximity to low lying elevations. You can verify the elevations using Google Earth.
Maybe I'm suffering from reading comprehension problems and I have this wrong. I would appreciate your criticisms and comments on this issue.
Jakerman, this is the same Steve Goddard who published crap about arctic ice conditions (in The Register) so wrong that NSIDC felt compelled to take him down. Goddard was forced to publish acknowledgement in The Register.
This was followed by a guest post at WUWT in which he "proved" that there are CO2 snowstorms in the Antarctic.
OK, that WUWT thread's quite hilarious...
This from the crowd that hung their hat on an exceptionally strong El Niño in 1998 to "prove" cooling, and the 2008 cool La Niña to "prove" even more drastic "cooling" ...
dhogaza, [that](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2251…) is amazing!
I wonder if the warming trend disappears or become more clear if standardise to account for ENSO cycle?
I wonder why "skeptics" haven't done this anaylis to prove that warming disappears if we account for ESNO?
>Bernard, since the scientists use the word "may", this means they aren't positive we are even partially responsible.
No, Betula, the construction is "__Evidence has mounted__...that humans may be partly responsible..." Evidence has increased from plausible to probable to likely to very likely to damn near certain.
Contrary-wise, no falsifying evidence has emerged that humans may not be responsible. The evidence is that most 20th century warming cannot be explained without anthropocentric cause. Because we don't know everything and scientific knowledge is ultimately empirically inferential and not deduced from a priori absolutes, some unknown cause can never be entirely or completely ruled out, scientists are always cautious about making absolutly certain statements. Such an unknown cause is becoming ever increasingly unlikely, whether you are intelligent enough to understand the subtley of such caveats or not, which, from all available evidence, you may very well not be.
Ah, Steven Goddard was the origin of the CO2 snow idea? Not surprising, if so. Came across him recently, and he seems to have a fairly poor understanding of lots of things. And given to changing the subject rapidly.
I found Spencer's thread at WWUT quite interesting, especially seeing some of the posters try to come to grasps with it.
This one takes the cake:
Mark - "I wonder if that satellite was hacked⦠I find it hard to believe that Jan was this warm in the northern hemisphere."
Anyway, is this really all so surprising? No. There are bigger shocks in the lower troposphere data than the surface data. Temperatures rise proportionally more in the LT than the surface during El Ninos (and the same explanation goes for why the satellite anomalies are so darn cold during La Ninas).
Some posters also compared this El Nino to the one in 97/98, and said there is no warming. It appears thus far the 97/98 was a lot stronger than this one. My model suggests that February 1998 was about 0.20C warmer due to El Nino than current. (surface impact is about 0.12C). My model also suggests about an 8 month (exponential weighted) lag for Nino on UAH data. (It's 6 months for surface data.) So even though the Nino index has essentially peaked, the temperature impact of Nino hasn't peaked yet. Another thing is that the sun is about 0.06C cooler now than in 1998 (the sun is a tricky thing to get a robust estimate on, though). 1998 and 2010 are still apples and oranges comparisons.
I might have to try a non-linear Nino model, though. My model tracks moderate Ninos and Ninas pretty well, but tends to underestimate the stronger ones, especially with the troposphere data.
The anthropogenic contribution is about 0.14C / decade, given UAH data (0.16C with RSS, and 0.19C with GISS). The interesting thing about UAH data is that it seems to be catching up to RSS over the last decade.
[Betula](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2250…).
Oh yes, I can smell hypocrisy - yours.
You might wriggle and twist, but it is plain to see that you really do not want to provide straight answers to my questions, and more importantly, to establish the real facts of the matters.
Aside from [the long-standing catalogue of questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame…
) to which you assiduously avoided providing any answers of your own, you twisted my question:
to come up with:
which in no way addresses any of the several separate aspects of my question.
In repsonse to my question:
you come up with
which has nothing to do with my actual question. Seriously, did you even read it?!
Once more confusing the intent of another of my questions:
you muddled through an answer:
which has nothing to do with the thrust of my question.
Your answers remind me of some of the first-year essays and reports that I've marked, where the (completely clueless) student thinks that repeating some of the key words, and making vague hand-wavings toward the hemisphere in which they think the original question resides, will somehow bamboozle the assessor.
That crap doesn't fly, and nor does yours.
Betula @ 90
Ok then, I thought everyone else was pointing out your dishonest misrepresentation of the article in question, but if you want me to join the chorus...
> We don't know enough and don't have enough data to rule out what might happen if the warming trend continues, in fact we can't rule out cooling in certain areas.
Your use of the word "cooling" is a greatly reduced interpretation of what the article actually states. One of their main criticisms of current models is that they are too conservative, dealing mostly with gradual warming processes and lacking the mechanisms and data to predict sudden regional shifts. The balance of your sentence places an equivalence between the word "warming" in the first section, and "cooling" in the second - when in fact the rate and extent of the two phenomena as discussed in the article are radically different. The implication is that while the globe gets *gradually warmer*, some areas will get *gradually cooler* - when in actuality the stark warning is of sudden climatic shifts of several degrees over a timescale of less than a decade. It is dishonest to downplay the major thrust of the article by understating its major concerns in favour of highlighting its criticism of modelling (as you did earlier in the thread) as in fact the criticism of current models *only makes sense* if you accept that the "cooling" discussed is of a sudden, and dramatic nature, and is no way equivalent to the gradual predicted warming.
> In addition, we take it as a given that humans are in part responsible, even though we don't know how much of a part that is.
When we have a range of possible contribution, along with error bars, simply saying "we don't know how much" is a misrepresentation. We don't know *precisely* but we have a range that we can be pretty confident in. There is a world of difference between "we have an approximate idea, that we are refining all the time" and "we have no idea at all", and your choice of words leans towards the latter. Because of your choice of words, this *weakens* the first part of the sentence - the "we take it as a given" section. Because you imply we have no idea (or at least, much less of an idea than we actually do), you further imply we are wrong to take it as a given that humans are responsible (through your use of the words "even though").
The particular stresses and emphasis you use are completely unsupported by the article in question in the tone that you employ, hence the accusation of dishonest misrepresentation.
> And with this information, you conclude that at least I have "accepted both the clear and dangerous warming trend, and the obvious cause."
I conclude that (facetiously) based on your declared approval of an article that does precisely that. Of course, your approval only went so far as to choose some select, out-of-context quotes and ignore the central thrust of the article which alters the nature of your quotes substantially, clearly highlighting that you approve of it only insofar as you read what you want to read and hear what you want to hear. Hopefully my attempt to point out that the article *does not say what you think it says* has not gone unnoticed, and that by accepting it you are accepting a position that you have in previous threads denied vociferously.
Bernard...
I thought you were better than that, but at the same time I understand your dilema. Once exposed, covering yourself with a blanket is only natural.
Let's review:
First you ask me to explain my comments, which were mimicking those that were made by Woods Hole Scientists and Dave. Then you call me a hypocrite for pointing out the hypocrisy of not directing your questions to them.
Of course, you weren't aware my comments were nearly identical to those of the "very good" scientists until after the fact, so now you stumble for your blanket.
In addition, you are upset that I didn't answer a question you posed to someone else on a different post, and then directed at me as a way to change the subject.
You're going to need a bigger blanket.
The Rabett has a humdinger of a post today, aus Deutschland. It's the first time I've seen anyone rightfully label BOTH RPs as concern trolls.
Dave @105...
Fascinating comment here at 105 that I recommend all read.
Apparently, I am dishonest because I used the term "cooling" instead of the actual term that was used in the article (@11), that being the word "cooling"
You see, what I said was....."in fact we can't rule out cooling in certain areas."
And what the article states is...."Model calculations indicate the potential for cooling of 3 to 5 degree Celsius in the ocean and atmosphere should a total disruption occur."
Dave then goes on to expose my dishonesty with this fine piece of detective work....
I said...."In addition, we take it as a given that humans are in part responsible, even though we don't know how much of a part that is."
Dave points out how dishonest a statement this is, because I didn't say..."we don't know precisely how much of a part that is"
Of course, Dave forgets to mention "precisely" how much of a part that is, though I suspect he can find out while sharing the blanket with Bernard.
Betulant @ 108
Really, you're getting more than a little tiresome with your strawmen and context-snipping quotations and paraphrasals. I provided far more detail and criticism than you address in your response, specifically through implication, omission, downplaying or over-simplification, especially placed in the wider context of your other comments on this thread (ie. your initial quotation of the article that yet again was highly selective and dishonest in its presentation of key phrases without context).
Do I take your inability to form a coherent response without mangling my argument as a concession that you are, in fact, utterly dishonest?
And you can do your own homework on the prevailing opinion on warming attribution (although you could do worse than start at IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 9). Pretending such things do not exist simply because they are not cited in detail every time they are mentioned in passing is childish, tedious, and a double-standard of the highest order.
Dave @109..
"specifically through implication, omission, downplaying or over-simplification, especially placed in the wider context of your other comments on this thread (ie. your initial quotation of the article that yet again was highly selective and dishonest in its presentation of key phrases without context)."
Dave, you dance much better than you talk, so I'm going to give you a big dance floor to work with.
Here are the quotes and my comment from #62.All quotes are from the article @11. Remember, these are "very good" scientists from Woods Hole...
1."This is a daunting task but is necessary before we can confidently rely on models to predict future climate change."
2."Besides needing believable models that can accurately predict climate change, we also need data that can properly initialize them."
3."For the ocean, our data coverage is wholly inadequate."
4."Our knowledge about past climate change is limited as well."
5."Global warming can induce a colder climate for many of us."
6."we may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur."
7."And now perhaps you begin to see the scope of the problem."
My comment:
"....can't confidently rely, need more believable models, need more accuracy, wholly inadequate ocean data, limited knowledge about past climate, scenarios opposite of what might occur...."
So Dave, let me see you do the implication, omission, downplaying or over-simplification dances..... or get off the dance floor.
Betula's tactic to avoid facing his dishonesty; build some more strawmen:
>*Apparently, I am dishonest because I used the term "cooling" instead of the actual term that was used in the article (@11), that being the word "cooling"*
Cover your eyes Betula, and pretend that you haven't been [called out](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2250…) for truncating quotes to remove the context that puts that "cooling" in terms of a regional impact in the greater global warming.
[Yet again](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2248…)
Dave this is classic Betula, he is overwhelmingly empty but will argue a non-point eternally. Though your efforts are not totaly in-vain, as Betula's antics do provide a case study in the style of empty argumentative denial buttressed with his army of strawmen.
Betula, that articl eis aobut REGIONAL mpacts, so let me fix yor post by putting back in the context that you lose when you quote mine those sentencfes.
1."This is a daunting task but is necessary before we can confidently rely on models to predict future [REGIONAL] climate change."
2."Besides needing believable models that can accurately predict [REGIONAL] climate change, we also need data that can properly initialize them."
3."For the ocean, our data coverage is wholly inadequate [TO PREDICT REGIONAL IMPACTS ON OCEAN CONVEYORS]."
4."Our knowledge about past [REGIONAL] climate change is limited as well."
5."Global warming can induce a 'REGIONALLY] colder climate for many of us."
6."we may be planning for [LOCAL AND REGIONAL] climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur [IN A GIVEN LOCALE OR REGION]."
7."And now perhaps you begin to see the scope of the problem [OF MAKING REGIONAL PREDICTIONS]."
See, Betula that question does not call GLOBAL warming into question at all - it is pointing out the difficulties in making accurate regional predictions with the current state of the observations and models. Duh! - we've known that all along.
I agree with Betula (#108). In the face of the obvious, the 'alarmist deniers' are intellectually bankrupt, and incapable of accepting an alternative point of view. Unlike me of course ! :-)
Shorter Billy Bob Hall:
The alarmists must listen to us! We needn't listen to them! Therefore, I'm open-minded.
* * *
More news on the SwiftHack front: According to the Guardian, UEA climatologist Paul Dennis was interviewed by the Norfolk police, and gave a former statement to them. I don't think he was the one who Did Itâ¢, though.
Paul Dennis is innocent, the hack was conducted by a secret service organization and released just before Copenhagen for maximum impact.
They are talking about an imminent snow job in DC, big Al must be in town.
So, Betula...
The long and the short of it is that you cannot answer [my very simple and straight-forward questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2248…), and thus you have to construct your own version of events.
Good luck with that.
Once again, I querie if you have actually read what I asked of you, and I invite everyone here to re-read the exchange between you and myself, and decide for themselves who is hiding under a blankie of cognitive dissonance.
I know that it's not me tugging a forelock and sucking my thumb...
As I so often say to your comrades who all fail in this exercise, to prove your case you have but to address [the questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2248…).
Why, oh why, is this so hard for the Denialati to do?
Hmmm???
Jakerman @111 states...
"Cover your eyes Betula, and pretend that you haven't been called out for truncating quotes to remove the context that puts that "cooling" in terms of a regional impact in the greater global warming."
Jakerman, please explain in detail what you believe my comment "cooling in certain areas" means.
Waiting anxiously.
Lee @112...
"See, Betula that question does not call GLOBAL warming into question at all - it is pointing out the difficulties in making accurate regional predictions with the current state of the observations and models. Duh! - we've known that all along."
Lee, after inserting your own words into the Woods Hole scientists comments, you reach an imaginary conclusion about something I never said. In other words, you have managed to convince your own imagination into believing something by confusing it with your own imagination.
Dig deep and try to pay attention.
1.First, @38 you state this...
"You appear to think the article makes some point you support, Betula, so why don't you tell us what the article says?"
2.I respond @68 with this...
"It's called doubt. Doubt in the way AGW consequences are predicted, resulting in doubt of the predictions themselves."
3.You use your imagination @78 and believe the above comment has something to do with doubting GW.
"So, when you use the Woods Hole article to proclaim that there is doubt about A Global W, you are wrong."
4.I respond @91 to the absurdity of your comment with a conclusion...
"Either you are blind, or your entire comment is dishonest."
5.Your response @112 proves you refuse to ignnore the fact that I was referring to "Doubt in the way AGW consequences are predicted."
"See, Betula that question does not call GLOBAL warming into question at all"
Possible Conclusions....
1.Since you fail to see the words in front of your face you are blind.
2.You saw the words, but lack the ability to put them together to form an understanding of their meaning.
3.You interpret everything you read to fit into your preconcieved conclusion.
4.You are dishonest.
5.You are retarded, in which case I apologize for making fun of you.
Bernard @116.
"The long and the short of it is that you cannot answer my very simple and straight-forward questions, and thus you have to construct your own version of events."
Bernard, the questions you refer to are @77. Did you happen to notice that before each question, you post comments from which you base your questions? You do know you did that don't you?
Did you also happen to notice that the comments you posted are based on comments from Woods Hole Scientists? Did you know that Bernard?
So, despite the fact that I already gave you the answer, I am going to give it to you again so you can sleep at night, under your blankie of course.
Are you ready?
Your questions are insincere.They should be directed at the people who made them, the people you agree with, rather than the person who repeated them, the person you disagree with.
You can pretend I can't see you under the blanket, but I know your there.....right under #77.
Shorter Betula: "It's only a flesh wound."
Betula, here is what that article says, placed intot eh broader context of the wider field.
Current models mostly show a continuing atlantic conveyor, and those models show that AGW will have substantial negative regional consequences for the North Atlantic region. However, making the models a bit more realistic reveals a bistable state - either the conveyor continues, or it shuts down. If it shuts down, the consequences for the north Atlantic region are likely to be even more severe, with Little Ice Age conditions for northern europe.
We don't currently know enough to distinguish between those possibilities, but either one sucks if you're in Europe or dependent on European services and economics.
The 'doubt' in that article is not doubt about whether there will be bad consequences from AGW. It is 'doubt' about WHICH really suck-full consequence is the one to prepare for. With those suck-full consequences superimposed on top of sea level rise and acidification, etc, which happen either way.
The point you're trying to make is like this - informed people tell you that the door you're about to walk through has someone lurking behind it who is bent on doing you some damage. You ask what kind of damage, and they tell you that you will either be shot or stabbed, they don't have enough information to know which. So you say, 'well, there's doubt, so your warning is worthless,' and you walk blindly and confidently through that door anyway, to be either shot or stabbed. Because, hey, the guy might stab you so why worry about being shot, and he might shoot you so why worry about being stabbed? Right?
Betula,
You've even resorted to snipping your own quotes - you do yourself a disservice, what you actually said was:
> It's called doubt. Doubt in the way AGW consequences are predicted, resulting in doubt of the predictions themselves. As I have said many times....the worst case scenarios are speculations built on hypotheticals derived from inaccurate models.
So you read an article, take a few sentences out of context about weaknesses with models, and use that to back your case about worst case scenarios being doubtful because of model innacuracy.
Except... the whole point of the article is pointing out that *the models don't go far enough* and that there are entirely reasonable scenarios that are far worse than the current conservative predictions, but we cannot yet assess those specific cases with any confidence due to a lack of knowledge.
So if your position is that the models are too uncertain to be useful and that the IPCC's worst-case scenarios are purely hypothetical (and by extension unconvincing and/or unlikely), this article really doesn't support that viewpoint, and your attempts to take sections out of context to make that point are (drumroll please) dishonest.
>*Betula,
You've even resorted to snipping your own quotes...*
Classic!
And Betula asks me:
>*Jakerman, please explain in detail what you believe my comment "cooling in certain areas" means.*
I'll do better than that strawman Betula, I'll redirect you back to where you were called out truncating quotes to fabricate a false alignment between Joyce's and your views.
Start [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2253…). And track back to [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2248…).
And here is the outstanding question that Betula tries to ignore: Why did you truncate the highlighted part of this (following) sentance?
>*For those of us living around the edge of the N. Atlantic Ocean, we may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur.*
Let me once again remind you of the essence of deception you tried to fabricate with this truncated quote, Betula writes:
>*this [Joyce's article] is starting to sound like me! Yet, here you are telling me....."The scientists in the Woods Hole article are very good, as is the article itself"
I'll take that as a compliment.*
Difference is of course that you Betula are disingenuously cherry picking and truncating quotes to argue that we don't know enough about anything to act seriously to mitigate global warming. Joyce is not, his article concerns a regional impact. For the broader contexts he cites the likes of the NAS.
Wiggle as much as you like Betula, its gotten to the state that you are way past unreliable, you are making your self look more and more delusional. The more you blather, the worse you look.
Betula, it's really very simple.
You are making claims about anthropogenic global warming in contradiction of the consensus of experts scientists working in climatology, you are very selectively quote-mining phrases from them, and in so doing you are distorting the meaning of their statements.
My questions to you are very sincere. If you truly believe that the imputations of your 'interpretation' are correct, you will be quite prepared to say why they are so in the context of my questions, which seek to clarify exactly where your understanding concords with the mainstream science.
That you persist in refusing to do answer is telling.
That you are as determinedly avoiding [the more general questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame…
) only exacerbates the demonstration of your factually depauperate arguments.
Europe is due for another icy blast. I hold to my conviction that February is traditionally the coldest month in the UK.
el gordo,
So what is your point? Just making inane conversation or have you anything more substantial to say? Last week temperatures in western Europe were well above normal, and this week they will drop a few degrees below normal. This thing is called WEATHER. Ever heard of it?
Bernard beautifully sums up the main streatgy of the entire anti-environmental movement when he describes Betula's latest gibberish:
*You are making claims about anthropogenic global warming in contradiction of the consensus of experts scientists working in climatology, you are very selectively quote-mining phrases from them, and in so doing you are distorting the meaning of their statements*
Given that most of the deniers do little or no actual research, they are forced to resort to whatever tricks they can to downplay the findings of empirical research and to blunt the views of the vast majority of the scientists conducting this research. Betula is only illustrating this with his nonsensical musings. Bjorn Lomborg, for instance, selectively quotes scientists to draw conclusions that the scientists in question had not intended (check out his partial quote of Paul Colinvaux's discussion about the importance of biodiversity loss and how Lomborg distorts that to alter the meaning of Colinvaux's original quote making it appear that Colinvaux is downplaying what we know about the issue).
As I have said before: Betula's aim is to bait and switch - he unwisely jumped into the debate on the effects of climate change on biodiversity on another thread, was hammered on it, and fled with his tail between his legs, only to resurface here in an attempt to distort the meaning of the Wood's Hole Research.
As I have said before many times, most of the deniers are driven by their owbn political ideologies and could not give a damn about the "truth", as elusive as that is in science.
Jeff Harvey,
Yet another 'I am Jeff Harvey and my views are right' post.
Plenty of verbiage, a la Bernard J, but no substance!
Jeff, if you keep your eye on the weather you may catch a glimpse of real climate change.
It may sound absurd, but the Old Farmer's Almanac is more accurate in their seasonal forecasts than anyone else. They predict weather trends and events by comparing solar patterns and historical weather conditions, with current solar activity.
Britain will again be under snow by week's end and the UK Met will be red faced.
Comparing the last two posts, I'm struck by how accurately Jeff has nailed Betula's tactics, and how inacurately Dave Andrews has reviewed Jeff's.
Not surprising thought, both observations are consistent with past performance.
My reference @ 134 should refer to the last two post prior to el gordo's attention seeking guff about cherry picking weather.
But what a fine troika are made by Betula, Dave Andrews and el gordo!
;)
Oi jakerman - what about me ? Don't forget me. I was banned from this site long before any of the noobs turned up. ;-)
More on its weather not climate, a super storm is developing in the US.
http://www.accuweather.com/regional-news-story.asp?region=eastusnews
Kind regards,
Noob 3
@137: And in related weather news, there seems to be a problem finding snow for the [Winter Olympics.](http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6151NU20100206)
Appologies Billy Bob, you make an apt quartet. Does Duff or Keith or Lank and Janama want make it the orchestra? Then perhaps you could swap details and form a support group or something?
Is it Bathurts el gordo? Unfortunatley betula and ducky are OS, but does el gordo seem like someone you could spend more time with Biilly Bob? el gordo's family make him keep his denialist under his hat, so he keen for more contact.
Your both white middle aged right? El gordo in his 50s? Maybe close to sixty? Billy Bob just a little younger? How close did I get?
PS Billy Bob, you might do some reserach to verify where you sit in the noob rankings. My inclination is that only el gordo is noober to Deltoid than you.
Back to the science, Karoly and Rudd are being abused over at Watts. Something to do with their incorrect comments that AGW is responsible for drought in the Murray-Darling basin.
Bernard, Lee, Jakerman et al:
Your groupthink is old and tired.
You all seem hellbent on the idea that I am intentionally "truncating" the comments of the Woods Hole scientists for the following reasons:
1.I misrepresent the fact that they are talking about "regional" areas....
Yet somehow you purposely ignore that I quoted them as saying "cooling for many of us". For all you brilliant scientists out there, "many of us" does not mean "all of us", and therefore does not and cannot insinuate "all of us".
In addition, you ignore that I said "we can't rule out cooling in certain areas". Once again for all you arrogant, condescending, willfully ignorant scientists, "certain areas" doesn't mean "all areas", and therefore does not and cannot insinuate "all areas".
2.I "use the Woods Hole article to proclaim that there is doubt about A Global W"
Yet somehow, I never once mentioned Global Warming or proclaimed anywhere, that Global Warming doesn't exist. Unless you believe you are some sort of genius, in which case I did.
What I did say @66 was that there is "Doubt in the way AGW consequences are predicted, resulting in doubt of the predictions themselves" and "scientists at woods hole are skeptical of both the accuracy of the prediction process and the prediction itself"
None of you are willing to dispute the fact that the predicted worst case scenarios cannot be assessd with any confidence due to a lack of knowledge (the point of the article), yet you act like they can.
Old, tired, willfully ignorant, purposely misrepresenting, dishonest, groupthink geniuses....all blind in the dark and unwilling to change the bulb.
>None of you are willing to dispute the fact that the predicted worst case scenarios cannot be assessd[sic] with any confidence due to a lack of knowledge (the point of the article), yet you act like they can.
Not at all, Betula. The fact that the worst case scenarios of sudden climate change cannot be confidently predicted within some narrow time frame does not discount the fact that as the relatively gradual stress on the climate system increases the likelihood of sudden climate change likewise increases. Particularly since the most likely and conservatively gradualist scenarios that can be assessed with a high degree of confidence are themselves catastrophic enough to give any rational person reason for concern.
@Betula: You could make that argument about anything. Try tobacco. We can't be sure exactly how much lung cancer and other health complications will be caused by smoking X packs a day. We can't be sure about the precise effects of second-hand smoke and so forth.
I believe those are true statements, but what would be the reason for anyone to argue them? Clearly, they would be designed to promote inaction.
Betula:
"None of you are willing to dispute the fact that the predicted worst case scenarios cannot be assessd with any confidence due to a lack of knowledge (the point of the article), yet you act like they can."
Betula, my post at 125 is about EXACTLY THAT. Do you imagine no one notices?
Betula tries to distract from his dishonesty (which he's [been called](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2254…) on) with new bundles of his dishonesty:
Betula attempts to addresses the fact that he's been called out for quote mining and distorting Joyce's article. But to defend himself Betula used quite bazaar claims:
>*"Yet somehow, I [Betula] never once mentioned Global Warming"*
The first point is, what an odd logic? Betual is trying to defend against his misrepresenting of Joyce (via quote mining, truncating quotes etc) by reasoning that he didn't mention global warming.
The second point is, he contradicts himself even about this:
>*I never once mentioned Global Warming [...].What I did say @66 was that there is "Doubt in the way AGW consequences are predicted, resulting in doubt of the predictions themselves" and "scientists at woods hole are skeptical of both the accuracy of the prediction process and the prediction itself".*
Betula, are you so blind that you can't see you immediately contradicted yourself? Apparently for Betula mentioning AGW is not mentioning Global Warming. But worst of all, betula totally failed to address the quote at issue.
I'm happy to show Betula his dishonesty as many times as he dodges it:
>And here is the outstanding question that Betula tries to ignore: Why did you truncate the highlighted part of this (following) sentance?
>*For those of us living around the edge of the N. Atlantic Ocean, we may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur.
>Let me once again remind you of the essence of deception you tried to fabricate with this truncated quote, Betula writes:
>*this [Joyce's article] is starting to sound like me! Yet, here you are telling me....."The scientists in the Woods Hole article are very good, as is the article itself" I'll take that as a compliment.*
>Difference is of course that you Betula are disingenuously cherry picking and truncating quotes to argue that we don't know enough about anything to act seriously to mitigate global warming. Joyce is not, his article concerns a regional impact. For the broader contexts he cites the likes of the NAS.
Keep writheing like a snake Betula, you keep looking he worse and worse. Now, in the spirit of either his ignorance or dishonesty Betula tries to shift the heat on him by complaining:
>*None of you are willing to dispute the fact that the predicted worst case scenarios cannot be assessd with any confidence due to a lack of knowledge (the point of the article), yet you act like they can.*
I don't argue with your strawmen Betula, I [call you on them](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2248…).
I asked you about most likely estimates, more commonly referred to as 'best estimates'. These most likely estimates are bad enough to warrant intensive mitigation. The worst estimates of which you pretend to have knowledge leave Earth as a Venus like dead planet.
A couple of papers came out recently which puts a dampener on global warming.
The Solomon et al. paper says the warming of the 1990's came about because there was more moisture in the stratosphere and the flatness in temperatures since 2000 can be accounted for by stratospheric dryness.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/
Yes, El Gordo, Solomon has something interesting to say about decadal variability.
No, El Gordo, Solomon isn't putting a dampener on Global Warming - the CO2 level is still increasing, and CO2 still forces temperature.
Dampner is an apt term el gordo, as like a shock absorber such phenomena shift the load of warming, they don't stop it.
Unfortunately the stratosphere cannot get perpetually drier and drier, so this ain't no permament end to warming. And more unfortunately the stratosphere can get more moist.
I have two simple questions for Betula:
1) Do you contend that the science is insufficient to warrent serious greenhouse-gas mitigation?
2) If so, do you claim that the article by Joyce supports the above contention? Or does Joyce's article imply that failure to mitigate against further global warming may risk leading to harmful cooling in regions close to the North Atlantic?
A new paper by Rohling et al. 'Comparison between Holocene and Marine Isotope Stage-11 sea level histories', claims our current interglacial is similar to the MIS-11 of around 400,000 years ago.
Previous studies have suggested the Holocene should have ended 2-2.5 thousand years ago, but because of the anthropogenic connection it has remained warm due to deforestation, plus methane and CO2 buildup.
I dismiss the Gaia theory out of hand, too few trees had been chopped down to have any impact over natural variability.
The authors are putting their money on the amount of solar energy reaching the earth on the same latitude in summer and they suggest the Holocene may not end anytime soon, with or without AGW.
Jakerman @145
1."Apparently for Betula mentioning AGW is not mentioning Global Warming."
It isn't, unless you believe all global warming is caused by man. Global warming has alternated with periods of global cooling throughout history in regular, natural cycles.
2."Betula, are you so blind that you can't see you immediately contradicted yourself?"
Please answer this one.....If I were contradicting myself, than why did I explain to Lee @95 that I was talking about AGW and not GW?
3."Why did you truncate the highlighted part of this (following) sentance?"
"For those of us living around the edge of the N. Atlantic Ocean, we may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur."
Because it was a huge scheme on my part to hide the fact that we don't know what will happen in a given region, not a "certain area" and not "for many of us", but for a region.
And this makes a big difference when we ask the tough questions, doesn't it Jake?
So please tell me, who is planning for climate scenarios that may be the opposite of what occurs? Where did they get their information for this planning that may be opposite?
Should they keep the old plan or create a new one? What should be different in the new plan? What if the new plan is wrong and the old plan turns out to be right? Can they still rely on the information from the old plan?
Of course it doesn't really matter, because it's a regional issue.
What a tool.
Mark @149...
1) Do you contend that the science is insufficient to warrent serious greenhouse-gas mitigation?
I contend that the science is biased and the predictions are exaggerated, not just by scientists, but by politicians, advocacy groups and various representatives of countries that have a stake in recieving big money from rich nations. There are also those that see this as a way to advance their ideology, mainly through fear.
I contend that many aspects that may affect future outcomes are intentionally ignored, including some of the potential outcomes themselves.
If this is what you mean by "the science", then the answer is yes.
2."If so, do you claim that the article by Joyce supports the above contention? Or does Joyce's article imply that failure to mitigate against further global warming may risk leading to harmful cooling in regions close to the North Atlantic?"
The article implies that we may be planning for warming, but get sudden cooling, due to warming.
The article also implies that because of our limited knowledge, we don't know what will happen, in fact it may be the opposite of what we think.
In other words, the article implies it doesn't know.
Also, you might notice the article implies that the consequences of ignoring the unknown "may be large", only after they request more money for research.
> The article implies that we may be planning for warming, but get sudden cooling, due to warming.
Planning for warming *globally* but get sudden dramatic *regional* shifts that may encompass *dramatic cooling*, within a continued *overall global warming* trend.
> The article also implies that because of our limited knowledge, we don't know what will happen, in fact it may be the opposite of what we think.
Yes - if what you are talking about it prediction of specific tipping points where a global warming trend triggers regional events far outside the currently anticipated gradual warming.
> In other words, the article implies it doesn't know.
This is reductio ad absurdum. That's not at all what the article says - certainly not in the way you've tried to extend that to cover uncertainty in other predictions.
It says *nothing* about the predictions for an overall warming trend globally, and indeed takes that *as a necessary precursor* for triggering dramatic events *within that context*. The thing it says we don't know about is whether our current predictions are *far too conservative*.
Tell me again - why do you think this article supports your contention that:
> As I have said many times....the worst case scenarios are speculations built on hypotheticals derived from inaccurate models.
Perhaps it would help if you described in detail which worst case scenarios you are talking about that you have expounded on before - because I've seen you characterise the IPCC assessment as scaremongering in precisely this way.
Tell me - is the current IPCC assessment reasonable, or a hypothetical worst case scenario? Do you accept it or not?
Betula:
"I contend that the science is biased and the predictions are exaggerated,"
Sure they are, but your bias and exaggeration is many orders of magnitude higher.
Betula, thankyou for responding to [my question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2258…), though I find part of your answer evasive:
Let me recap my second question:
>Do you claim that the article by Joyce supports the above contention? [that the science is insufficient to warrent serious greenhouse-gas mitigation?] Or does Joyce's article imply that failure to mitigate against further global warming may risk leading to harmful cooling in regions close to the North Atlantic?
You arrive at your answer that "the article implies it doesn't know" [that the science is insufficient to warrent serious greenhouse-gas mitigation]. But to construct that answer you selectively misrepresent the article with this summary:
>*The article implies that we may be planning for warming, but get sudden cooling, due to warming.*
And you write:
>*we don't know what will happen, in fact it may be the opposite of what we think.*
Would you like us to believe that you recognise the Joyce artical is concerned with regional cooling in a global warming context or that you think the artical is about global cooling in response to global warming? Which is it?
Please in your answer consider what you meant at the moments that [you made statments](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2257…) such as:
>*for all you arrogant, condescending, willfully ignorant scientists, "certain areas" doesn't mean "all areas", and therefore does not and cannot insinuate "all areas".*
Betula shows us how arse backward he's got it:
>>."Apparently for Betula mentioning AGW is not mentioning Global Warming."
To which Betual responds:
>*It isn't, unless you believe all global warming is caused by man. Global warming has alternated with periods of global cooling throughout history in regular, natural cycles.*
Spot your error yet Betula?
I'll give you a clue; All mice are mammals, but not all mammals are mice.
All AGW is GW, get it?
[Here is the context: ]
Betula keeps using 'doubt' as if it means 'we don't know anything.'
Even regionally, that article points out that we know a lot. We know that the probable regional response to AGW is either:
1: Warming on pace with the planet, which will have bad consequences for the region.
2: Sudden catastrophic cooling which will have even worse regional consequences.
We know what the switch is that decides which it will be - it is the Atlantic conveyor. There is pretty good evidence that the conveyor can shut off. If it does Europe gets really fucking cold. If it doesn't, Europe keeps warming. We just don't know enough to be able to decide which it is going to be - thus the call for better models and more data, to try to figure out which of 2 bad consequences is the most probable.
Not, as Betula keeps implying, to decide if there will be any consequence at all.
Dave @153 states....
"Perhaps it would help if you described in detail which worst case scenarios you are talking about that you have expounded on before"
In response to my comment....
"As I have said many times....the worst case scenarios are speculations built on hypotheticals derived from inaccurate models."
Dave, do I really need to explain the terrifying worst case scenarios to you? This is scary, scary stuff. Where have you been?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2078944470709189270#
Now, this is where Dave says this movie, based on the IPCC findings, was indeed designed to exaggerate and my comment was correct.
C'mon, that last line was funny!
Vince @154...
I state...."I contend that the science is biased and the predictions are exaggerated"
Vince agrees with me that the science is biased and exaggerated with..."Sure they are"..., but believes my comments about bias and exaggeration are biased and exaggerated with...."but your bias and exaggeration is many orders of magnitude higher."
This is comedy gold.
Mark @155...
You asked me 2 questions.
My answer to your first question was...."If this is what you mean by "the science", then the answer is yes."
Your second question was structured in 2 parts, "If" being the first part and "Or" being the second.
I answered the "Or" part of your question.
So by answering the "or" part, we eliminated the need to answer the "if" question. It is already answered by choosing "or".
Your "or" question is this...
"Or does Joyce's article imply that failure to mitigate against further global warming may risk leading to harmful cooling in regions close to the North Atlantic?"
A more clarified answer would be.... the article implies it, but does not directly state it, because it doesn't know.
Jakerman @156...
Apparently, Jakerman believes mentioning man made global warming is like mentioning global warming, just like mentioning mice is like mentioning a mammal.
So mentioning man made mice is like mentioning mice, just like mentioning warming is like mentioning a temperature.
A comedian could make a fortune off this site.
Betula, the concept you seem to miss is that when I find your answer to be evasive, I ask a follow-up question. Now you seem to try to evade answering my [follow-up questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2261…).
I'll restate it here:
Betula, thankyou for responding to [my question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2258…), though I find part of your answer evasive:
**Let me recap my second question:** [Emphasis added]
Do you claim that the article by Joyce supports the above contention? [that the science is insufficient to warrent serious greenhouse-gas mitigation?] Or does Joyce's article imply that failure to mitigate against further global warming may risk leading to harmful cooling in regions close to the North Atlantic?
You arrive at your answer that "the article implies it doesn't know" [that the science is insufficient to warrent serious greenhouse-gas mitigation]. But to construct that answer you selectively misrepresent the article with this summary:
>*The article implies that we may be planning for warming, but get sudden cooling, due to warming.*
And you write:
>*we don't know what will happen, in fact it may be the opposite of what we think.*
Would you like us to believe that you recognise the Joyce artical is concerned with regional cooling in a global warming context or that you think the artical is about global cooling in response to global warming? Which is it?
Please in your answer consider what you meant at the moments that you made [statments such as](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2257…):
>*for all you arrogant, condescending, willfully ignorant scientists, "certain areas" doesn't mean "all areas", and therefore does not and cannot insinuate "all areas".*
Posted by: Mark | February 9, 2010 7:39 PM
Apparently Betula thinks that if he makes a [word salad](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2263…) that someone will be confused about how awfully he is [botching things](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2258…).
Afraid that won't work here Betula, instead just makes you look more and more dishonest.
Why not try this alternative, admit you got it wrong, [that you contradicted yourself](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2258…) and adjust your agrment accordingly.
Why not try it and see if this new approach helps your growth and advancement in knowledge.
I've seen you apply your approach in such a consistent manner, that I don't expect you will take this advice; however laying out what a reasonable person would do makes quite a contrast to your dishonest, empty and argumentative approach.
Mark @162 states...
"Please in your answer consider what you meant at the moments that you made statments such as:
for all you arrogant, condescending, willfully ignorant scientists, "certain areas" doesn't mean "all areas", and therefore does not and cannot insinuate "all areas"."
Mark,
What I meant was all you arrogant, condescending, willfully ignorant scientists think using the phrase "certain areas" is a scheme used to avoid the phrase "regional areas".
Of course, "certain areas" was my phrasing, but I notice you didn't include that I posted the scientists as stating....."cooling for many of us". Another scheme on my part to avoid the word "region"
I find it hard to believe this is so difficult for you.
Perhaps you missed the part about "willfully ignorant". < look, it's there.
If you look close you can also see it here ^^
Jakerman,
Let's follow the deep ruts of your circle....
1.I step into your rut by pointing out I am refering to AGW and not GW.
2.You insist that my mentioning AGW is the same as mentioning GW, so I contradict myself.
1.I point out there is a difference between AGW and GW.
2.You point out I'm wrong because mice are mammals.
1.I agree mice are mammals, but wonder what the difference between man made mice and mice is, in relation to temperature.
2.You want me to change my tactic so I can be as knowledgable about GW and mice as you are.
1.I think you are a tool, not able to admit there is a difference between discussing man made mice and mice.
Maenwhile, I have a feeling someone is scurrying for cheese.
Betula, I'm going to have you call you out on your evasiveness. For a third time you evaded my [strait questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2264…). That says something in itself.
Given your evasiveness I believe it likely that you feel you have been caught in your own contradictions.
You don't intend being forthright and truthful here do you Betula.
As I have said before, its a waste of time debating pseudo-intellects like Betula. His strategy is hit-and-run; he gets creamed in one thread and pops up in another. He wades into areas beyond his competence, much like Bruce Barrett does on another thread.
I recall Betula making an arse of himself on the subject of polar bear demographics a couple of weeks ago and then trying to add his five cents worth on the effects of climate change on response and effect traits in ecological communities (granted, he does not know what these terms mean, but he comments anyway). Then he surfaces here.
The fact is this: Betula never admits he is wrong, even when the facts clearly prove it. I would not be at all surprised if he is right wing Republican or else holds strongly libertarian views. This has everything to do with his views of climate change.
Mark,
I've answered your question twice to no avail. Perhaps you should cut to the chase of what you want the answer to be, or explain how my answer doesn't fit into your preconcieved notion.
JH...
I love the tactic. Claim someone is wrong, but don't mention or link what they are wrong about. Just that they are wrong.
Here, let me try....
Jeff Harvey is wrong and never admits it. Hey, this is fun!
By the way, you remind me that you never directly answered my question about how many polar bears have died or been affected as a direct result of AGW?
To be fair, you did explained what might happen if warming trends continue, time lags, long term effects, everything effects everything else, if, maybe, might, possibly, could, you never know, most likely, perhaps and all those other terms that are way to complicated for me to understand.
Unfotunately, I still don't know the number of cute cuddly polar bears that have died to date, due to some selfish senior citizen trying to stay warm with oil heat. You're the ecologist, isn't there some study stating this number?
It's a simple question really, and rather than assume it implies something, why not just answer it.
Let me know, I'll answer it if you find it too hard.
In the meantime, here's another one. Do you remember that picture of that cute polar bear stranded on the ice cap that Al Gore showed? You know the one. Anyway, do you think he died right after that photo, you know, from drowning?
If you want, I'll let you count that as one.
JH @167, showing his true colors as a non biased scientist, who refuses to form scientific opinions based on politics states.....
"I would not be at all surprised if he is right wing Republican or else holds strongly libertarian views. This has everything to do with his views of climate change."
Classic.
Betula,
Your continued evasiveness clearly confirms my observation that:
>*You don't intend being forthright and truthful here do you Betula.*
But, I'm going to call you out for now four times evading my [straight questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2264…).
Your continued failure to answer my question provides an element of confirmation to my judgment that: *Given your evasiveness I believe it likely that you feel you have been caught in your own contradictions.*
Betual asks:
>*Perhaps you should cut to the chase of what you want the answer to be, or explain how my answer doesn't fit into your preconcieved notion.*
Betula, the reason you find it so difficult is that the truthful answer undermines your prior claims. Some of your misrepresentation have come round to contradict themselves.
You could answer that you'd *like us to believe that you recognise the Joyce artical is concerned with regional cooling in a global warming context*, but that would exposes the selective misrepresentation that Betula depended on as the basis for Betula's prior answer:
>Do you claim that the article by Joyce supports the above contention? [that the science is insufficient to warrent serious greenhouse-gas mitigation?] Or does Joyce's article imply that failure to mitigate against further global warming may risk leading to harmful cooling in regions close to the North Atlantic?
>You arrive at your answer that "the article implies it doesn't know" [that the science is insufficient to warrent serious greenhouse-gas mitigation]. But to construct that answer, Betula selectively misrepresent the article with this summary:
>*The article implies that we may be planning for warming, but get sudden cooling, due to warming.*
>And this:
>*we don't know what will happen, in fact it may be the opposite of what we think.*
And this is the same misreprentation that you claimed you weren't making when you truncated quotes to turn remove the localized regional nature of cooling (in the greater context of global warming).
So after denfending yourself against that charge, to answer truthfully you would be confirming your critics charges.
Quite a quandary for you Betula. Little wonder that you are being so evasive.
Mark.
I was going to imply that you are retarded, but your reasoning speaks for itself.
You are stuck in a loop with this question.....
"Do you claim that the article by Joyce supports the above contention? [that the science is insufficient to warrent serious greenhouse-gas mitigation?]"
Obviously, your handicap played a large roll in your inabiliy to see my answer @152....
"If this is what you mean by "the science", then the answer is yes."
Your retardedness seems to grow exponentially by claiming I misrepresented the article when I said this..
"The article implies that we may be planning for warming, but get sudden cooling, due to warming."
and this....
"we don't know what will happen, in fact it may be the opposite of what we think."
I have 2 questions for you.....
1.Where did I say or infer the article is talking about "the greater context of global warming".
2.What does the article say about areas along the Atlantic....are they going to warm or suddenly get cold?
The more I think about it, I aplologize to all mentally Handicapped people for putting you in the same catagory.
How unsurprising Betula's response is. Once more he evades the question. Though I see implied in Betula's evasive response was an angling to toward trying to hope that he can agrue that the potential cooling refereed to by Joyce was more than regional cooling.
One answer to Betula's current dishonest angling is in his own words. Remember when you [wrote this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2257…) Betula:
>*You all seem hellbent on the idea that I am intentionally "truncating" the comments of the Woods Hole scientists for the following reasons:
>*1.I misrepresent the fact that they are talking about "regional" areas....Yet somehow you purposely ignore that I quoted them as saying "cooling for many of us". For all you brilliant scientists out there, "many of us" does not mean "all of us", and therefore does not and cannot insinuate "all of us".*
>*In addition, you ignore that I said "we can't rule out cooling in certain areas". Once again for all you arrogant, condescending, willfully ignorant scientists, "certain areas" doesn't mean "all areas", and therefore does not and cannot insinuate "all areas".*
There you go Betula, even you acknowledge you are only faithfully representing Joyce's point in the article when you clarify that the potential cooling he discusses is limited to "certain areas" & that does not mean for "all of us".
So you skewer yourself once again Betula. If you keep being dishonest for too long, it can come back to snooker you.
I see [Betula is now](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2273…) making [my case](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2258…) against himself for me.
In summary Betula is now arguing against his earlier attempted defense of his truncating and use of these truncated quotes.
When Betula was called out for truncating quotes which misrepresented the context of Joyce's article, he defended himself by arguing that he had mentioned (separate from when he trucated quotes) that Joyce was referring to a potential region cooling, quoting himself as citing ["certain areas"](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2257…).
Now Betula is contradicting this earlier defense of his trunation of quotes, by once again trying to misrepresent Joyce's cooling comments in a fabricated global context rather than a regional context.
Betula is so caught up is his cycle of dishonesty that he seems to be on the verge arguing that Joyce's article was not in the context of global warming at all.
>*Where did I say or infer the article is talking about "the greater context of global warming".*
Betula, I think you need to see someone about your pathology.
Mark,
Your assumptions have turned to delusions. You are searching for answers to questions that only you know know the answers to, only you don't know it.
In the meantime, I noticed you avoided this question.....
What does the article say about areas along the Atlantic....are they going to warm or suddenly get cold?
Welcome to another episode of the Jakerman Zone.
This episode is called....."The reverse of the non answered question answer"
Question.... "Where did I say or infer the article is talking about "the greater context of global warming"
Jakerman...by asking the question, I seem "to be on the verge arguing that Joyce's article was not in the context of global warming at all."
Notice how "the greater" is missing? This is called truncating to make a question appear to be the reverse of what it is, which allows Jakerman to avoid giving an answer while appearing to give an answer.
Of course, it was Mark who assumed I was refering to "the greater context of global warming", not based on the words I used, but on the one word I didn't use..."regional"
So Jakerman was truncating Marks words in my question to satisy a delusion that needs to be continuously fed with assumptions.
Meanwhile, Mark is caught in the Jakerman Zone and can't get out.
Luckily, I'm just enjoying this episode from the confines of my computer screen.
Return for the next episode of the Jakerman Zone, when Jakerman's non answer will be used as a way to continue to avoid answering this question...
What does the article say about areas along the North Atlantic....are they going to warm or suddenly get cold?
Betula, if it wasn't so sad it would be a pleasure to watch you twist our your own petard.
BTW which Betula are you saying is correct now, and which is incorrect. Its not clear from your latest empty rant which Betula is winning and which is losing.
@Betula
Ah this thread is still alive I see..
> Dave, do I really need to explain the terrifying worst case scenarios to you? This is scary, scary stuff. Where have you been?
Yes. In detail. Because you claimed the article supported your contention that the "terrifying worst case scenarios" were unsound. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps you were speaking of "terrifying worst case scenarios" that lay beyond the IPCC forecasts, but it turns out those were the very scenarios you were referring to.
So, given that the article shows that these "terrifying worst case scenarios" are a sound basis, but that they likely represent an optimistic minimum bound for warming effects and thus are overly conservative in terms of predicting sudden rapid (and potentially catastrophic) events, please expand at length as to how the article somehow supports your position in the way you describe.
Previously on the Jakerman Zone...
"Return for the next episode of the Jakerman Zone, when Jakerman's non answer will be used as a way to continue to avoid answering this question..."
"What does the article say about areas along the North Atlantic....are they going to warm or suddenly get cold?"
And today's episode answers the question with...
"BTW which Betula are you saying is correct now, and which is incorrect. Its not clear from your latest empty rant which Betula is winning and which is losing."
Stay tuned for our next episode, where Jakerman explains to us that the reason the article doesn't know whether there will be warming or sudden cooling "in certain areas" is due to the lack of information we have about the effects of man made mice on future climate.
Dave.
You ask me to explain "the terrifying worst case scenarios to you" ... "in detail", after I sent you this....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2078944470709189270#
So are you saying you didn't see this?
Here, let me send it again.....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2078944470709189270#
Did you see it that time? I understand if you didn't, it's called a continuous loop and it's one of the main facets of the Jakerman Zone....
You see, one of the reasons you didn't see it is because you forgot (another facet of the Jakerman Zone) you phrased the original question like this...
"Perhaps it would help if you described in detail which worst case scenarios you are talking about that you have expounded on before - because I've seen you characterise the IPCC assessment as scaremongering in precisely this way"
Ah yes, you've seen me characterize the IPCC assessment as scaremongering. How about this.... is this scaremongering based on the IPCC assessment?:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2078944470709189270#
How about this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2078944470709189270#
I know, you didn't notice the scare mongering because you're in the "Jakerman Zone". Sorry Dave, I can't help you.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for someone to answer this question, or should I say, I'm anticipating the answer to this question as asked in the Jakerman Zone......
What does the article say about areas along the North Atlantic....are they going to warm or suddenly get cold?
I know, you didn't see it. Here, let me post it again...
What does the article say about areas along the North Atlantic....are they going to warm or suddenly get cold?
If you still didn't see it, just ask and I'll post it again, and be sure to stay tuned for the next episode of The Jakerman Zone titled...."As The Loop Continues"
Betula,
You seem to put a staggering amount of effort into missing the point. Tiresome though it is, I'll try and spell it out in very simple terms yet again.
You seem to be under the impression I am offended by your use of the term "terrifying worst case scenarios", or that all you have to do to answer all of my points is link to a trailer for a movie (which I haven't seen, BTW) that by all accuonts gives a broad, populist, digestable presentation of the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.
This is all a complete tangent.
In this thread you have claimed that the Woods Hole article supports your view that the IPCC conclusions are unsound. The article has been shown to do no such thing, and no matter how you dance around it, what is required now is for you to admit that you did not understand the article at first, and applied your own (mis)interpretation to the matters under discussion.
Seeing as how I'm a polite sort, I'll answer your question, that you address to me for the first time in your typically abrasive style, and no matter that it is a pointless repetition of a topic already well discussed in this very thread.
> What does the article say about areas along the North Atlantic....are they going to warm or suddenly get cold?
The article says that the globe is going to warm, and that the areas along the north atlantic *may* warm in line with IPCC predictions of gradual increase in temperature, but that there is insufficient data and understanding available to rule out a sudden and dramatic shift to a colder climate if the north atlantic conveyer is disrupted, as has happened at other points in Earth's history. Clearly the possibility of events such as these become more likely with an increasingly unstable climate system, so further study is warranted, and the IPCC models should be treated with caution for being potentially too conservative.
So - what was your point again?
...
Perhaps it is worth noting here that one point of the judgement against An Inconvenient Truth in the UK (mandating it was largely accurate but could only be shown in schools with supplementary material on 9 specific points) was that the judge felt it was "very unlikely" that the north atlantic conveyer would shut down. Given your newfound love of this Woods Hole article, and its concern that this scenario is underplayed in IPCC predictions, are you in fact leaping to the defence of AICT?
>*Betula,
You seem to put a staggering amount of effort into missing the point.*
Dave I see you are catching on to one of Betula's tactics. Betula is the opposite of a truthseeker, his dishonest traits seem to so fully dominate him that he âbelievesâ what he is saying even when he argues against himself.
Let me recap why Betula is being so evasive this time, he is trying to create us much dis-clarity as he can, in an effort to make his egregious errors less apparent.
>How unsurprising Betula's response is. Once more he evades the question. Though I see implied in Betula's evasive response was an angling [] toward trying to hope that he can argue that the potential cooling refereed to by Joyce was more than regional cooling.
>One answer to Betula's current dishonest angling is in his own words. Remember when you wrote this Betula:
> *You all seem hellbent on the idea that I am intentionally "truncating" the comments of the Woods Hole scientists for the following reasons:*
>*1.I misrepresent the fact that they are talking about "regional" areas....Yet somehow you purposely ignore that I quoted them as saying "cooling for many of us". For all you brilliant scientists out there, "many of us" does not mean "all of us", and therefore does not and cannot insinuate "all of us".*
>*In addition, you ignore that I said "we can't rule out cooling in certain areas". Once again for all you arrogant, condescending, wilfully ignorant scientists, "certain areas" doesn't mean "all areas", and therefore does not and cannot insinuate "all areas".*
>There you go Betula, even you acknowledge you are only faithfully representing Joyce's point in the article when you clarify that the potential cooling he discusses is limited to "certain areas" & that does not mean for "all of us".
>So you skewer yourself once again Betula. If you keep being dishonest for too long, it can come back to snooker you.
Betula responds with typical evasion, but does ask two questions:
>*1.Where did I say or infer the article is talking about "the greater context of global warming".*
Even Betula seem to have [dropped](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2274…) this bankrupt line of question after the absurdity was [pointed out](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2274…) to him.
Yet Betula does persist with this question:
>*2.What does the article say about areas along the Atlantic....are they going to warm or suddenly get cold?*
Betula should know the answer to this as it has been pointed out many times Joyce says:
>*For those of us living around the edge of the N. Atlantic Ocean, we may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur.*
A quote that [Betula truncated]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2258…) to make the **same misrepresentation that he keeps trying to make**; that is, **except for the moments when Betula tried to deny that he was truncating for that purpose, and tried to pretend he was faithfully representing Joyceâs argument**.
In Betulaâs words again:
>*You all seem hellbent on the idea that I am intentionally "truncating" the comments of the Woods Hole scientists for the following reasons:*
>*1.I misrepresent the fact that they are talking about "regional" areas....Yet somehow you purposely ignore that I quoted them as saying "cooling for many of us". For all you brilliant scientists out there, "many of us" does not mean "all of us", and therefore does not and cannot insinuate "all of us".*
>*In addition, you ignore that I said "we can't rule out cooling in certain areas". Once again for all you arrogant, condescending, wilfully ignorant scientists, "certain areas" doesn't mean "all areas", and therefore does not and cannot insinuate "all areas".*
>"Betula, You seem to put a staggering amount of effort into missing the point."
Betula's recipe for "success":
1) Start with the precondition that Betula is always right.
2) All facts that contradict point 1 are delusions.
3) All arguments that support point point 1 are truthseeking.
4) Always be truthseeking (see point 3 for clarification).