The stupid, it burns like a magnesium flare.
Excerpt from the article:
Now, you can add yet another problem to the climate change hit list: volcanoes. That’s the word from a new study conducted in Iceland and accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters. The finding is bad news not just for one comparatively remote part of the world, but for everywhere.
Iceland has always been a natural lab for studying climate change. It may be spared some of the punishment hot, dry places like the American southwest get, but when it comes to glacier melt, few places are hit harder. About 10% of the island nation’s surface area is covered by about 300 different glaciers—and they’re losing an estimated 11 billion tons of ice per year. Not only is that damaging Icelandic habitats and contributing to the global rise in sea levels, it is also—oddly—causing the entire island to rise. And that’s where the trouble begins.
Riiight.
Here’s the money quote:
“As the glaciers melt, the pressure on the underlying rocks decreases,” Compton said in an e-mail to TIME. “Rocks at very high temperatures may stay in their solid phase if the pressure is high enough. As you reduce the pressure, you effectively lower the melting temperature.” The result is a softer, more molten subsurface, which increases the amount of eruptive material lying around and makes it easier for more deeply buried magma chambers to escape their confinement and blow the whole mess through the surface.
“High heat content at lower pressure creates an environment prone to melting these rising mantle rocks, which provides magma to the volcanic systems,” says Arizona geoscientist Richard Bennett, another co-author.
Perhaps anticipating the climate change deniers’ uncanny ability to put two and two together and come up with five, the researchers took pains to point out that no, it’s not the very fact that Icelandic ice sits above hot magma deposits that’s causing the glacial melting. The magma’s always been there; it’s the rising global temperature that’s new. At best, only 5% of the accelerated melting is geological in origin.
So, Iceland has had melting glaciers, OK we’ll accept that, but Iceland is not the world, and a good number of volcanoes that have erupted in the last century are in the tropical parts of the world where there are no glaciers on the volcanoes or magma fields, yet somehow, this writer, Jeffrey Kluger, extrapolates Iceland’s glacier melt to volcano link up to to the entire world.
To the uniniformed (such as Time Magazine writers), graphs like this one might seem to be “proof” of such Icelandic-to-global extrapolation:
![volcano-2[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/volcano-21.jpg?quality=83)
Source data: http://volcano.si.edu/
Gosh, it sure looks like another slam dunk for carbon dioxide driven climate hell in a handbasket, doesn’t it? The VEI starts increasing right about the time of the industrial revolution.
For those unfamiliar: The volcanic explosivity index (VEI) was devised by Chris Newhall of the US Geological Survey and Stephen Self at the University of Hawaii in 1982 to provide a relative measure of the explosiveness of volcanic eruptions. (Wikipedia)
But, there’s a hitch, according to NOAA data, volcanic activity worldwide actually went DOWN in the 2000’s while the climate changing carbon dioxide went UP in global concentration:
![Volcanoes-figure-2[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/volcanoes-figure-21.png?quality=75)
![co2_data_mlo[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/co2_data_mlo1.png?quality=75)
Correlation isn’t causation, at least when it comes to CO2 and climate and volcanoes.
Something that DID increase during the study period was the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO). Guess where Iceland is? In the North Atlantic, which has been in the warm phase since about 1980.
The Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) is a mode of natural variability occurring in the North Atlantic Ocean and which has its principle expression in the sea surface temperature (SST) field. The AMO is identified as a coherent pattern of variability in basin-wide North Atlantic SSTs with a period of 60-80 years.
![AMO_fig123[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/amo_fig1231.gif)
Source: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/climind/AMO.html
Gee, do you think maybe, possibly, that Iceland might have more glacier melt when the AMO is warmer? The authors don’t seem to be cognizant of it, preferring instead to cite the universal bogeyman “climate change”.
Here is the publication that is cited in the Time article:
Climate driven vertical acceleration of Icelandic crust measured by CGPS geodesy
Abstract
Earth’s present-day response to enhanced glacial melting resulting from climate change can be measured using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology. We present data from 62 continuously operating GPS instruments in Iceland. Statistically significant upward velocity and accelerations are recorded at 27 GPS stations, predominantly located in the Central Highlands region of Iceland, where present-day thinning of the Iceland ice caps results in velocities of more than 30 mm/yr and uplift accelerations of 1-2 mm/yr2. We use our acceleration estimates to back-calculate to a time of zero velocity, which coincides with the initiation of ice loss in Iceland from ice mass balance calculations and Arctic warming trends. We show, through a simple inversion, a direct relationship between ice mass balance measurements and vertical position and show that accelerated unloading is required to reproduce uplift observations for a simple elastic layer over viscoelastic half-space model.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062446/abstract
Again, no mention of the world here, only Iceland. Compare that to the baseless claim made by the TIME writer Jeffrey Kluger:
The finding is bad news not just for one comparatively remote part of the world, but for everywhere.
Newsflash Mr. Kluger: Iceland is not “everywhere”, and the authors make no claim about the issue affecting the rest of the Earth.
WUWT reader Mike Bromley writes something on his Facebook page that I really can’t improve upon:
Plate tectonics….caused by climate change. No mention of the fact that Iceland has one of the highest geothermal heat fluxes on the planet, that its geomorphology is controlled by vulcanism, that many of the scientific terms for glacial melt features are in Icelandic Language, and oh boy, 11 billion tons of ice is really not that much, in fact, one eruption of Hekla or Eyjafjallajokull would release about that much ice.
These people have zero shame, and even less uniformitarian common sense. They elevate conjecture to the level of fact, for an uncritical media to spew around in alarming terms. This one takes the cake. Vote Green, everyone. Soon you’ll find out what living under nature is all about.
We’ll have more on this later, readers are encouraged to add comments regarding this inanity.
Don’t volcanos increase radiation-deflecting ash into the atmosphere and thus cool the earth? If so, we’re witnessing the great “balance if nature” effect that will cool the earth thus reducing volcanos thus re freezing glaciers thus causing global warming thus melting glaciers thus triggering volcanos thus cooling the earth ….
Friends
Having read all the comments I am surprised that I have not seen this link which is to the ‘warmlist’ of articles reporting supposed effects of global warming.
Some things linked in the list are as daft as a post from Brandon Gates or the claim that global warming causes volcanoes. Read it an laugh.
Richard
richardscourtney,
This one gave me a chuckle: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2008/03/27/today-food-editor-claims-global-warming-making-napa-valley-wines-p
“‘Today’ Food Editor Claims Global Warming Making Napa Valley Wines Passe”
Oh the humanity! Next years’ best wines might come from … South Carolina?!! Say it isn’t so! IIRC, 2008 was a pretty dry year in SC. Or was it ’07. Looked pretty brown from the air, which the locals did not at all care for. Wine grapes apparently like it that way. Some win, some lose I guess.
It just begs: Oy VEY!
40 times as many eruption as 400 years ago? And the pause is blamed on volcanoes? We should be plagued by polar bears by now.
Do you think the y axis title on Anthony’s graph might explain what the plot really means?
That article should warn people, in advance, of the potential for brain injury, if read in one sitting.
Hmmm those are reported volcanic eruptions not actual. Correct?
Ignorant feel-good liberalism went up too, as did funding ‘for climate change’.
“As the glaciers melt, the pressure on the underlying rocks decreases,” Compton said in an e-mail to TIME. “Rocks at very high temperatures may stay in their solid phase if the pressure is high enough. As you reduce the pressure, you effectively lower the melting temperature.”
To melt dry granite at 800 C, you have to reduce lithostatic pressure by 2,000 bars or 202 MPa. 11 billion tons of melted ice a year spread over 10,000 km^2 gives a pressure reduction of 11 kPa per year. At 30 mm/yr velocity and 1-2 mm/yr^2 acceleration, the melting has been going for 15-30
years. At 30 years, total pressure reduction is 0.32 MPa. Less than 1% of needed pressure reduction to melt granite.
The following are additional peer reviewed paper links to support my assertions made that the geomagnetic field has changed orders of magnitude faster than theoretically believed possible in the past (multiple proxy evidence, multiple periods), that it has changed orders of magnitude faster than theoretically believed cyclically with abrupt changes in the geomagnetic field correlating with abrupt climate change.
As noted starting in the 1990s the geomagnetic field north pole drift velocity increased by a factor of 5. Due to the abrupt change sudden change to the geomagnetic field and due to the fact that the earth’s geomagnetic field has decreased by 60% over a large region in the Southern Atlantic the Europeans launched a trio of specialized satellites (called SWARM) to measure the total geomagnetic field and small geomagnetic field changes. The SWARM data found the geomagnetic field intensity is now dropping at 5%/decade, ten times faster previous 5%/century and 10 times faster than believed possible if geomagnetic field is due to internal movement of the liquid core.
As noted in the last paper link, geomagnetic field research has confirmed for some unexplained reason the geomagnetic field intensity drops by a factor of 5 to 10 every 30,000 years and 100,000 years (correlating with the abrupt climate change events on the earth including the initiation and termination of the interglacial periods.)
The point is something is physically causing cyclic abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field that is orders of magnitude faster than possible if the earth’s magnitude field is due to liquid core motion. There are two paradoxes: 1) There is no mechanism to cause cyclic abrupt changes in the earth’s liquid core, 2) As noted in the Wikipedia summary the liquid core acts like a low pass filter so it is physically possible for changes in the liquid core to abruptly change the geomagnetic field.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010EO510001/pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal
http://gji.oxfordjournals.org/conten…/1110.abstract
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar…than-expected/
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/416/
Actually there is fairly strong evidence that volcanic activity is influenced by glaciation. The pattern of eruptions in Iceland is different in glacial and interglacial times. There are even volcanoes that only ever seem to erupt during interglacials and vice versa. This is fairly easy to see determine since the lava from subglacial eruptions is very characteristic (it is called móberg in Icelandic). There is however no evidence that the total volcanic activity changes. This also seems extremely unlikely given that volcanism in Iceland is driven by forces deep in the Earth’s interior (that are also causing the Atlantic ocean to widen).
Note that volcanoes are perfectly capable of erupting right through continental ice-sheets, though it is also possible for smaller volcanoes to spend their entire “active life” buried in a water-filled “cave” underneath an ice-sheet (Gaussberg in East Antarctica is probably the best-known example).
By the way there is some evidence that important volcanic fields in Europe are of the “mostly active during ice-ages” type. This includes the Eiffel field in Germany, the Auvergne field in France and the Campi Flegrei field in Italy. They all saw quite extensive activity during the last (and previous) glaciations and have been quite quiescent for the last 10,000 years. However this pattern might be illusory and simply due to the fact that interglacials are only about 10% as long as glacials.
Note that all this only applies to volcanoes that are in the “near field” of the glaciation where the ice-sheet affects the isostasy. During the current interglacial this means Antarctica and some subantarctic islands, Iceland, Jan Mayen (and nearby submarine volcanoes), subglacial volcanoes in Greenland, if any (evidence for subglacial volcanism there is ambiguous) and, just possibly, volcanoes in Patagonia and southern Alaska.
Actually that Smithsonian graphic of volcanic eruptions is rather informative. It shows that for really big eruptions with world-wide effects we have fairly good data going back several centuries (=constant low frequency). For middling sized eruptions (VEI 2) we have fairly good data since the early 1900’s (frequency rises during the 1800’s and stabilizes by c. 1900) but for the small ones (VEI 1) we only have reasonably good coverage post-1950.
Actually we don’t have 100% coverage even after 1950. For example, in 1958 a ship visited Bouvet Island in the South Atlantic and found that sometime since the previous visit in 1955 there had been an eruption large enough to cause major changes to the island, nobody knows when this actually happened.
Also historical data can be deceptive. Iceland has an exceptionally good historical record, for example making it possible to reconstruct changes in sea-ice extent several centuries back. However the early records almost never mention volcanic eruptions, though we know from geology they occurred. Apparently eruptions (unless large enough to cause real damage) were simply considered uninteresting, while sea-ice extent affected fisheries and summer temperatures and were therefore important
Is this accurate? The actual research data only measured GPS stations over 5-20yrs, then speculated that the island rise could be projected back and be caused by melting ice. The paper didn’t even whisper about increased volcanic activity
The Time writer then took the island rise projection and determined it would cause increased volcanic activity. I’m lost on how a scientifically measured rise converted to volcanoes blowing
Is this bloke’s other claim to fame as the person after whom Toyota named the SUV they sell in Oz as the “Kluger”?
Why is ‘climate science’ all about theory, models and manipulated data, as opposed to actual observations?
I am fortunate enough to go salmon fishing in SW Iceland every summer. On our river, which cuts through lava beds, like every other river in Iceland, there is something quite extraordinary: the remains of volcanoes which erupted under the ice. As these are prominent structures, I can only assume they occurred during the last ice age which ended circa 10,000 years ago.
There are eleven of these structures over a distance of approximately five miles. Whether or not these eruptions made their way through the ice sheets, possibly up to a mile thick, I do not know.
The point is that in the higher latitudes, climate change can have an effect on observed eruptions – climate change of the perfectly natural type!! Anyhow, as a geologist, I can confirm the guts of this article are complete BS.
Oh my gawd!! High CO2! High temperatures! This explains the Siberian Traps! And the Deccan Traps! It would even explain the Snake River flood basalt a being less extensive —less CO2, lower temperatures. It’s time to write a paper. After all, correlation-equals-causation, as proven by climate science!
Well isn’t climate change causing Mt Everest to rise? Isn’t climate change causing Los Angeles to move 2.5 inches north each year (recall that it has been proven that earthquakes are caused by climate change)?
Climate change caused the condensation of the galactic disk.
One claim to rule them all!
Muuuuhhahahahhahaaahaaaaahhh!
During the last ice age the area from New York north was covered with an ice sheet almost two miles deep. When the ice melted there were no volcanos.
i like theories…if i pee in the ocean, the level will rise..it is a fact…but i can so the calculation..
well am i able to do the calculation on the how more volcanoes will cause any climate change?
NO?
well it is even better i can say whatever i want…
“i like theories…if i pee in the ocean, the level will rise..it is a fact…”
Not necessarily so… The level will only rise if you’re not already swimming in the ocean while you’re peeing.
It’s outside the box and creative, yet remarkably conformist with prevailing attitude. Behold, the New Science.
It’s another casting from the latest mold in Academia.
It seems to me they have cause and effect backwards. The frequency of volcanoes contributes to the internal variability of the climate. As an engineer, I’m frankly amazed that the earth’s temperature doesn’t vary far more that +/- 1 Kelvin. My oven at home can’t make the same claim — and its a much simpler system.
But I guess when there are grants to be had you need to play the game. This is what modern climate science has become:
“Repent ye WUWT sinners! Behold, as Nobel Laureate Mann said unto us, our climate hath been in a period of idyllic stasis for 2000 years with an invariant average surface temperature of 288.00 Kelvin. Then, modern humans spoiled Eden by eating the fruit of Fossil fuels. The Earth’s temperature has now skyrocketed to a hellish 288.80 Kelvin imperiling all of the creatures of the forest. Our burning atmosphere is incinerating the ice caps and glaciers, allowing the devil himself to escape from his confinement. Oh what a canny adversary this devil is! He is using Volcanoes to lull the ignorant masses into complacency; foisting upon the earth a false pause that will cause the sinners to forestall thy needed conversion. Heareth me now, deniers! Repent, or face thy ultimate fate!”
I guess this sort of thing works on some people (mostly Liberal Arts and Journalism majors, as far as I can tell).
I, too, have been working on a theory. Although the Icelandic hurricane season is decidedly very short, it is still theoretically possible that the extremely low atmospheric pressure of an Icelandic hurricane could suck molten magma up through existing volcanic tubes thereby forming gigantic columns of angry lava. With 100+ mph winds pulling whole sheets of ice off of the glaciers, my fear is that the oxygen in the ice will combine with the carbon of the magma creating more CO2 and thus creating a permanent feedback loop. The hurricane which will then be considered a “permacane” could potentially last for centuries, wreaking its havoc until either the earth runs out of magma, or the glaciers run out of ice. “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”
“The stupid, it burns like a magnesium flare.”
Yes., Just not in Time Magazine.
To the uniniformed (such as Time Magazine writers), graphs like this one might seem to be “proof” of such Icelandic-to-global extrapolation ”
Ummm … for the still uninformed, the graph only goes up to VEI of 4, which is volcanoes smaller than Mt St Helens. It would include Eyjafjallajökull. So basically the graph says “we have gotten much better at detecting and recording small volcanoes over the last 400 years.
Yawn.
“Newsflash Mr. Kluger: Iceland is not “everywhere”, and the authors make no claim about the issue affecting the rest of the Earth.”
Newsflash Mr. Watt. You need to learn to read the whole article, not just look for what you want to hear. The answer is clearly laid out in the article:
.
The claim is that volcanoes in Iceland can impact more than just Iceland. The Eyjafjallajökull eruption had a major impact on flights to/from/within Europe. And since flights fly to/from Europe from pretty much everywhere around the globe, that means a global impact. And this was a relatively small eruption (VEI=4 on a 0-8 scale)
“Again, no mention of the world here, only Iceland. “
Again, the volcanoes in Iceland impact Europe strongly, which subsequently impacts the rest of the world. A relatively small eruption (Eyjafjallajökull) was significant enough. If a series of similar or larger eruptions are ‘uncorked’ (eg similar in size to Pinatubo or St Helens), that would have a continued global impact.
Newsflash:
If jet engines weren’t so intolerant of volcanic ash, your “popcorn fart” would have never made the news.
So there.
Ya, Anthony really misread this sentence
“The finding is bad news not just for one comparatively remote part of the world, but for everywhere.”
The bad news for iceland is volcanoes
The bad news for the rest of the world is that the effects are not limited to iceland.
In other words, the volcanoes in iceland cause problems in other parts of the world.
Simple misunderstanding.
Peer review caught it
Airspace in and around Europe during the erruption a couple of years ago was shutdown purely based on model predictions of ash cloud spread. The actual risk was ZERO! Models at work again!
I’d say: relax. The current Icelandic ice cap is tiny compared to what was present at the end of the ice age. Measured (not modelled) warming is also insignificant and slow in comparison. Eyjafjallajökull erupting is not so much “a nasty taste of what” any proposed apocalypse will be like, it’s more of a normal event on an island that is part of a mid-oceanic ridge and perhaps also sits above a mantle plume.
Yes, temperature of the rock’s solidus decreases with decreasing pressure. Nonetheless, the way the effects are described in the “money quote” provide a skewed view of what drives volcanoes in Iceland and elsewhere. The situation is not one of rock constantly on the verge of turning liquid, only kept in check by the weight of a bit of fragile crust and glaciers.
What really drives volcanism:
Below most of the Earth’s surface, the geothermal gradient does not intersect with the crust’s or the mantle’s solidus, thus no molten material can occur. Magma-formation only takes place in three different geological settings, two of which are related to plate tectonics.
* Subduction zones:
Likely not fully explained by but attributed to a solidus-shift towards lower temperatures due to higher water content, introduced by the subducted slab of oceanic crust and wet sediment. Here it’s a change in composition that allows for melt-formation at a normal geothermal gradient.
* Mid-ocean ridges (which includes Iceland):
An upwelling movement of the slightly ductile but initially solid mantle material occurs. It fills the gap in between plates pulling (to some extent also being pushed) apart. That upwelling leads to a faster-than-usual increase in temperature with depth — thereby creating a zone in a few kilometres depth where the rock’s solidus intersects with the geothermal gradient, allowing for melt-formation.
* Hot spots:
The surface manifestation of what is referred to as mantle plume, not related to plate boundaries and plate movements. Existance of such a plume below Iceland has been suggested.
The driving forces behind magma-formation are solely determined by plate tectonics and by whatever drives mantle plumes, whether or not the cake has a top-layer of icing.
Glaciation can not inhibit volcanism, as the wording of the quote implies. Plates move apart and dykes will inevitably form to fill the gap. During deglaciation, the declining ice-pressure might temporarily lead to a reduced interval length in between eruptions. Once the deglaciation has halted, things will settle for a new equilibrium and magma-formation and eruptions will continue at the usual pace.
And, while we’re at it, some fearmongering: for human dwellings downhill of a volcano, absence of glaciers is desirable from a safety perspective. Look up the term ‘Lahar’ if in doubt.
Ahh the age-old question which came first the volcano or the climate change. Who knows and I don’t care. It’s a stupid question. Climate changes, volcanoes erupt, deal with it.
What I do know and can be validated (unlike this ridiculous Luger speculation) is that AGW has increased energy costs via regulation and taxation negatively impacting peoples quality of life.
Global warming has magically changed January 31 to April 1, and overnight as well!!! How could that be? There is still snow on the ground where I live in the Northern Hemisphere.!?
Brandon Gates,
Your mode of expression is condescending; as if you lack intellectual self-confidence to debate anything without claiming authority on climate focused science.
I agree with your philosophy of science completely, thus, clearly the corroborated objectively observed observations of almost all major climate parameters does not support the purposely exaggerated main positions of the IPCC’s AR5. Those who critiqued AR5 should be honored. So let’s honor the independent people using applied reasoning (aka skeptics) who are serving the best interest of science focused on climate in the best sense of Feynman’s view of science.
John
John Whitman,
It goes hand in hand with arrogance.
Hmmm. Elsewhere on this blog I’ve gone out of my way to disclaim personal expertise. I often use the construction, “my understanding about X is Y”, but not always — I do know of myself a tendency to wax professorial and pontificate.
I disagree that you agree with my philosophy of science completely. For one thing your statement above makes subjective claims about purpose and unquantified claims about unspecified exaggerations. That’s not a scientific discussion in my book.
In principle I agree that all skeptical thinkers deserve honors. But I would not award honor to all critics of AR5, or any previous IPCC report. For a specific, see above my objection to criticism of motive.
I’d start with the IPCC contributors themselves. AR5 is full of robust debate about its own conclusions. The persistently broad range of ECS estimates are one clear indication that charges of motivated conclusions to conform to some pre-conceived narrative are a lacking argument. So also are the long-running debates on the magnitude of water vapor and cloud feedbacks, aerosol direct and indirect effects, ice sheet dynamics … large uncertainties are identified and discussed throughout. By my reading, far more is unsettled than not.
It irks me that accepting the better-established conclusions of AR5 are considered by many here at WUWT a lack of skepticism. And that rebutting that notion with prejudice is considered a condescending appeal to authority.
As with any charged debate, I observe that both sides do tend to reserve the right to engage in ill-behavior. By the law of large numbers, there will always be at least one dummy who drags their own side into the muck. I try to not be that guy, but I’m human and am fully capable of getting pissed off … same as anyone and everyone else who participates here.
Brandon Gates
February 2, 2015 at 9:12 am
“My agenda is leaving the planet in the same or better shape as we found it for future generations. ”
====================
Such hubris.
“The planet”, never missed a beat during WWII (even the nukes).
Make no mistake, She is out to kill you or toughen you up.
u.k.(us),
No, such respect for other PEOPLE.
The PEOPLE of the time didn’t fare so well.
In that sense the entire universe is out to get us. We’re but an extension of that. Look. I don’t give two shits for the planet itself. It’s not sentient so far as I am aware. Were it not for other sentient beings who depend on it for their existence, and for whom I actually do have varying levels of empathy, I’d love nothing more than to see the Moon crash into it, blowing the whole kit and kaboodle into smithereens just for the spectacle. From a safe distance of course. And with some place more pleasant to live out the rest of my days with my loved ones. Plus pretty much most of the rest of us.
You know the George Carlin bit about the planet and plastics? It’s a classic. If you understand why I stood on the couch and cheered the first time I watched it, you may begin to understand my particular brand of environmental concern. Until then, I’ll renew my note to steer away from the more orthodox forms of the standard enviro talking points so as to allay any further confusion about my priorities.
Well said, seems we’re on the same page.
‘course there is that damned catch…….why??
Maybe it is plastic, I would like to think I’ll see it all play out (in heaven ?), but I’m pessimistic.
Brandon Gates,
The community that created the IPCC’s AR5 followed a process that produced a fundamental claim on climate that is wrong in the Feynman sense of what correct science epistemic is. Their internal ‘debate’ failed. It doesn’t matter what motives they had during their process that created their wrong fundamental claim; although to avoid being wrong again in any future AR it seems rational to expect that reasonable responsible professionals in the IPCC community would want to do a root cause analysis and develop lessons learned on how they got it wrong in AR5; motivational bias might be a finding. Also, the IPCC’s AR5 development process should be independently audited; fortunately there are many independent critical people versed in objective applied reasoning who would leave no intellectual stone unturned during an audit of the IPCC’s AR5 development process. Let’s AUDIT, AUDIT, AUDIT from the outside looking in.
WRT my observation of your condescending comment manner, it appears to be totally consistent with the type of commenting behavior dominating Cook’s blog, Gavin’s blog and HotWhopper blog.
Aside note, I disagree with the many regular WUWT commenters who call you a troll. You are not one by my concept of ‘troll’. In fact, virtually all of the individuals who are called trolls by many regular WUWT commenters are not trolls. The whole spectacle of name-calling people as trolls is puerile.
John
John Whitman,
I obviously disagree for reasons I have cited previously. The IPCC is by no means a perfect organization, there are warts in the form of egos and agendas. As with any human endeavor. But calling their output categorically wrong because of _________________ ? is something which my personal belief cannot abide.
And this blog. We are, most of us in this debate, fundamentally pissed off at the standard-bearers for the other side. I’m far less diplomatic about it over at HW.
I appreciate that, thank you. I especially agree with your last sentence and commend you for saying it openly in this space. You and I may disagree on much else, but now I have a reason to respect your integrity. Cheers.
John,
I agree, Gates is no troll. But when he says:
And this blog.
…referring to the commenting, and comparing it with Hotwhopper and others, then that is not a good comparison IMHO. This site is very different — and much better. The internet world seems to agree, too. But some folks do not like that.
Anyone who goes back even six months to a year here can see that a small handful of real obstructionists have invaded and begun cluttering up numerous threads. They do it by taking advantage of this site’s ‘no-censorship’ policy. There is a thin line between not censoring, and allowing obstructionists to take over. The big difference between Brandon and them is that Brandon admits it when he’s been wrong [as I have], and his mind is open enough to be one of the normal commenters here.
The small handful who have appeared here recently have one thing in common: they find it impossible to ever admit that they are wrong, under any circumstances. They are fixated on their alarmist Narrative, to the exclusion of everything else. They have no interest in finding out Why, but rather, they want to shove their discredited climate alarmism down everyones’ throat. So of course they’re going to get push-back. I’ve repeatedly offered to ignore the worst of them, on condition that they ignore me. But the response is ‘No Deal’. They love the controversy. But where is the science?
There are many times recently when I’ve noticed other Saul Alinsky tactics at work. For example, one Alinsky tactic is to demand ‘a forum to wield their power to oobstruct’. That forum is WUWT. They abuse that privilege no end. Certainly, their comments are not fact- or evidence-based, but rather, they are intended to cause endless obfuscation. Nothing is ever resolved like it was before. Instead of discussing facts and evidence, threads turn into their Alinsky playground.
It is clear to even the most casual observer that their tactics do leave any room for admitting when they’re wrong — which is quite often. Incessant arguing, and constant demands for “Citation, please” are intended to gum up the works, and imply that the writer has fabricated a comment.
The normal way to converse is to make a statement, and if the writer wishes, he will post a supporting link. Then if someone disagrees, they will post their own response, and then provide a link for support. But that has been turned backward, by constantly demanding ‘citations’ of whatever the original commenter writes, no matter how minor or unimportant. When done enough, it implies that the commenter being attacked is lying, or making things up. This tactic is used all the time. Alinsky again.
They ask questions incessantly — but they never seem to answer anyone else’s questions. I have a dozen or more questions I would love to get answered, but despite asking them, I have yet to receive a clear response — if I get any response at all. Most times my questions are simply ignored, or deflected with more misinformation.
Many others have questions, but they’re not answered, either. At first, I tried my best to answer every question asked, and to post links, citations, and graphs when demanded [I have literally thousands of charts and links, in dozens of folders]. No more. Now I see that it’s just a tactic. If someone disagrees with a comment, then anyone disagreeing should just say why, and then post their own link if they want for support. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
But these people do not want answers. They just want to peddle their alarmist Narrative. How many times have we seen their Appeal To Authority fallacy posted? But despite the fact that it is a logical fallacy, and thus cannot contribute to knowledge, it is used incessantly. All it really amounts to are opinions. It has nothing to do with either facts or evidence.
I’m sorry B. Gates got caught up in this. At first it seemed that he was just another of their ilk. I was wrong.
Anyway, I wanted to vent. For a long time I was willing to discuss facts and evidence with everyone. Generally the truth is sifted from nonsense that way. It works well, too; I’ve learned a lot here by reading comments. But a few obstructionists have decided they don’t like the discussion rules we’ve always used here. IMHO, they need to be shut down. They are not here to learn, but rather, they are here to obstruct. There are a million other blogs where they can dump on scientists they disagree with. That’s where they need to be if they want to carry on like that, not here. This is the internet’s Best Science site, and I hate to see it invaded by a few obstructionists who only want to cause trouble, instead of honestly trying to find out if there is anything to the MMGW conjecture. I suspect they know very well that has been discredited by now [even though the CO2=AGW conjecture is probably correct, on a minuscule and unimportant level]. So they’re obstructing others who want to find out for sure that it’s nothing to worry about.
/rant
dbstealey,
I’m at an uncharacteristic loss for words. Thanks.
Ah wait, there’s my tongue. Firstly, I don’t see myself as any less trollish than rooter or Socrates, so I wouldn’t want your recognition of me to be at their expense. Of course I respect your opinions as your own, so I’m not making any demands here either.
Nextly, I would like to make it clear that I participate here by choice, fully expecting to NOT be treated with kid gloves — especially since I’m not exactly shy about expressing disdain for what I consider to be some absolutely terrible arguments. I don’t generally point out the derision WUWT collectively heaps on those who carry the consensus side of the debate, and especially not by way of complaint. In the current context, I brought it up with Alan in the sense of, “Well what did you expect?”
Hate the game, not the player is pretty much how I try to operate, so I expect that when folks have sharply-worded things to say that they’re not going to take great umbrage when the response is in kind. I don’t always carry it off that way either.
I prefer straight up debate. Even better is an open exchange of ideas. When I don’t get that despite my best efforts to do otherwise, I unrepentantly snark. Seems as fair a set of ROE as any.
Brandon Gates,
Since yours was the only name mentioned, I’ll reply by saying there is no comparison between the blogs you mentioned and this really excellent, award winning science site. I wanted to make that clear. There is no comparison.
Anyway, some folks seem to forget the basics. When a question like MMGW arises, whether it’s the UN, or the governments, or organizations telling us what to think, the burden must be entirely on them to support their conjecture. In this case, we’re being told what to think: that the addition of a trace gas will cause runaway global warming.
Make no mistake, that is the message. What is the agenda?
That question needed to be investigated. It has been, for more than thirty years now. Way more, really, and by tens of thousands of scientists; by governments, by universities, individuals, and now by blogs. So, what have they found?
Nothing. There is zero indication of any global harm or damage from the rise in CO2, from 0.00003 of the atmosphere, to 0.00004. It is a good thing that we investigated, because the concern was serious: runaway global warming would have caused alll kinds of harm. So we’re lucky that it was a complete false alarm.
Certainly, if there was any truth to the carbon scare, we would need to do something. But after all those eyeballs and brains worked on the problem for all those decades, they could not find any difference between the current climate and past climates. [the Null Hypothesis]. They cannot find one example of damage or harm. So unless something new and unexpected appears, CO2 must be deemed to be “harmless”.
Where are we now?
The whole issue/scare/alarm has been co-opted by the UN, and by various governments, as a means of literally taxing people for the air they breathe — based on a false alarm. Being governments, it is probably asking too much for them to resist that tempting tax money. Because it is all about money at this point. Our money, and how they can get their mitts on it.
So our job is to say: “Prove it!” Or at least, show us credible evidence that adding CO2 would be a problem. Since it is a non-problem, and since more CO2 is a net benefit, we should be very happy. Poor folks have more to eat, the biosphere loves the fertilizer, and all the many $billions wasted every year on “climate studies” can be re-directed into areas that are starved for funding. Because there is no evidence at all that this was anything but a false alarm.
That’s what governments should do. But the MMGW issue has been made political, therefore science does not matter. Poltics and science are as different as religion and science. As a result, Alinsky-style tactics are used when we should be concentrating on science. I wrote that screed after being frustrated about how things have changed here over the past year, due to a few people who cannot ever admit to being wrong about anything. It seems that science, including evidence and facts, no longer matters. Some folks took a CAGW stand before they understood the issue, and now they are unable to admit they were wrong about it.
I’m serious about being a skeptic. If any credible evidence appears showing there is cause for concern, I will look very closely. If it turns out to be valid, I will change my mind, 180º if necessary. I don’t have the kind of ego that won’t allow that, like they do. If I’m wrong, I’ll admit it and push for solutions.
I don’t understand why the other side is incapable of admitting they have been on the wrong track. But for whatever reason, they have dug in their heels, and no facts, or logic, or rational debate have any effect. All they need to do is find evidence that CO2 does what some folks claimed. But try as they might, they can’t find anything. No one can find any verifiable evidence that the added CO2 is a problem. And CO2 — “carbon” — is the basis for everything. Without being able to demonstrate harm from more CO2, there is no reason to keep arguing. Everything else is a side issue.
That should pretty much be the end of it. But it’s not, and that isn’t the fault of skeptics. The alarmist crowd is trying to keep the scare on the front pages. They *must* be right; they can never admit that they were mistaken. Silly as it sounds to us, it almost seems like a matter of life or death. They are doing Big Government’s dirty work, and now that has bled over into this great science site. That’s a real shame, because most readers here have an interest in science; in the Why of things. And I see how politics has affected this site. For years, when a point was raised by someone, it was normally hashed out and settled. But now it just goes on and on. That is not the fault of skeptics.
You’ve admitted being wrong several times recently. We are all wrong at times. But when a handful of people refuse to ever admit they were wrong, but instead argue incessantly using Alinsky tactics, that tends to poison the discussion. So I’m glad you are able to admit error [I see similarities between you and tjfolkerts, who has been around here a long time]. When you’re able to acknowledge new facts, evidence and logic, I am confident that you will finally come to a reasonable conclusion [even if you have to be dragged there kicking and screaming]. As we see, not everyone is like that.
dbstealey,
My agenda is leaving the planet in the same or better shape as we found it for future generations.
My experience has been that no one single thing was convincing in and of itself. And I’m beyond skeptical about the most dire predictions of woe. I rest on the policy of discretion being the better part of valor. In my perfect world, where I am the benevolent dictator, I’d be weaning us off fossil fuels and into nuclear fission and biofuels regardless. Such has been my desire since before I’d even heard about global warming.
Easy. They’re as certain of being right as you are that they’re wrong.
Well see now DB this is a major part of the problem I have with the way you argue your position. Above you say, “So our job is to say: ‘Prove it!’ Or at least, show us credible evidence that adding CO2 would be a problem.” which is a burden of proof I accept, and almost always uphold. Now here you are saying to me, “when you’re able to acknowledge new facts, evidence and logic” I find myself asking where you think those are going to come from. This is exactly why I bust you up about showing me a GCM(-like) model which beats the CMIP5 ensemble on prediction skill. As crappy as you guys say they are, they’re currently off by only a quarter of a degree. Granted, that’s 12.5% of the 2 degree Do Not Exceed policy target, but considering that those estimates are the product of planet-scale simulations I don’t think it’s terribly shabby.
You want me to consider new facts and evidence … show me some new facts and evidence in the form of: THIS physical mechanism is a better candidate than CO2 for observed temperature trends, here’s what happens when we plug it into our GCM and it’s got 50% more skill than the CMIP5 ensemble.
I’m all but stone deaf to just about every “CO2 didn’t diddit” argument out there. Like it or not, the science is at the point — for me — where the burden of proof is on you guys to roll up your sleeves and do some very rigourous calculations about exactly what natural variabilities better explain the past … oh, half million years would be nice … without invoking CO2 as a major player.
I repeat: gridded output from a state of the art model from 1860 to present which handily beats CMIP5 would be damn compelling. I wouldn’t be the only person on this rock that would sit up and take notice.
dbstealey,
I appreciate your discussion. I think that exposing the type of problematic commenters you mention to critically focused dialog on them is very educational for many viewers of WUWT. It is a tiring task though.
The balancing act done on this wonderful venue to allow open discussion is hard work for all participating.
John
Brandon Gates,
You and I will fundamentally have different root concepts of the philosophy of science. That’s good, one less thing to worry about.
The important thing on this venue is to stimulate relevant intellectual argumentation through keeping it civil and respectful.
John
John Whitman,
I think that’s good policy in any venue. I find that I frequently don’t live up to my own policies on that note. I have all the standard justifications for that of course.