Leading Gareth into deep waters

One of the useful side-effects of this week's blog-war over Air Con has been smoking out Hot Topic's Gareth Renowden from the traditional comfort zone of simply repeating IPCC data or RealClimate viewpoints, and forcing him to actually engage in debate.

His first, snaky review of Air Con didn't do this. It was loaded up with cheap shots, quotes deliberately taken out of context and was nothing more than 'peacocking' for his fellow global warming believers in the (what turned out to be) erroneous belief he'd managed to land a hit on Air Con.

My response, equally snaky, left Gareth complaining that I hadn't dealt with the rest of his points, so this morning's response cleared those up.

Now the Trufflehunter is back, having been persuaded to venture into deeper waters. He rightly picks up my typo on the Argo project, but that's about as good as the hits get.

Swerving around the inconvenient fact that, as Josh Wills told US NPR last year (and I quoted him verbatim in the book), the Argo robots have not found warming oceans, but overall "there has been a very slight cooling". I'm not making a case that the oceans have been cooling rapidly, I'm making a case that they're not warming significantly. The Argo evidence backs that up.

In his attempt to avoid the implication of this, given the extra heat the oceans are supposed to have absorbed globally, Gareth helpfully directs to a NASA feature on ocean cooling. There's nothing in it that contradicts my usage of Willis in the book, but what it does say backs up one of my other assertions that Gareth had a problem with in our "anonymous" discussion thread on Tumeke previously about the impact of undersea volcanoes on ocean heat and GHG emissions.

When I pointed out scientists have recently discovered a massive volcanic field under the Arctic that began erupting in a catastrophic, albeit submarine, sense in 1999, Gareth, posting as "Response to Ian", stated:

"If you are implying that they are influencing Arctic sea ice you are absolutely out in la-la land. The amount of heat released is miniscule compared to the heat capacity of the cold Arctic ocean."

So if a large volcanic field under a relatively small area of ocean has no impact on warming the water, why does the NASA study on ocean cooling Gareth pointed us to say this:

"They are also exploring how volcanic eruptions influence ocean heating, and whether a better understanding of how volcanoes influence the energy balance of the ocean will help explain short term variability in ocean warming and cooling"

The NASA feature then quoted the CSIRO research team directly:

"One thing we found was that climate models that do not include volcanic forcing tend to overestimate the long term change, and their simulated decadal variability is not in agreement with the observations…this kind of result tells us volcanic forcing is important, but that we don't totally understand it yet".

Another example, then, of Trufflehunter shooting from the lip because he isn't across the latest scientific research. 95% of the world's active volcanic vents are underwater. I quoted other scientists in the book who thought volcanic and tectonic activity might well be significant in regard to sea levels and thermal expansion, but Gareth's response was:

"One possibility that Wishart fails to consider is that tectonics and volcanoes weren't ignored and their effects are trivial."

Well, Gareth, go back and read the report you referred us to. Apparently other scientists don't think they're trivial at all. And probably neither does TVNZ's John Hudson anymore, after reporting how global warming and rising CO2 were causing the seas at Takuu to warm by 5C and to wash over the island. Turns out, Takuu is sinking because of tectonic and volcanic activity, so its poster-child status for global warming turns out to be highly relevant to the volcanic issue after all, and Hudson has been embarrassed, perhaps for the rest of his career, by failing to research the issue properly.

I'm not going to go through and relitigate the whole book, because I've got a magazine deadline approaching and the TGIF newspaper this Friday, but I think I've demonstrated enough to show that hi-five style slap-downs of Air Con and its coverage of the global warming issue might have got you some cheap yuks from your supporters, but ultimately they showed the danger of rushing into print thinking you knew it all.

The central premise of Air Con is that the science is far from settled, and increasingly the role of CO2 and GHGs in global warming seem to have been overhyped. Yet because an entire new taxation system and global trading market is being mooted on the back of this hyped science, the public have a right to hear the whole story, not just selected portions dripfed to them by AGW believers and their useful idiots in the news media.

At the end of the day, I'm not going to change Gareth's mind and clearly he hasn't changed mine. I think I've now proven beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt that his "review" of Air Con was little more than a cherry-picked series of straw-men he thought he could knock down and discredit me with. I think I've now also proven that because of his bias, readers can take his review with a sizeable grain of salt. Those who want to believe Gareth's analysis are welcome to it. Those who suspect they're being sold a pup will need to read the book.

Comments

[Craig]

Yup all the media are in the pocket of the communist tree huggers who have created a false world crisis to fund their left wing lovechild the UN.

[Lord Mockinghim]

Considering that you argue the world is only a few thousand years old, and that evolution is a communist conspiracy (or maybe it was invented by Helen Clark’s “gay” husband), I would give your anything you say about science much credence Mr. Wishart. Every major scientific organisation in the world disagrees with your position. You cherry pick data, and in the wider context you look foolish. Go back to writing your misogynist fantasies; at least they are entertaining to read.

[Well, old Mocker, prove you are not an idiot to all the readers here by showing me where I argue that the "world is only a few thousand years old".

And what the heck does "I would give your anything you say about science much credence Mr Wishart" mean?

Perhaps you have indeed proven you are the missing link.

The book isn't cherry-picked, and given the goofs Gareth has made whilst trying to tackle it this week, I think that proves the point.

By the way Gareth, when you read this, perhaps you can reconcile the GNS claim that submarine volcanism is "significant" in the oceans' heat matrix, with your continued claim that it is "trivial"?

Perhaps you can ask Lord Mockinghim here to provide the scientific explanation, :)

(moral of the story, never send a monkey to do the organ-grinder's job)]

[AcidComments]

Of interest:

Poll now only 34% believe in Climate Change caused by Human activity.

Even Greater Disbelief of Alarmists

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/04/20/even-greater-disbelief-of-alar

[robk]

Lard Mockinghim

Where does Ian "argue the world is only a few thousand years old" as you say? I've not seen him do this.

Can you give a reference please?

I have now finished Air Con, and I for one am impressed, it is very thorough. If Air Con is "cherry picking" as you suggest then I suspect the cherry orchard is now pretty much stripped clean! :-D

[Carol Stewart]

In relation to one of Ian's other 'victories' in this debate:

"NSIDC says this year's April melt is the third slowest on record, and there's a stackload of ice still sitting there happily."

Actually, Ian, what they say is this:
"However, as discussed in our last post, the spring ice cover is thin and hence quite vulnerable to summer melt. However this summer unfolds, scientists expect to see high year-to-year variability in ice extent embedded within the long-term decline." [of Arctic sea ice]
Got that, Ian? Long-term decline? And any readers that are keen enough to read more on the NSIDC website will find that this organisation are in no doubt that climate change is real and that human activities are responsible.
It's typical of your lazy and selective analysis to pick out little snippets that suit your argument and ignore the rest. And it is utterly spurious to imply that the NSIDC data backs up your views.

[Carol, I stated the fact that te NSIDC reports this April's melt is the third slowest on record. Then I added my own comment that there's a stackload of ice there.

In response, who quote me a forecast of what NSIDC "expects" might happen, provided certain variables kick in. Great, if it happens the way they predict I'll accept it, but until then it doesn't knock aside what has actually happened.

The longer the ice remains (or even grows), the hotter the summer melt will have to be to eradicate it. The Arctic is going into this year's summer stronger than it did last year, and I note that last year's "expert" predictions about the fate of Arctic sea ice didn't come to pass either. The loss in 2007 was said to be a "tipping point" because the 2008 single year ice couldn't withstand summer melt.
Newsflash, it did.

So let's just wait and see.

As for your accusations re quoting NSIDC, rubbish. I am interested in the factual data they obtain, not their opinions after reading chicken entrails. It is a condition of membership these days that scientists have to swear fealty to the great goddess Gaia and her cult of warming, but as I point out in Air Con the opinions and forecasts of global warming believers are fast losing touch with the reality of on the ground data.

"Long term decline"? You are not trying to extrapolate long term consequences from short term data are you, when our scientific knowledge [temperature readings] of climate on a 4.5 billion year old planet only goes back a century. Are you seriously trying to tell readers that either you, or Gareth, or for that matter even the NSIDC even have a clue what Arctic ice has done long term in the past?]

[Carol Stewart]

The long-term decline is the term used by the NSIDC, Ian, not by me. But what would these cryosphere scientists know?

[Don't be obtuse Carol. We only have "long term" records going back to 1979 when satellites could finally map the Arctic. It just so happens that the 1970s marked the end of a cold spell (remember those predictions of a looming Ice Age) and sea ice extent reflected the cold, so 1979 levels were likely quite high. Regardless, the graph shows that for this point in time, Arctic sea ice is currently approaching its historical average - this despite rising CO2 and GHG emissions.

The Catlin team are having to cut short their expedition by two weeks because it has been too cold and the ice is too thick to drill through for their experiments. When are you AGW believers going to wake up to the reality...the Arctic and Antarctic are not behaving as the models predicted]

[Carol Stewart]

Interesting your followers have gone silent .. perhaps they are busy reading the NSIDC website and discovering a few truths for themselves. But somehow I doubt it.

[Carol Stewart]

".. when our scientific knowledge [temperature readings] of climate on a 4.5 billion year old planet only goes back a century."

Actually, Ian, there is a branch of science called 'paleoclimatology'.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleostory.html

[robk]

Carol

Some of us have to work away from the blogs :-D

Are you saying paleoclimatologists have temperature readings that go back more than a century, contrary to Ian's claim?

Is that what you are saying above?

[Carol Stewart]

Yeah Rob, I have a day job too.
Go and read up on temperature proxies.

[robk]

Carol

That's great, we are among the lucky ones :-)

Look, a proxy is not going to impress like a thermometer.

Mind you, even a pleb like me would know not to situate a thermometer near hot asphalt! Reminds me of kids putting the thermometer in hot water to get the desired result (a day off school)

Now Air Con has pointed this out, will there be a flurry of moving official weather stations away from Urban Heat Islands to more accurate sites? I doubt it.

I've just read Air Con, now i'm interested in any new studies to see whose predictions are being confirmed.

Disclosure: I have shares in a forest, and would much rather have increased growth from extra CO2 than selling carbon credits... :-)

[peter]

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/22/plan-b-for-global-warming/2/

Where is external reference to volcano?

[peter]

interesting links

http://www.additiverich.com/morgue/archives/002894.html

http://nzquest.blogspot.com/2008/02/ian-wisharts-racismislamophobia.html