New IPCC report is out

[_Water Dog]

I didn't think you could be referencing that post

Thanks for at least admitting you had in fact already looked it up...

[Guest]

You probably should plant that quote on another discussion board somewhere, so you can triumphantly reference it, sometime next week.

Or you could simply click on the Sept 9 article that appears right on google when you search for the quoted text. Which we both know you've already done.

OK so it appears you just didn't read the whole article to understand what is being said. Maybe try reading from the actual sciences sometime.

[_Water Dog]

Paul Kench and his colleagues have now measured the shorelines of all 101 islands of Tuvalu for the last 40 years using satellite imagery. The result: The land area grew by just under 3% during this period, despite a fairly strong regional sea-level rise of 4 mm per year.

http://notrickszone.com/2018/10/12/sea- ... land-loss/

[_Morley]

I didn't think you could be referencing that post

Thanks for at least admitting you had in fact already looked it up...

Absolutely. I had no idea it could be that reference. First, nothing was bolded. Second, I didn't think you would be so disingenuous as to ignore the next sentence in the article. I understand why you were reluctant to give the link. It's pretty damning.

[_Morley]

Perhaps it was just that you were too zealous and didn't read the rest.

[_Water Dog]

Absolutely. I had no idea it could be that reference. First, nothing was bolded. Second, I didn't think you would be so disingenuous as to ignore the next sentence in the article. I understand why you were reluctant to give the link. It's pretty damning.

As predicted. Anything to avoid addressing what I actually said... show me the empirical validation of the models.

How do the models account for this?

[_Water Dog]

Are sea levels rising or not?

[_Water Dog]

So which is it? Is hurricane michael evidence of global warming, or the opposite? Or evidence of nothing at all?

[_canpakes]

Lol. Dog, now you’re just Gish galloping. : D

[_Res Ipsa]

I think this is a good time to take a step back and review what was done here.

Water Dog posted this:

What is the response to this?

In a recent letter, Ricke and Caldeira (2014 Environ. Res. Lett. 9 124002) estimated that the timing between an emission and the maximum temperature response is a decade on average. In their analysis, they took into account uncertainties about the carbon cycle, the rate of ocean heat uptake and the climate sensitivity but did not consider one important uncertainty: the size of the emission. Using simulations with an Earth System Model we show that the time lag between a carbon dioxide (CO2) emission pulse and the maximum warming increases for larger pulses. Our results suggest that as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the full warming effect of an emission may not be felt for several decades, if not centuries.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 0/3/031001

The boldface in the last sentence was not in the original -- WD added it.

Notice that WD gave a citation to the actual abstract as his source. When he does that, he's communicating two things: (1) The cited source is the actual source he used; and (2) The quotation or summary that is cited is a fair representation of what the source actually says.

Both in this case were false. Water Dog didn't use the abstract as a source. He used a different source, which he hid from us. Second, what he quoted was not a fair representation of the actual abstract because he left out the last line of the abstract:

Most of the warming, however, will emerge relatively quickly, implying that CO2 emission cuts will not only benefit subsequent generations but also the generation implementing those cuts.

Leaving off the last sentence leaves the impression that global warming will occur over such a long time that there is no reason to take significant measures now. That's not what the article says at all. The last sentence makes that clear.

So what happened? WD now says he used this webpage as his source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/09/ ... l-records/ It's worth clicking on that link and looking at the guest blog entry we are talking about. It's a long piece by Tim Ball, a guy we could spend a whole thread on. But we don't need to for this narrow issue, as Ball quotes the abstract correctly.

To even get to Ball's quotation of the abstract, you have to read down a long ways in the piece. Scroll down and find it. Water Dog used at least one other part of the blog in his thread, so he was at least reading through it. Here is how Ball quotes the abstract:

A year later in 2015, the abstract for an article in Environmental Research Letters says,

In a recent letter, Ricke and Caldeira (2014 Environ. Res. Lett. 9 124002) estimated that the timing between an emission and the maximum temperature response is a decade on average. In their analysis, they took into account uncertainties about the carbon cycle, the rate of ocean heat uptake and the climate sensitivity but did not consider one important uncertainty: the size of the emission. Using simulations with an Earth System Model we show that the time lag between a carbon dioxide (CO2) emission pulse and the maximum warming increases for larger pulses. Our results suggest that as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the full warming effect of an emission may not be felt for several decades, if not centuries.

Apparently, in case anyone interpreted this to say there is no need to act now or even precipitously, the authors add,

Most of the warming, however, will emerge relatively quickly, implying that CO2 emission cuts will not only benefit subsequent generations but also the generation implementing those cuts.

Now, Ball is being deceptive in his presentation because he treats the last sentence as some kind of additional comment, not making clear that everything he quotes is in a single paragraph. But what WD is apparently saying is that he somehow missed the next two sentences after the piece of the abstract he cut and pasted. We know he's reading through the entire piece, cuz he's taking out pieces of it. But he just happened to ignore the immediate context to what he cut and pasted? Really?

But let's give him the doubt and accept that he's so ideologically driven that he doesn't really care about the truth when it comes to global warming that he just cuts and pastes out of context chunks of blog posts he finds on denier websites written by frauds and liar (yeah, Tim Ball), what does he do when he's caught?

Now, an honest, stand up guy when caught doing something like this would respond by telling the truth. Something like: hey guys, I got really careless and copied this from a secondary source that split the abstract into two quotes and I missed the second part. Is he going to catch some crap from me for doing that? Sure. Because it shows that he's so fixated on attacking science in defense of his political ideology, that he doesn't care about the truth or accuracy of what he posts. But what the hell -- I'm just a guy posting words on a message board. An honest, stand up guy takes his lumps when he's caught being stupid. We all makes stupid mistakes from time to time.

How does Water Dog respond:

Rep, I didn't intentionally omit anything. I didn't omit anything at all, I pasted it as I found it quoted elsewhere.

Keep in mind, this is about 13 hours after I posted that he had left off the last line of the abstract in his quotation. If WD had made an innocent mistake, I find it incomprehensible that he had not looked back at his source and discovered that he had mistakenly omitted the last line of the abstract. But did he say that he mistakenly omitted the last line because Ball had broken the abstract into two quotes. No, he said "I didn't omit anything at all." And that's just plain lying. And he didn't paste it as he found it -- he only pasted part of it has he found it. A complete misrepresentation of what happened. He carefully creates the impression that the problem, if there is one, was the fault of the secondary source he copied from. And that, too, is a lie. One that he actively conceals throughout the day.

He also says that he has now called up the article that goes with the abstract, and asks

What does "relatively quickly" mean?

He quotes the answer. 93% in ten years. His response is to ask what did I say? Well, let's remind him. He said, in boldface type, "several decades, if not centuries" Given that the question is do we need to take steps to reduce carbon emissions, that's a huge difference.

WD goes on to say:

didn't read every word, but I scanned though the article reasonably well. It presents the results of several different models that forecast the warming effect of an emission over time. Different models yield different results.

More lies. The article presents results from the SAME MODEL run using different starting assumptions. How did WD get it so wrong? It's only a two-page article!

Figure 1 shows the temperature response to pulse emissions ranging from 100 GtC (the pulse size used in the analysis of R&C) to 5000 GtC, as simulated with the University of Victoria Earth System Climate Model (UVic ESCM)

The article is a response to a previously published paper. Climate scientists have known for decades that the atmosphere adjusts to CO2, not in an instant, but over time. In other words, there is a lag between the time that CO2 is added and point of time at which the full temperature increase has occurred. The earlier paper was a study on that lag. It looked at the release of a 100 gigaton pulse of CO to predict how long it would take the atmosphere to reach the full temperature increase caused by the pulse.

The article quoted by WD was a letter published in response. It notes that the lag is also affected by the size of the pulse. So it uses a single model to test pulses of different sizes. Instead of just the 100 gigaton pulse studied in the previous paper, it looked at several sizes up to 5000 gigatons. And, yes, varying the size of the pulse leads to different results. So, WD's statement that this represents different results because they are different models is a 100% lie.

Before moving from telling porkies about scientific studies into a pure rant, he tells us this:

The article completely supports my point. All the doom is based on computer models. Models which remain untested, the excuse for which is a huge time lag.

His original argument was a question: How do you explain this? The "this" being that the full effects of CO2 increase are decades or centuries away -- that part he boldfaced. The answer is that no explanation is needed -- 93% show up in 10 years. Then his argument was something like "Models are all over the map" using an article that only uses one model. Hard to see how that supports his point. Yes, climate scientists use computer models. Ever prediction that ever existed about the future is based on a model. Computer models forecast hurricane paths and intensity, and while they are not 100% accurate, they save millions of lives. That scientists use models and computers to run them is not an argument against global warming. Unless you want to claim that the best way to go about our business is to put on a blindfold and run toward the Grand Canyon. I mean, the Dog predicts economic devastation if we try to do anything about global warming. That's a model, although instead of using a computer he pulls it out of his ass.

Models remain untested? Where did that come from? Maybe from a guy like Tim Ball? (Google him. Really.) Source given by WD? None.

And are any climate scientists using time lag as an excuse for not testing models? Citation, WD?

(to be continued)

P.S. for Chap. Yes, I know it's extremely irritating to spend time discussing denialist crap instead of how to address the problem. But Water Dog and people like him are exactly the reason why the U.S. government is moving backwards on climate change.