[QUOTE=ewmayer;316688]That debate will likely still be raging long after we are dead and gone. Even if it were settled magically today, it would still be mostly irrelevant as far as the issue of "how should coastal cities protect themselves against events such as Sandy?" is concerned, since we can neither cool the planet nor move places like New York City to higher ground simply as a result of agreeing that "global warming is real".[/QUOTE]

Very skillfully said.

74 words.

No content....

[QUOTE=ewmayer;316688]The smart and wealthier ones of which have been historically proactive in this regard. For instance the Netherlands. Also, we're talking about one's of the world's densest and wealthiest coastal urban centers here, [B][I][U]not frickin' Bangladesh[/U][/I][/B]. Moreover one which has been hit by similar weather in its recorded history.[/QUOTE]

No further questions.

[QUOTE=chalsall;316693]No further questions.[/QUOTE]

Actually, no further questions. But perhaps a statement...

[YOUTUBE]9bZkp7q19f0[/YOUTUBE]

Too much davieddy has made me swear off random Youtube video links with no accompanying content description. My point was that unlike poor coastal areas of the world, places like NYC have no "not enough money" excuse for crap infrastructure.

You've been rickrolled in Korean, Ernst. Congratulations, I think?

I'm down with that - I watch nearly as much Korean TV (big fan of the "whenever the plot threatens to get slow, send in stealthy assassins saltoing over the rooftops" historical costume dramas) as I do english-language.

감사합니다 (pronounced roughly "gamsa hamnida")

[QUOTE=ewmayer;316688]But immersion in water - especially saltwater - is typically lethal to such things, and in many instances it's not just a matter of pumping out the water, it's a complete loss. Also, once saltwater gets into stuff, you may never get it all out, and the resulting corrosion will continue silently but unabated.
[/QUOTE]As one of the NYC officials pointed out in an interview: Because large amounts of salt are used to deice the NYC streets each winter, for a long time all the equipment they put underground has already been designed to withstand/prevent such corrosion from salt.

Now, a total seawater immersion is not quite the same as splashes of runoff from the street, but it's not like no one ever considered the corrosion problem.

Call for more robust electronics and electrical systems:

[url]http://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/now-hear-this/4400435/Electronics-brought-to-extremes-by-Sandy[/url]

[QUOTE=ewmayer;316779]I'm down with that - I watch nearly as much Korean TV (big fan of the "whenever the plot threatens to get slow, send in stealthy assassins saltoing over the rooftops" historical costume dramas) as I do english-language.

감사합니다 (pronounced roughly "gamsa hamnida")[/QUOTE]
올드보이 is excellent. Puts "Audition" to shame. ;-) (well, not entirely.)
Yeah... they have some pretty good movies.

Zero Hedge's market commentator Bruce Krasting has some notes about this past summer's El Nin~o forecasts in his latest missive - see the actual piece for the graphics:

[url=www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-11-18/bad-calls]Computers Gone Wrong[/url]
[quote]I’m always happy to see evidence that the collective “we” are not as smart as is thought. The best and brightest climatologists (and their big computers) missed a big call on global weather patterns this fall.

This chart plots the expectations for the progress of El Nino as of July. The spaghetti strings are all over the lot, but the consensus was for a return to El Nino conditions sometime in October.

The evidence for this developing shift gave cause for NOAA to issue alerts starting in July.

The news media jumped on the forecast:

The El Nino alerts continued through October:

But it did not happen. Mother nature fooled the computers. There is no El Nino, and the odds for one developing have fallen substantially. The latest status report from NOAA, and more spaghetti strings:

Does it matter if the scientist had it wrong? Not really. What has happened in the past month with weather would have happened regardless of the accuracy of the forecasts. But it would have (probably) made a very big difference if the forecasts had happened to be right.

When there are El Nino conditions, tropical storms tend have their “tops” sheared apart by winds that blow east. In addition, storms are pushed out into the Atlantic before they make landfall. This pic tells the story:

So if we had been in El Nino conditions on October 29, Sandy would never have gotten as big as it did, and might just have blown out to sea. What a difference that would have made.

++

I think that smart guys and gals should continue to use big computers to forecast the future. It’s helpful to look ahead with some rational expectations of what should happen next. That’s true for weather, stock prices and macro economic trends/performance.

But we should also look askance at what the computers and sages are telling us. The machines, and their operators, are consistently wrong. The bad news is that unanticipated events almost always have negative outcomes. The good news is that we can't foretell the future; if we could, it wouldn't be interesting at all.[/quote]
I blame excessive roundoff error - if they'd only used slightly-less aggressive compiler optimizations...

Same [i]Science[/i] perspectives snip PDF I posted in the News thread, but here the back-page piece on recent developments in climate modeling is of interest -- Note I had to use both the "reduce size" compression option in Mac Preview and save as b&w to get the size of this below the 244kB forum-upload limit:
[quote]Despite decades of improvements in computer models of Earth’s climate, estimates of the climate sensitivity—the change in global average surface air temperature in response to a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration—remain uncertain (1). Much of the uncertainty results from radiative feedbacks that amplify or dampen climate changes. Particular attention has been given to the cloud feedback. Global warming is expected to change the cloud cover, but these changes and their effects on global temperature are very difficult to predict. On page 792 of this issue, Fasullo and Trenberth (2) present an observational test of the cloud feedback based on satellite measurements of relative humidity (RH) in cloud-free subtropical regions. The authors focus on environmental conditions that are easier to observe than the cloud properties themselves.[/quote]

[QUOTE]Aerosols: Airborne particles in Earth's atmosphere

A supercomputer at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center was used to map aerosols - particles suspended in the air - based on observations from August 2006 - April 2007. The result is surprisingly lovely. I've marked a couple of pints you want to pay attention to, like a volcanic eruption near Madagascar; the effect of the event is stunning.[/QUOTE][YOUTUBE]YtJzn8A725w[/YOUTUBE]
Hat-tip to Allen Knutson on Google+ ([URL="https://plus.google.com/u/0/102261756656790911682/posts/gWceDrW3trN"]link[/URL]):[QUOTE]Two things I took away from this amazing visualization:
1) Won't the Sahara completely blow away at some point?
2) China is seriously dirty. (The US and Europe too!)[/QUOTE]

OT
 

[QUOTE=only_human;319695]1) Won't the Sahara completely blow away at some point?[/QUOTE]Hm... Depends on the rate at which new Saharan sand is produced (through cracking of rocks into smaller particles ... or the mysterious way in which our new house's backyard sandbox, right next to the apple tree, was filled with nice, clean sand when I first saw it in 1953) versus rate of blow-away.

[url=www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/30/us-usa-dust-bowl-idUSBRE8BT05720121230?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews]Storms on U.S. Plains stir memories of the "Dust Bowl"[/url]
[quote](Reuters) - Real estate agent Mark Faulkner recalls a day in early November when he was putting up a sign near Ulysses, Kansas, in 60-miles-per-hour winds that blew up blinding dust clouds.

"There were places you could not see, it was blowing so hard," Faulkner said.

Residents of the Great Plains over the last year or so have experienced storms reminiscent of the 1930s Dust Bowl. Experts say the new storms have been brought on by a combination of historic drought, a dwindling Ogallala Aquifer underground water supply, climate change and government farm programs.

Nearly 62 percent of the United States was gripped by drought, as of December 25, and "exceptional" drought enveloped parts of Kansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor.

There is no relief in sight for the Great Plains at least through the winter, according to Drought Monitor forecasts, which could portend more dust clouds.

A wave of dust storms during the 1930s crippled agriculture over a vast area of the Great Plains and led to an exodus of people, many to California, dramatized in John Steinbeck's novel "The Grapes of Wrath."

While few people believe it could get that bad again, the new storms have some experts worried that similar conditions - if not the catastrophic environmental disaster of the 1930s - are returning to parts of Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Kansas and Colorado.

"I hope we don't talk ourselves into complacency with easy assumptions that a Dust Bowl could never happen again," said Craig Cox, agriculture director for the Environmental Working Group, a national conservation group that supports converting more tilled soil to grassland. "Instead, we should do what it takes to make sure it doesn't happen again."[/quote]
The "living within one's means" theme that pervades the econ. threads apparently extends to water usage. Here, tapping the Ogallala aquifer is the water-supply analog of using credit expansion to pull forward demand in the past 3 decades.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;323206][url=www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/30/us-usa-dust-bowl-idUSBRE8BT05720121230?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews]Storms on U.S. Plains stir memories of the "Dust Bowl"[/url]

The "living within one's means" theme that pervades the econ. threads apparently extends to water usage. Here, tapping the Ogallala aquifer is the water-supply analog of using credit expansion to pull forward demand in the past 3 decades.[/QUOTE]The "exceptional drought" phrase in the quoted article brought to mind conditions in southern England this last spring and early summer.

We experienced by far the wettest drought on record. The water companies imposed restrictions on usage for several months. Concurrently it hardly ever stopped raining.

It's barely stopped raining since. England has had the wettest year on record and there has been extensive flooding in a number of regions resulting in several fatalities and significant economic damage.

[url=http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-09/its-getting-hot-here-2012-hottest-year-record]NOAA: 2012 Hottest Year on Record for Contiguous U.S.[/url]
[quote]2012 was a historic year for extreme weather that included drought, wildfires, hurricanes and storms. But, as NOAA reported yesterday, 2012 marked the warmest year on record for the contiguous United States. The average temperature for 2012 was 55.3°F, 3.2°F above the 20th century average, and 1.0°F above 1998, the previous warmest year. Rainfall was dismal also at 26.57 inches, 2.57 inches below average, making it the 15th driest year on record for the nation. NOAA also adds that the U.S. Climate Extremes Index indicated that 2012 was the second most extreme year on record for the nation, nearly twice the average value and second only to 1998. 2012 saw 11 disasters that reached the $1 billion threshold in losses. Climate Central also confirms that fully two-thirds of the lower 48 states recorded their first-, second- or third-hottest years, and 43 states had one of their top 10 warmest years ever recorded. Globally, 2012 appears to be the eight warmest on record.[/quote]
I link to the ZH version of the article because of the plethora of ensuing tinfoil-hattish reader commentary - one "reader" even invokes weather on such relevant places as Pluto and Triton to "demolish global warming". The same person also mindlessly repeats "skeptic arguments" such as this:
[quote]Earth in its early history, 385 million years ago, had an atmosphere with 10 times the present carbon dioxide levels. Those elevated levels did not produce runaway global warming then, so why should we theorize that it would today?”[/quote]
385 MYA is "early earth history"? What would that make the preceding 4 billion-plus years? "Pre-early earth history"? And while the greenhouse effect during the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleozoic]warm portions of the Paleozoic era[/url] may not have been "runaway" in the Venusian sense, it was still pretty frickin' warm. (Though CO2 was far from the only correlate - and there were some notable cool subintervals).

[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/09/us-australia-wildfires-maps-idUSBRE90806V20130109[/url]

A [I]Scientific American[/I] article published today attracted (as usual) anti-AGW comments with an elementary oversight:

"Ice Core Data Help Solve a Global Warming Mystery

Why do some ice core samples seem to indicate CO2 spikes trailed increases in global temperature? It’s all about the way bubbles move in ice"

[URL]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ice-core-data-help-solve/[/URL]

Down in the comments:[quote]1. jtdwyer 04:06 PM 3/1/13

Great to have an apparently reasonable resolution to this issue!

I am not a 'denier', however, I had to chuckle at the statement:
"The idea that there was a lag of CO2 behind temperature is something climate change skeptics pick on," says Edward Brook of Oregon State University's College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences. "They say, 'How could CO2 levels affect global temperature when you are telling me the temperature changed first?'"

It's a shame this issue has produced so much polarization, but I'd expect any competent scientist to be skeptical of their conclusion when evidence indicates that the proposed cause lags its proposed effect! It's very good to have this issue reasonably resolved!

. . .

3. MadScientist72 in reply to jtdwyer 04:55 PM 3/1/13

"It's very good to have this issue reasonably resolved!"
It might be resolved, if it wasn't for that pesky bit about "Their results, published February 28 in Science, show CO2 lagged temperature by less than 200 years." So, even by the new method, the CO2 rise happened AFTER the temperature increase. Whether it's 1400 years or 200 doesn't matter, effect CAN'T follow cause.

. . .

7. ribwoods 05:48 PM 3/1/13[/quote]Yes, this is the comment I just posted there.

[quote]The posts by jtdwyer and MadScientist72 each illustrate a frequent flaw in anti-AGW arguments: failure to recognize (or admit?) that manmade burning of carbon fuels is presently the primary source of increasing atmospheric CO2. This circumstance, which never existed before the Industrial Revolution, does indeed cause the rise in CO2 to precede the rise in temperature _now_, whether or not it did in the pre-industrial past!

There is no inversion of cause and effect. There does seem to be widespread anti-AGW blindness to our historically novel circumstances.[/quote]

"How to Win Any Climate Change Argument

A flow chart for debating with denialists."

[URL="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2013/03/climate_change_flow_chart_how_to_win_any_global_warming_argument.html?wpisrc=most_viral"]www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2013/03/climate_change_flow_chart_how_to_win_any_global_warming_argument.html?wpisrc=most_viral[/URL]

[quote]If you’re exhausted by climate change shouting matches or so flummoxed by confronting scientific ignorance that you suffer in silence, this chart might be for you. It provides responses to three of the common stages of climate change disbelief: that climate change isn’t happening, that scientists can’t decide whether it’s happening, and that it’s happening but not caused by mankind.

Will this chart prevent your debates from devolving into fights over the “liberal climate change conspiracy” and the meaning of the words [I]theory[/I] or [I]climate[/I] or [I]change[/I]? There’s only one way to find out.[/quote]

[QUOTE=David John Hill Jr;105339]Wan't to argue against global warming?
Won't convince me.
I took the insert july 1963.
Mount Kilimanjaro.[/QUOTE]



A more interesting argument to have would be over the question:

Assuming global warming/climate change theory is true, is global warming/climate change necessarily a bad thing?

[QUOTE=Andrew;333194]Assuming global warming/climate change theory is true, is global warming/climate change necessarily a bad thing?[/QUOTE]

That's an excellent question.

I remember seeing an interview years ago (probably on the BBC) with the (at the time) Russian Energy Minister saying that to Russians global warming could only be a good thing. It would result in much more of their country being able to support crops.

China probably has a similar perspective, but obviously wouldn't be nearly as open about it.

For Canadians, the northern arctic is finally open for shipping, and drilling.

Screw everyone who lives anywhere near the equator. There the rich can afford air-conditioning, and hurricane resistant infrastructure....

[QUOTE=chalsall;333210]Screw everyone who lives anywhere near the equator. There the rich can afford air-conditioning, and hurricane resistant infrastructure....[/QUOTE]

Just wondering- how high are you above sea level on Barbados? I'm pretty sure that there are Pacific atolls that are already threatened, and Bangladesh is not far behind. (I realize that your comment above is a rhetorical flourish of the ironic sort.)

[QUOTE=kladner;333213]Just wondering- how high are you above sea level on Barbados? I'm pretty sure that there are Pacific atolls that are already threatened, and Bangladesh is not far behind. (I realize that your comment above is a rhetorical flourish of the ironic sort.)[/QUOTE]

My office is ~5 meters above sea level. My girl-friend's office is ~3 meters above sea level.

We're building a house which is ~100 meters above sea level.

Interestingly, Barbados experience an earthquake 2007.11.29 (a rare event here), and almost no-one thought about the possible resulting tsunami....

[QUOTE]We're building a house which is ~100 meters above sea level.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like a wise choice to me.

[QUOTE]Interestingly, Barbados experience an earthquake 2007.11.29 (a rare event here), and almost no-one thought about the possible resulting tsunami.... [/QUOTE]

I take it that you are far enough east that you're not much affected by the more geologically active area of the Caribbean.

[QUOTE=kladner;333219]I take it that you are far enough east that you're not much affected by the more geologically active area of the Caribbean.[/QUOTE]

Incorrect.

We're south, and west.

[QUOTE=chalsall;333221]Incorrect.

We're south, and west.[/QUOTE]

OK. I was visualizing Barbados as being further offshore. The map and discussion [FONT=&quot][SIZE=3][URL="http://www.ugr.es/~agcasco/igcp546/project.htm"]here[/URL] show the various plates and motions.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[QUOTE=kladner;333224]OK. I was visualizing Barbados as being further offshore.[/QUOTE]

Sorry... Human languages can be so ambiguous...

My and my girlfriend's offices are on the south and west coasts of Barbados.

Barbados is approximately 13.1594 degrees north, 59.5300 west.

Barbados is the eastern-most Caribbean island, but not as eastern as parts of the South American continent (far below the equator).

[QUOTE=chalsall;333217]Interestingly, Barbados experience an earthquake 2007.11.29 (a rare event here), and almost no-one thought about the possible resulting tsunami....[/QUOTE]
No one was thinking about tsunami in Thailand, before [URL="https://www.google.co.th/search?q=thai+tsunami+2004"]the big one[/URL] few years ago. Even during that, specialists called the officials to give the warning that "tsunami is coming, be prepared" and few idiots organized a reception committee at the airport, with banners and pom-pom girls, to welcome Mr Tsunami - they imagine is some important person visiting the city (this is not a joke). They had no idea what a tsunami is.

Now** if some guy goes at the seaside and fart, everybody else will run to the top of the nearby hills or mountains.... :smile:

(**or at least few year after the tsunami, because right now they already started to forget; the evacuation routes are still seen, and people are still educated, fortunately the people who was in the area at that time still remember, but the new comers who did not see, still treat it like a joke)

[QUOTE=LaurV;333268]... [a] few idiots organized a reception committee at the airport, with banners and pom-pom girls, to welcome Mr Tsunami - they imagine is some important person visiting the city (this is not a joke).[/QUOTE]

That's funny, and sad, at the same time....

[QUOTE=LaurV;333268][...]but the new comers who did not see, still treat it like a joke)[/QUOTE]
It seems that being in denial of the possibility of a disaster actually occurring is a dominant feature of human nature. If people have never experienced something terrible of the kind, they will not believe it is happening if they do not see it with their own eyes for the moment. I suppose evolutionary survival instinct has not caught up with the rapidly improving warning systems in place now.

You see it on a smaller scale very often. When there was a fire once in the students' union building where I studied and the fire bells all rang, huge numbers of people remained where they were saying "it isn't for real" until told by staff in no uncertain terms to get out.

Another effect you sometimes see is when people [I]do[/I] see or hear direct evidence of an emergency but look around themselves uneasily at everyone else who is present, notice that no-one else is reacting to the problem, and then perform the same inaction themselves because they are unwilling to do something outlandish (like call out "fire, fire" or something) when no-one else is behaving like that.

I expect that some of these features are involved in the mass denial of global warming too.

[QUOTE=chalsall;333234]Sorry... Human languages can be so ambiguous...[/QUOTE]

It wasn't a problem. I took your meaning once I looked at the maps. Besides, I wasn't even sure if Barbados is properly called "Caribbean". Also, the "Great Caribbean Arc" is pretty much east of you, and definitely north.

[QUOTE=kladner;333307]Besides, I wasn't even sure if Barbados is properly called "Caribbean".[/QUOTE]

Yup. We're in the Caribbean sea.

And not a problem -- I don't know how many times I've had to explain to suppliers that Barbados is not a US State nor protectorate (I'm not joking). We're a sovereign nation -- since November 30th, 1966.

[QUOTE=kladner;333307]Also, the "Great Caribbean Arc" is pretty much east of you, and definitely north.[/QUOTE]

Yes. And we (read: the Bajan populous) should be more aware about earthquakes and tsunamis -- and potential disasters in general. We actually have an active submarine volcano only ~250 km from us -- [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kick-'em-Jenny"]Kick-'em-Jenny[/URL]. While Grenada et al have more to worry about, if this really blew Barbados' west coast could be wiped out.

And further to Brian-E's comments above, in October, 2010, a "tropical wave" quickly formed into a "tropical storm" (Tomas), and was headed straight for Barbados. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister of Barbados had just passed away because of cancer, and the nation was in mourning (read: not at the wheel).

I actually alerted people by way of a blog I sometimes participate in several hours before the "met" office did. Additionally, I went around my neighborhood to warn people that they should be prepared. Bottle up some water, buy some extra non-perishable food. Bring their pets and outside furniture in, etc.

What was the response from most people? "Ah, don't worry. God is a Bajan. It won't hit us..."

Most of Barbados was without electricity, land-line telephony and Internet for over a week....

[url=www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/09/us-usa-fracking-california-idUSBRE93803720130409?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews]Judge rules administration overlooked fracking risks in California mineral leases[/url]
[quote](Reuters) - A federal judge has ruled the Obama administration broke the law when it issued oil leases in central California without fully weighing the environmental impact of "fracking," a setback for companies seeking to exploit the region's enormous energy resources.

The decision, made public on Monday, effectively bars for the time being any drilling on two tracts of land comprising 2,500 acres leased for oil and gas development in 2011 by the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management in Monterey County.

The tracts lie atop a massive bed of sedimentary rock known as the Monterey Shale Formation, estimated by the Energy Department to contain more than 15 billion barrels of oil, equal to 64 percent of the total U.S. shale oil reserves.

Most of that oil is not economically retrievable except by hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a production-boosting technique in which large amounts of water, sand and chemicals are injected into shale formations to force hydrocarbon fuels to the surface.

Fracking itself is not a new technology but its widespread use in combination with advances in horizontal drilling to extract oil and gas from underground shale beds has fueled a new onshore U.S. energy boom.

It also has sparked concerns about impacts on the environment, including questions raised about the potential effects of fracking on groundwater.

Environmental groups also criticize oil shale production as at odds with efforts to curb heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion that scientists blame for global climate change.

California is implementing a host of policies to cut its greenhouse emissions, including a carbon cap-and-trade program that it bills as a potential model for other states.

The issue came into sharp focus in California last month when Governor Jerry Brown, who has long touted his record as an environmentalist, said the state should consider fracking technology to develop its shale reserves as a way of reducing reliance on imported oil.[/quote]

[url=www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416]Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown[/url]
[quote](Reuters) - Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change that has exposed gaps in their understanding and defies a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions.

Often focused on century-long trends, most climate models failed to predict that the temperature rise would slow, starting around 2000. Scientists are now intent on figuring out the causes and determining whether the respite will be brief or a more lasting phenomenon.

Getting this right is essential for the short and long-term planning of governments and businesses ranging from energy to construction, from agriculture to insurance. Many scientists say they expect a revival of warming in coming years.

Theories for the pause include that deep oceans have taken up more heat with the result that the surface is cooler than expected, that industrial pollution in Asia or clouds are blocking the sun, or that greenhouse gases trap less heat than previously believed.

The change may be a result of an observed decline in heat-trapping water vapor in the high atmosphere, for unknown reasons. It could be a combination of factors or some as yet unknown natural variations, scientists say.[/quote]

[QUOTE=ewmayer;337315][URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416"]Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown[/URL][/QUOTE](* sigh *)

It is all too common for discussions of global warming to degenerate into discussions of only surface-atmospheric-warming because of a tendency, among those who haven't followed the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) science closely, to forget that "global" includes both ocean and land in addition to atmosphere. (OTOH it's also true that the temperature of the near-surface atmosphere has more influence on our daily activities than the temperatures of ocean or land beneath us. So omissions of oceanic and land temperatures would be acceptable in this article ONLY IF it concerned only the atmosphere, or it did not make the blanket, unqualified claim that "global warming" had paused or the claim that climate scientists were confused or struggling to explain the atmospheric pause.)

That is what this article forgets -- that "global warming" includes ocean and land in addition to atmosphere, and that any discussion of the supposed recent pause in global warming, based only on surface atmospheric temperatures, needs to be balanced by the evidence that neither ocean warming nor ocean-plus-land-plus-atmosphere overall warming has paused.

It's sad that Reuters has an Environment Correspondent, Alister Doyle, who apparently doesn't have enough scientific background and/or enough familiarity with the scientific issues around anthropogenic global warming to avoid setting forth this climate-scientifically-deficient-article that is such a gift to anti-AGW arguers.

After a quick review of Alister Doyle's journalist profile at Reuters ([URL]http://blogs.reuters.com/alister-doyle/[/URL]), I don't see evidence that Doyle's articles are biased toward the anti-AGW side. Similar quick reviews of the Reuters journalist profiles of co-reporter Gerard Wynn ([URL]http://blogs.reuters.com/gerard-wynn/[/URL]) and editor Janet McBride ([URL]http://blogs.reuters.com/janet-mcbride/?st=article[/URL]) also don't show me that either of them is noticeably biased toward anti-AGW reporting. So I tentatively credit their climate-scientific inadequacies, rather than deliberate or knowing omission, for the glaring scientific gap and false claims in this particular article.

Global warming has _not_ paused, and climatologists _do_ understand that heat flows between atmosphere and ocean can cause a misunderstanding of the overall global warming trend among those who look only at the surface-atmospheric temperatures.

See [URL]http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm[/URL] and/or [URL]http://www.skepticalscience.com/Global-Warming-is-Accelerating-but-its-Still-Groundhog-Day-at-the-Daily-Mail.html[/URL] and [URL]http://www.skepticalscience.com/guemas-attribute-slowed-surface-warming-to-oceans.html[/URL] for a more competent and comprehensive scientific take on this issue.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;337530]Global warming has _not_ paused, and climatologists _do_ understand that heat flows between atmosphere and ocean can cause a misunderstanding of the overall global warming trend among those who look only at the surface-atmospheric temperatures.[/QUOTE]

IMNSHO, I think part of the problem is most scientists are willing to admit they can't know anything with absolute certainty. (As they should -- it's the honest position.)

Even when they have a great deal of evidence which supports their argument, they can't know for sure.

Meanwhile, many who are making money emitting CO[SUB]2[/SUB] et al are happy to keep doing so, ignoring the empirical evidence of what it's doing. In some cases, it's actually helping (read: Canada and Russia).

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter. Life will continue here on Earth until our Sun goes red.

[QUOTE=chalsall;337536]At the end of the day it doesn't really matter. Life will continue here on Earth until our Sun goes red.[/QUOTE]In the long run everyone is dead.

[QUOTE=xilman;337538]In the long run everyone is dead.[/QUOTE]
* Murphy's Law of [URL="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thermodynamics"]Thermodynamics[/URL]: Under pressure, things get worse. [SUP][I][COLOR="Blue"][citation needed][/COLOR][/I][/SUP]

* It’s the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Sooner or later everything turns to silt.
[TEX]\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ [/TEX]--Woody Allen, in [I]Husbands and wives[/I] (1992).

* If you think things are in a mess now, JUST WAIT! (unknown) [SUP][I][COLOR="blue"][citation needed][/COLOR][/I][/SUP]

[QUOTE=chalsall;337536]IMNSHO, I think part of the problem is most scientists are willing to admit they can't know anything with absolute certainty. (As they should -- it's the honest position.)[/QUOTE]But the most strident anti-AGWers are _so_ _sure_ that the mainstream climatologists are conspiracists, and that AGW is a hoax ... despite that they've failed both

(a) to prove that there is any such pro-AGW unscientific conspiracy, and, even more tellingly,

(b) to produce any refutation of AGW theory by providing any alternative scientific theory that explains all the observations better than AGW does.

(I don't know the original author of the following question, and I've corrected some minor mistakes in the quotation as I received it)

"Where -- after 20 years of fossil-funded debate -- is the alternative explanation for warming that just happens to coincide so neatly with what CO2 & minor GHGs should be doing, and what is its mechanism for preventing them from acting as they should, or is there yet another unknown-to-science phenomenon fulfilling that preventive role so neatly ?"

The anti-AGW side has failed to come up with any better explanation. (I ask anyone who disagrees with that to show us the supposed "better explanation".)

[quote]Even when they have a great deal of evidence which supports their argument, they can't know for sure.[/quote]All that's required by science is a preponderance of evidence, not absolute certainty. For global warming, that preponderance currently supports the AGW theory.

[QUOTE=chalsall;337536]In some cases, it's actually helping (read: Canada and Russia).[/QUOTE]

Except this Winter. We set records and NOT warm ones:
- Most snowfall over a winter (6 feet and counting)
- Coldest March on record
- Soon to be coldest April

[QUOTE=cheesehead;337665]All that's required by science is a preponderance of evidence, not absolute certainty. For global warming, that preponderance currently supports the AGW theory.[/QUOTE]

But, it's not convenient... (read: profitable)....

[QUOTE=chalsall;337668]But, it's not convenient... (read: profitable)....[/QUOTE]Only because they refuse to try to think of how it could be profitable!

A proposal for storm names
 

[url]http://climatenamechange.org/#[/url]

This suggests that storms be named for official deniers of Climate Change. I think it's pretty damned funny!

Wonderful! When can I have a my own LaurV storm? (I mean, beside of Mrs. LaurV)... :smile:

[QUOTE=LaurV;351346]Wonderful! When can I have a my own LaurV storm? (I mean, beside of Mrs. LaurV)... :smile:[/QUOTE]When you're on the official list! :-)

[QUOTE=LaurV;351346]Wonderful! When can I have a my own LaurV storm? (I mean, beside of Mrs. LaurV)... :smile:[/QUOTE]

You have to get to work on some serious Climate Change Denial. You have a long way to go to catch up with the likes of Michele Bachmann and Ted Cruz. There is a long waiting list. No offense to you, but I sincerely hope it takes a long time for you to get your own super storm. Maybe there is a Typhoon list you could check into. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=kladner;351364]You have to get to work on some serious Climate Change Denial.[/QUOTE]
I tried to enrol on a course, but the only parking spaces at the Centre for Advanced Denial Studies were for SUVs and they told me there was no space there for my bicycle.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;351369]I tried to enrol on a course, but the only parking spaces at the Centre for Advanced Denial Studies were for SUVs and they told me there was no space there for my bicycle.[/QUOTE]

You really need to work on that attitude. Maybe if your bicycle burned coal.....

[QUOTE=Brian-E;351369]I tried to enrol on a course, but the only parking spaces at the Centre for Advanced Denial Studies were for SUVs and they told me there was no space there for my bicycle.[/QUOTE]

Next time try rolling up with a lit cigar in your mouth, and point out the underinflated tires to the lot attendants.

[p.s.: If one of the attendants is a fellow named "Don" who spouts lots of pseudo-maths, maybe you can work that angle, too.]

[QUOTE=ewmayer;351395]Next time try rolling up with a lit cigar in your mouth, and point out the underinflated tires to the lot attendants.][/QUOTE]

Or, like Justin Trudeau and Mike Ford recently, admit to smoking lots of pot.

(It's legal in Canada, eh'.)

[QUOTE=chalsall;351399]Or, like Justin Trudeau and Mike Ford recently, admit to smoking lots of pot.

(It's legal in Canada, eh'.)[/QUOTE]

Rob Ford?

[QUOTE=jyb;351402]Rob Ford?[/QUOTE]

Sorry... Around the "pipe" Rob is known as Mike... (That's meant to be funny.)

[QUOTE=chalsall;351425]Sorry... Around the "pipe" Rob is known as Mike... (That's meant to be funny.)[/QUOTE]

It is. :grin:

It's nice to hear some sensibility instead of the too common false equivalence of presenting both sides as some vacuous form of even-handedness that actually abandons reasonable efforts to prevent misinformation.

[URL="http://www.salon.com/2013/10/09/the_la_times_wont_publish_letters_from_climate_deniers/"]The L.A. Times won’t publish letters from climate deniers[/URL] [noparse][salon.com][/noparse]

[URL="http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-climate-change-letters-20131008,0,871615.story"]On letters from climate-change deniers[/URL] [noparse][latimes.com][/noparse]
[QUOTE]As for letters on climate change, we do get plenty from those who deny global warming. And to say they "deny" it might be an understatement: Many say climate change is a hoax, a scheme by liberals to curtail personal freedom.

Before going into some detail about why these letters don't make it into our pages, I'll concede that, aside from my easily passing the Advanced Placement biology exam in high school, my science credentials are lacking. I'm no expert when it comes to our planet's complex climate processes or any scientific field. Consequently, when deciding which letters should run among hundreds on such weighty matters as climate change, I must rely on the experts -- in other words, those scientists with advanced degrees who undertake tedious research and rigorous peer review.

And those scientists have provided ample evidence that human activity is indeed linked to climate change. Just last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- a body made up of the world's top climate scientists -- said it was 95% certain that we fossil-fuel-burning humans are driving global warming. The debate right now isn't whether this evidence exists (clearly, it does) but what this evidence means for us.

Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published. Saying "there's no sign humans have caused climate change" is not stating an opinion, it's asserting a factual inaccuracy.[/QUOTE]

On Global warming: I'll let you folks know if we fail to reach minus forty degrees (Fahrenheit and Celsius are the same at this point; fun fact) this winter or not. (EDIT: I don't count Wind Chill. Minus 69 Celsius (-92 Fahrenheit) just doesn't even compute)

I'm afraid I'm too lazy to sift through ninety-two pages of posts to see if this thread is a bunch of people who actually believe in global warming, or if we're all making fun of people who do, or what.

I can't decipher the last post. Is only_human saying it's great that the LA times has stopped posting letters from people who aren't convinced? That free speech bullshit, eh?

[QUOTE=TheMawn;355898]the LA times has stopped posting letters from people who aren't convinced?[/QUOTE]No, that's a distortion of the new LA Times policy.

Note that the factually-incorrect headline "The L.A. Times won't publish letters from climate deniers" is on the salon.com article, not the latimes.com article. The LA Times can't prevent factually-incorrect headlines on sites that are not their own.

The LA Times _has_ stopped posting letters that contain certain counter-factual statements about AGW:
[quote=latimes.com]Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published. Saying "there's no sign humans have caused climate change" is not stating an opinion, it's asserting a factual inaccuracy.[/quote]That example saying ("there's no sign humans have caused climate change") is counter-factual because [URL="http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm"]there _are_ signs[/URL] that [URL="http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-fingerprint-in-global-warming.html"]humans have caused climate change[/URL].

They'll still publish letters that are factually correct, whether the authors are "convinced" or not.
[quote=TheMawn]That free speech bullshit, eh?[/quote]Free speech doesn't obligate the LA Times to publish factually-false statements, nor does it prevent salon.com from publishing factually-incorrect headlines on its articles.

via [URL="https://plus.google.com/105473622219622697310/posts/TnLjMpaoVMv"]Jennifer Ouellette[/URL] on G+

This new article better explains the point about false balance that I was trying to make.

[URL="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/11/climate-change-political-media-ipcc-coverage"]Conservative media outlets found guilty of biased global warming coverage[/URL] [noparse][theguardian.com][/noparse]
[QUOTE]
New studies show conservative and politically neutral media outlets are creating false balance in climate change reporting

There's a 97 percent consensus on human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed climate science literature and among climate experts. There's a 96 percent consensus in the climate research that humans are responsible for most of the current global warming. The 2013 IPCC report agrees with this position with 95 percent confidence, and states that humans are most likely responsible for 100 percent of the global warming since 1951.

Yet a new study conducted by Media Matters for America shows that in stories about the 2013 IPCC report, rather than accurately reflect this expert consensus, certain media outlets have created a false perception of discord amongst climate scientists.
[/QUOTE][QUOTE]This practice is known as "false balance," where the 3 percent of climate contrarians are given a disproportionate amount of media coverage, creating the perception that there is a significant divide amongst climate experts. In their purported efforts to be "fair and balanced" and represent "both sides," these media outlets are actually creating an unbalanced perception of reality. The reality is that 97 percent of climate experts and evidence support human-caused global warming. The findings in the IPCC report are consistent with that expert consensus, as we would expect, since the IPCC report is simply a summary of the body of scientific research.

Unfortunately this practice of false balance appears to be spreading to politically neutral media outlets. The BBC has been heavily criticized for its interviews of climate contrarians leading up to the publication of the IPCC report. BBC editor Ehsan Masood attempted to defend the network's false balance coverage this week, arguing that there is a difference between climate contrarians and skeptics, and that it's important to cover the latter to avoid "shutting out dissenting voices."

There certainly is a difference between biased contrarians and open-minded skeptics. The problem is that the BBC can't seem to tell the difference. For example, they granted an extensive interview to Bob Carter, a marine geologist with minimal experience in climate science, who works for numerous conservative think tanks including the Global Warming Policy Foundation. In fact, the interview largely centered on the right-wing think tank response to the IPCC report, the NIPCC report, which is neither a legitimate scientific document, nor skeptical. Rather it is the epitome of cherry picking and myth regurgitation.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]Giving space to those like Bob Carter that reject the expert consensus on human-caused climate change is no different. It amplifies the voices of the 3 percent minority and creates the false impression of a division amongst climate experts. As a result, only 45 percent of Americans are aware of the 97 percent expert consensus on human-caused global warming.

Media false balance as illustrated in the IPCC reporting by outlets like the BBC, Wall Street Journal, and Fox News is largely to blame for this "consensus gap." This practice of false balance misinforms the public and does us all a disservice.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=TheMawn;355898]I'm afraid I'm too lazy to sift through ninety-two pages of posts to see if this thread is a bunch of people who actually believe in global warming, or if we're all making fun of people who do, or what.[/QUOTE]

[Channeling 22 Minutes]So then what you're saying is you believe that humans can actually walk on water?[/channeling]

(Some might not get this sense of humor....)

[QUOTE=chalsall;355909][Channeling 22 Minutes]So then what you're saying is you believe that humans can actually walk on water?[/channeling]

(Some might not get this sense of humor....)[/QUOTE]

Of course they can. What's so hard.

[QUOTE=davar55;355953]Of course they can. What's so hard.[/QUOTE]
The question phases some people.

I should have made myself a bit clearer regarding the free speech thing. Not so much that papers are forced to publish whatever letters they want but it kind of does look bad when you publish only the stuff that coincides with your own opinions.

My local newspaper will hardly ever publish any economic right-wing stuff but continually posts anything half-decently written which supports the economic left-wing. Back in our latest federal elections, about 19 out of 20 letters were for the NDP, which proceeded to get absolutely demolished by the Conservative Party during the actual elections. Either 19 out of 20 people were going to vote NDP but all changed their minds (impossible as you cannot change those people's minds, ever) OR 95% of the letters came from 20% of the population meaning only 1 in 100 letters were sent in by conservative supporters OR the paper filters their let's-hear-what-you-think because they don't like your opinions. Looks pretty bad.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;356004]Either 19 out of 20 people were going to vote NDP but all changed their minds (impossible as you cannot change those people's minds, ever) OR 95% of the letters came from 20% of the population meaning only 1 in 100 letters were sent in by conservative supporters OR the paper filters their let's-hear-what-you-think because they don't like your opinions. Looks pretty bad.[/QUOTE]

It could also mean that few conservatives read that newspaper, thus few of an opposing viewpoint would write.

I acknowledge that selection bias and cherry picking picking opinions for print are problems and that much of the contemporary "news" coverage could be more objective.

Back on the other point of printing counter-factual opinion letters, if an opinion is obviously wrong enough to not deceive readers and possibly pisses off editors too, they might print it anyway as happened in this case (in print AND web editions of the paper):
[QUOTE=only_human;353675]Speaking of facepalms: [URL="http://www.smh.com.au/comment/smh-letters/labor-still-doesnt-get-it--members-need-to-be-canvassed-20130915-2tspz.html"]Letters to the Sydney Morning Herald[/URL][QUOTE][B]Stick with facts, not sci-fi[/B]
I do wish that the Herald editorial team would stop presenting Carl Sagan science fiction gibberish dressed up as if it were fact (''The little spacecraft that could'', September 14-15). It occurred over the weekend, when we were fed a far-fetched story about a space vehicle named Voyager and interstellar exploration.

This is the same type of pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo that exploiters of the public purse have been doing with climate change over many years. It is arrant nonsense and has to stop right here and now. The Herald does itself no favours by printing it, pretending that the sci-fi exaggerations are factual.

[B]Bill Thomas[/B] Cabramatta[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=TheMawn;356004]I should have made myself a bit clearer regarding the free speech thing. Not so much that papers are forced to publish whatever letters they want but it kind of does look bad when you publish only the stuff that coincides with your own opinions.[/QUOTE]"Looking bad" isn't a free-speech issue. :-)

As for "publish only the stuff that coincides with your own opinions", I pointed out that it was only a different site, not the LA Times site, that (erroneously) stated that the LA Times would not publish letters from "climate deniers". The LA Times wasn't refusing to publish letters from "climate deniers" or letters that didn't coincide with editorial opinion; it was refusing to publish factual errors.

A "climate denier" may opine that the signs of human influence on climate change are not sufficient to convince himself that the AGW theory is correct, but stating that there are no such signs is a counterfactual statement, not an opinion.

If a "climate denier" opines that the signs of human influence on climate change are not sufficient to convince himself (or anyone else) that the AGW theory is correct, that opinion can be published and legitimately debated.

If a "climate denier" (or anyone else) claims that there are no such signs, a generous first response could be to link to lists of such signs (as I did above, as an example) in order to correct a possible case of ignorance (which is not a sin). If the "climate denier" (or anyone else) thereafter continues to assert that no-such-signs claim after being shown that it is factually false (which could be from general public information or the paper's archives; the paper is not obligated to keep repeating that to each new claimant), then he is closing the door to legitimate debate and needs to yield editorial-page space to fact-acknowledgers.

[QUOTE=only_human;355821][URL="http://www.salon.com/2013/10/09/the_la_times_wont_publish_letters_from_climate_deniers/"]The L.A. Times won’t publish letters from climate deniers[/URL] [noparse][salon.com][/noparse][/QUOTE]

Refusing to publish letters from wackos who deny the existence of climate does seem a rather sensible thing to do. Does that even need an official statement of policy? Do they similarly need to explain that "we do not publish letters from gravity deniers"?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;356585]Refusing to publish letters from wackos who deny the existence of climate does seem a rather sensible thing to do. Does that even need an official statement of policy? Do they similarly need to explain that "we do not publish letters from gravity deniers"?[/QUOTE]

In my opinion, you come across a bit like a "wacko".

Are you, personally, familiar with the term "manage the message"?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;356585]Refusing to publish letters from wackos who deny the existence of climate does seem a rather sensible thing to do. Does that even need an official statement of policy? Do they similarly need to explain that "we do not publish letters from gravity deniers"?[/QUOTE]I don't know. There is a petition in the works to get several other newspapers to act the same ([URL="http://cleantechnica.com/2013/10/14/la-times-refuses-publish-climate-denial-will-newspapers/"]LA Times Refuses To Publish Climate Denial, Will Other Newspapers?[/URL]). That has a odor of politics though. I failed to find something that I'd read recently about the shrinking and shuttering of science coverage in newspapers but that isn't really on the topic of opinion letters in the newspapers anyway. Newspapers are failing to inform on science. If there was a political or pecuniary purpose to denying gravity, there would be plenty of denial of it in newspapers.

:goodposting:[B]![/B]

[QUOTE=chalsall;356586]In my opinion, you come across a bit like a "wacko".[/QUOTE]

And another attempt at humor is lost on the reading-comprehensionless.

(I'm not sure if Kieren's ! is a reference to this, or some other exclamatory item.)

My reference landed in proper relation to Ross's post just above it. My endorsement applied to his statement that-
[QUOTE]Newspapers are failing to inform on science. If there was a political or pecuniary purpose to denying gravity, there would be plenty of denial of it in newspapers.[/QUOTE]
and to his post in general. I was quite amused by the second sentence quoted above.

[QUOTE=kladner;356625]My reference landed in proper relation to Ross's post just above it. My endorsement applied to his statement that-

and to his post in general. I was quite amused by the second sentence quoted above.[/QUOTE]Thank you.

Well, contrary to the global warming, the gravity is true... There are however, "deniers" of its cause, like some guys are blaming the thermodynamics, so all my playing cards castle, built in years of school, about "the 4 forces, blah blah" is going to collapse :smile:...

Same as some people don't deny the global warming, but its causes, and most of them deny its consequences. Assuming is so. And so what? For the most of the world this may be actually good...

[QUOTE=LaurV;356639]Well, contrary to the global warming, the gravity is true...[/QUOTE]

So what is your position on the controversy as to whether the ocean level is actually rising?

Well, I actually came to this forum for math/gimps/numbers-related stuff... I respect some people here, and I got some people to respect me, some not to.

Don't make me get banned... :razz:

[QUOTE=ewmayer;356585]Refusing to publish letters from wackos who deny the existence of climate does seem a rather sensible thing to do. Does that even need an official statement of policy?[/quote]It needed to be announced because it was a [i]change[/i] in LA Times policy. They previously had not screened out letters that were counterfactual about this particular subject.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;356651]It needed to be announced because it was a [I]change[/I] in LA Times policy. They previously had not screened out letters that were counterfactual about this particular subject.[/QUOTE]
Yes, policy change, loose change, change the bedding, we're all going through the winds of change. And the climate? Well, that's just the climate, isn't it?:wink:

[QUOTE=LaurV;356639]Well, contrary to the global warming, the gravity is true... [/QUOTE]

Not trying to get you banned, or anything. I'm just curious about Bangkok's altitude above sea level. :whistle:

[QUOTE=cheesehead;356651]It needed to be announced because it was a [i]change[/i] in LA Times policy. They previously had not screened out letters that were counterfactual about this particular subject.[/QUOTE]

Still not getting it - read the wording carefully.

I seem to be the only one amused by the concept of "climate denial". (Maybe the rest of you are from the moon, where such a position is more sensible.)

[QUOTE=ewmayer;356698]Still not getting it - read the wording carefully.

I seem to be the only one amused by the concept of "climate denial". (Maybe the rest of you are from the moon, where such a position is more sensible.)[/QUOTE]
I think cheesehead got it.
What doesn't show up when you quote someone is italicized text.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;356701]I think cheesehead got it.
What doesn't show up when you quote someone is italicized text.[/QUOTE]

I saw him use the key word, but it seemed to describe the paper's policies. If Richard did indeed get it, kudos for deadpanning it this way.

[Ah, and only just now read Bian-E's edit-comment in #1046). Too much slipping-in of the Italian texters today. Mamma mia!

[QUOTE=ewmayer;356702]I saw him use the key word, but it seemed to describe the paper's policies. If Richard did indeed get it, kudos for deadpanning it this way.

[Ah, and only just now read Bian-E's edit-comment in #1046). Too much slipping-in of the Italian texters today. Mamma mia![/QUOTE]
He'll be delighted with the kudos, I'm sure.

Kieren, consider your challenge executed.:smile:

[QUOTE=only_human;356628]Thank you.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][I]Last fiddled with by only_human on 18 Oct 13 at 00:14 Reason: Deleted Iddlesleigh ideation about a preponderance of "P"s in my scrivening. [/I][/QUOTE]Hah! I just esPied the RfE re-Produced above. I now better perceive your plenitude of "P"s! :P

EDIT: Well Played, Brian! Bravo, me Bucko! :chappy:

[QUOTE=kladner;356707]Hah! I just esPied the RfE re-Produced above. I now better perceive your plenitude of "P"s! :P

EDIT: Well Played, Brian! Bravo, me Bucko! :chappy:[/QUOTE]
A veritable P soup. One time on a trip in California, the fog got so bad that we pulled over and had [URL="http://www.peasoupandersens.net/"]Anderson's Pea Soup[/URL]. I was just a kid and my father tried denying inclement weather in front of his face, up to a dangerous U-turn in fog, but the soup was good.

It is amazing what things people will deny. One news-hour, I saw someone demonstrating his flame-resistant roof tiles with a blow-torch and the tiles caught fire -- contrary to his fervent denials.

In affairs of the heart, many people deny the situation when caught transgressing, even to the point of getting others to question their own perceptions.

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Parrot_sketch"]Monty Python's dead parrot sketch[/URL] grew out of real life experience with a car salesman.[QUOTE]The "Dead Parrot" sketch was inspired by a "Car Salesman" sketch that Palin and Chapman had done in How to Irritate People. In it, Palin played a car salesman who repeatedly refused to admit that there was anything wrong with his customer's (Chapman) car, even as it fell apart in front of him. That sketch was based on an actual incident between Palin and a car salesman.[/QUOTE]
Recently we got denials that the economy has a button that must not be pressed. It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.

[URL="http://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2010/11/08/lhc_heavy_ions_and_button_tomfoolery/"]Reg hack in large-red-button LHC control room incident[/URL][QUOTE]An incident during preparations for the change to heavy-ion operation, in which a visiting journalist* was unable to resist the temptation to press a large red button during a tour of the control room at the ATLAS experiment, appears not to have had any serious effects. [...]

*Your correspondent, in fact (cough) - during a press trip to CERN last month. Having pressed the frankly irresistible button there was an initially alarming moment when a rotating red emergency light fired up, seeming to presage a brief and violent future of being trampled by stampeding boffins and hacks, earthquakes as the planet began to implode, possible unpleasantness featuring time-dislocated dinosaurs or parallel-universe Nazis etc, all abruptly ended by oblivion at the hands of the burgeoning monopole-custard boundary, black hole or collaptic devil particle soup event horizon etc.

(Emergency flasher goes off at CERN's Large Hadron Collider facility
Uh oh)

However in a case of life imitating art, the relevant console then effectively lit up a tiny sign saying "please do not press this button again" in Douglas Adams style and the alarm light went out.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=kladner;356674]Not trying to get you banned, or anything. I'm just curious about Bangkok's altitude above sea level. :whistle:[/QUOTE]
Who give a drop of flood about bkk? People from here go there periodically to shit around the parliament building (this is not a joke :smile:) every time when the politicians there promote some stupid law. Over one million ppl moved from Bkk to here around after the floods last year. No need any global warming to erase that city from the maps, locals there are able to do this by themselves, very efficient.

To answer (partially) to your question, my current altitude is 380 meters. If the story about global warming is true, then I will move to Siberia. The hell for some will be heaven for others...

380 meters ought to be safe from the sea for the remaining lifetimes of those reading or writing here. However, it might well be that Siberian latitudes become much more temperate. Then again, who really knows how particular areas will shake out in an ongoing warm up?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;356703]He'll be delighted with the kudos, I'm sure.

Kieren, consider your challenge executed.:smile:[/QUOTE]Wrong.

- -

[QUOTE=ewmayer;356698]Still not getting it - read the wording carefully.

[/QUOTE]Ernst,

I did read it carefully, the first time.

(* sigh *) I was doing you the favor of supposing (i.e., [I]trusting[/I]) that you'd accidentally omitted or substituted a word or words, not that you were being deliberately tricky.

So now, I guess we all need to assume that any word of what you post (or omit) may be part of an attempted deception of readers. We need to carefully scrutinize your every message -- every line, every word -- if we want not to be deceived by you.

Your habitual deceptions corrode trust -- are you proud of that?

Is it just that you get such a kick out of deceiving folks that you don't care about knowledgeable trust and value only mistaken trust by folks who don't know you well enough?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;356779]Do you even understand the concept and value of trust, or is it just that you want not to be trusted by anyone who's familiar with your deception habit because you get such a kick out of deceiving all the other folks?[/QUOTE]

If I May... To feed back into this feedback loop...

I trust Ernst more than I do you for sane and sound argument.

Having said that, I find neither of you completely sound nor sane. (Just for the short of humor, that's meant to be funny.)

[QUOTE=cheesehead;356779](* sigh *) I was doing you the favor of supposing (i.e., [I]trusting[/I]) that you'd accidentally omitted or substituted a word or words, not that you were being deliberately tricky.

So now, I guess we all need to assume that any word of what you post (or omit) may be part of an attempted deception of readers. We need to carefully scrutinize your every message -- every line, every word -- if we want not to be deceived by you.

Your habitual deceptions corrode trust -- are you proud of that?[/QUOTE]

He's funny. I like it. Sorry you didn't get the joke. I don't agree that witticisms erode trust - and I don't agree that witticisms are deceptions. I think that humorlessness erodes enjoyment.

PS. Ernst didn't leave a word out, like you supposed. The headline writer left a work out. Ernst just responded to the headline as written. Although explaining jokes gets tiresome for everybody very rapidly - how about a simple apology for missing the joke and we all move on?

[QUOTE=wblipp;356787]I don't agree that witticisms erode trust[/QUOTE]... nor do I. I didn't claim that witticisms erode trust.

[quote]and I don't agree that witticisms are deceptions.[/quote]... nor do I. I didn't claim that witticisms are deceptions.

It was Ernst's previous history of deception that eroded trust. I do apologize for being "in a hurry" when composing and editing that post, and not being clearer.

[quote]PS. Ernst didn't leave a word out,[/quote]No, he didn't.

[quote]like you supposed.[/quote]"Climate deniers" is a frequent headline-abbreviation (in other forums with a climate theme) for "global warming deniers" or "anthropogenic global warming deniers". I"m accustomed to seeing that, so I casually treated Ernst's "deny the existence of climate" as though it were similar. (Later, I sloppily described that treatment as "accidentally omitted or substituted a word or words" instead of "reworded a frequent headline abbreviation" -- which made things worse.)

I gave Ernst's first sentence ("Refusing to publish letters from wackos who deny the existence of climate does seem a rather sensible thing to do.") little importance. I shouldn't even have quoted it in my post #1045, because my response was solely to his second sentence ("Does that even need an official statement of policy?").

I chose to respond to "need an official statement of policy" with a statement of why the LA Times statement needed publishing, never imagining the chain of misunderstandings that could ensue.

[quote]Although explaining jokes gets tiresome for everybody very rapidly[/quote]Not quite as tiresome as composing (or reading!) a third response to explain the misunderstandings that resulted when I didn't take time to be clear when I posted my first and second responses.

[quote]how about a simple apology for missing the joke and we all move on?[/quote]I'm sorry I missed the joke (though I guess I should be flattered by the extent of concern that this oversight needed to be brought to my attention in order to ensure that I hadn't missed something of importance to me). I'm sorry I quoted a sentence to which my response did not pertain. I'm sorry I responded to Ernst's response to a preceding response. I'm sorry I was ever "in a hurry". I'm sorry I didn't make my posts clear enough so as not to easily allow misunderstandings. I'm sorry it takes so many words to explain my previous posts and correct misunderstandings. I apologize for every mistake I've ever made in the mersenneforum.org forum. Q.E.D. (You didn't forbid appending other apologies to the simple one.)

Richard, it's OK. No matter how we chide each other and jostle to see who can place or catch a witticism, we are talking about issues we care about with people whose opinions matter to us (modulo quibbles).

It's all good. We have a long slide before we are standing members of the House Science Committee declaiming that "All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell."

As long as we don't go as far around the bend as those gummint hacks do, then quibbles, banter and minor bickering is a verbal tag game to see who is paying attention and to score mock points for minor ribbing while we also present information and colorful baubles for each other to turn over and examine.

I'm sorry too about things along the way and will be sorry for things in the future (if the past is any guide).

You have not lost my respect -- not even close. Regards, Ross.

To add to Richard's last remarks: my apologies to all concerned for my misinterpretion the situation too. I [I]really[/I] got it wrong this time.

Ross: I had a laugh at your phrase in parentheses "modulo quibbles" (and appreciated the rest of your post and other people's posts too).

It's always hard to know at what point quibbles stop adding to the atmosphere and humour and start to be destructive. I can't get my head around it.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;356838]
It's always hard to know at what point quibbles stop adding to the atmosphere and humour and start to be destructive. I can't get my head around it.[/QUOTE]
Good. The main point of quibbles and word play, IMAO, is to get the reader to think about the words as written and what they might mean. The boundary should be malleable because it is to the benefit of both parties.

See the Hippy Bimbo thread for a recent example where some deliberate malapropisms led to an educational experience.

I'm really glad I spent yesterday afternoon at a winetasting in the Saratoga foothills, otherwise I would likely have checked in here and gotten thoroughly depressed as a result.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;356816]It was Ernst's previous history of deception that eroded trust.[/QUOTE]
Given that you apparently are unable to distinguish between both humorous wordplay and legitimate differences on matters of opinion and malicious deception and further assume-the-latter-as-default when in doubt, no wonder you feel yourself as being the victim of "an evil campaign of deception".

[QUOTE]I do apologize for being "in a hurry" when composing and editing that post, and not being clearer.[/QUOTE]
Given your long-established history of difficulty at the above distinctions, may I suggest "Remaining silent when not 100% sure about poster intent" as a better strategy than repeatedly blowing up threads and forcing others to gently and patiently lead you by the hand through your misapprehensions?

When one can no longer safely make a mild play on words in the bloody Soap Box subforum, the inmates really are running the asylum. I understand now why folks like Alex and George no longer venture near this nuthouse (Alex the forum as a whole, George the Soapbox).

Ernst's posting above has concerned me enough to start a [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=18722"]new thread[/URL] about our discussions on mersenneforum.org and especially here in the soap box. If the supermods have no objection, perhaps the above chain of discussion plus other issues about soap box discussion in general could transfer to that new thread? And this thread can then return to matters concerning Global Warming and its scientific evidence?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;356879]Given that you apparently are unable to distinguish between both humorous wordplay and legitimate differences on matters of opinion and malicious deception[/QUOTE]Folks,

A skilled verbal manipulator like Ernst who is afraid of my public exposures of his deceptions will try and try and try again to fool you into mistrusting his critic. It doesn't bother him to lie to you.

Always remember to check the evidence versus what Ernst claims.

[quote]Given your long-established history of difficulty at the above distinctions, may I suggest "Remaining silent when not 100% sure about poster intent" as a better strategy than repeatedly blowing up threads and forcing others to gently and patiently lead you by the hand through your misapprehensions?[/quote]Folks,

Notice the smoothness of Ernst's manipulations, the little misdirections and exaggerations he slips in when posting hostilely about me.

I wrote "I do apologize for being "in a hurry" when composing and editing that post, and not being clearer". Ernst claims that I have difficulty at the "above distinctions". What distinctions? Distinctions between being in a hurry and not being clearer? I have no trouble with distinguishing that those are different.

See? Ernst hopes you won't think too much about what he says, [I]that you won't stop to figure out that "above distinctions" doesn't really apply to my sentence that he quoted[/I], that you'll just accept his assertion of "long-established history of difficulty at the above distinctions" as being a factually correct indication that I ... something-negative (what? -- Maybe you should ask Ernst what he means. Don't be surprised if he gives an evasive response.).

Character assassination proceeds in little deceptive bits and pieces. Evidence is what distinguishes truth from fiction. I urge you to check the evidence rather than accepting Ernst's assertions as fact.

You're always welcome to check the evidence about what I post, too. After a while, you'll notice a systematic difference between what I post about Ernst and what Ernst posts about me.

[U]Ernst doesn't (because he can't) point out where I try to deceive you.[/U]

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/11/01/only-tea-party-members-believe-climate-change-is-not-happening-new-pew-poll-finds/[/url]

Motivated by the recent massive cold weather pattern over most of the central & eastern US, I did a little digging yesterday into historical temperature extremes for the area in which I grew up, Akron OH. Here are the recorded extremes for each day in January stretching back around 150 years, with each column having a "years before present" annotation I added. I wanted to discern whether there was any appreciable skew in the occurrence pattern of record lows and highs. Here are the data:
[code] Historical Temperature Extremes
Jan Max YBP Min YBP
01 63 °F (1985) 29 -05 °F (1968) 46
02 63 °F (2000) 14 -04 °F (1979) 35
03 60 °F (1897) 117 -06 °F (1979) 35
04 64 °F (1997) 17 -06 °F (1981) 33
05 64 °F (1997) 17 -10 °F (1904) 110
06 65 °F (1946) 68 -10 °F (2014) 0
07 64 °F (2008) 6 -11 °F (2014) 0
08 64 °F (2008) 6 -10 °F (1942) 72
09 63 °F (1946) 68 -06 °F (1970) 44
10 58 °F (1975) 39 -10 °F (1982) 32
11 63 °F (1890) 124 -09 °F (1979) 35
12 64 °F (1916) 98 -07 °F (1918) 96
13 68 °F (2005) 9 -13 °F (1912) 102
14 68 °F (1932) 82 -05 °F (1964) 50
15 63 °F (1932) 82 -11 °F (1972) 42
16 55 °F (1953) 61 -16 °F (1982) 32
17 59 °F (1952) 62 -22 °F (1982) 32
18 63 °F (1929) 85 -22 °F (1994) 20
19 68 °F (1907) 107 -25 °F (1994) 20
20 62 °F (1974) 40 -24 °F (1985) 29
21 69 °F (1906) 108 -24 °F (1985) 29
22 72 °F (1906) 108 -13 °F (1936) 78
23 73 °F (1906) 108 -15 °F (1963) 51
24 65 °F (1909) 105 -21 °F (1963) 51
25 70 °F (1950) 64 -14 °F (1897) 117
26 66 °F (1950) 64 -11 °F (1897) 117
27 67 °F (1916) 98 -09 °F (1936) 78
28 60 °F (2002) 12 -13 °F (1977) 37
29 64 °F (1975) 39 -13 °F (1977) 37
30 66 °F (2013) 1 -06 °F (1965) 49
31 62 °F (2002) 12 -05 °F (1948) 66

Avg YPB (Max) = 59.7
Avg YPB (Min) = 50.8[/code]
On average, the record low occurrences are nearly a decade more recent than the highs. Interesting.

Now clearly the 2 recent new record lows have reduced the YBP average for the low column, so I also dug up the years in which the previous record lows for 6 and 7 January occurred - those were 1970 and 1924, respectively, so if we "ignore the new 2 data points" the resulting YBP average on the record-low column is 55.1. Possibly a statistical blip - it would be interesting to see similar recency-of-record data for a wide variety of locales.