Washington Post Stands By Climate Change Denialism
For those who are late to the party, recently George Will wrote a column claiming, most broadly, that in the 1970s there was a scientific consensus that the world was suffering from “global cooling” that was as firm as the current consensus about global warming. This is false. Will also made a number of additional, subsidiary factual errors that have been documented elsewhere. Yesterday, the Post finally responded to complaints about the column, sending a reply to my colleague Brad Johnson that stands foresquare behind Will, citing the existence of a “multi-layered” process to check the facts in the article. As for why it’s okay for Will to write stuff that isn’t true, the Post didn’t have much of substance to say. They picked one of debunked subsidiary claims, and said they think Will is right, though they acknowledge that the very organization Will was citing as an authority says Will is wrong. One could say that on this subsidiary point, Will perhaps made an honest mistake that the Arctic Climate Research Center has since corrected. But the Post instead says that Will is right and the Arctic Climate Research Center wrong about what the ACRC’s own research says. Meanwhile, they have nothing whatsoever to say about the other problems with the column.
These problems, it should be said, include Will’s overarching thesis. Will wrote, and is trying to get readers of The Washington Post to believe, that there was a scientific consensus about global cooling in the 1970s. This is false. Post readers are being deceived. And the Post is standing by the deceivers.
This started as a problem for Will, his direct supervisors, and the Post’s ombudsman. But now that the Post as a paper is standing behind Will’s deceptions, I think it’s a problem for all the other people who work at the Post. Some of those people do bad work, which is too bad. And some of those people do good work. And unfortunately, that’s worse. It means that when good work appears in the Post it bolsters the reputation of the Post as an institution. And the Post, as an institution, has taken a stand that says it’s okay to claim that up is down. It’s okay to claim that day is night. It’s okay to claim that hot is cold. It’s okay to claim that a consensus existed when it didn’t. It’s okay to claim that George Will is a better source of authority on interpreting the ACRC’s scientific research than is the ACRC. Everyone who works at the Post, has, I think, a serious problem.
246 Responses to “Washington Post Stands By Climate Change Denialism”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 20th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
“… has taken a stand that says it’s okay to claim that up is down. It’s okay to claim that day is night. It’s okay to claim that hot is cold. It’s okay to claim that a consensus existed when it didn’t.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I thought the Bush administration had left town……….
February 20th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
“Consensus” is irrelevant to science: it only takes one scientist to prove something. The issue is the consensus of non-scientists who drive the policy debate, and on that score, Will is correct that the big fear of the Matt Yglesiases of the 1970s was Global Cooling.
February 20th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Hi Matt,
try the following procedure– which might demonstrate what you are talking about– everywhere you refer to the “Post” for the next month, change that to “the climate denialist Post” so when we see a link to “so-and-so at the climate denialist Post” it all becomes very obvious how much damage they are doing to themselves. One could even cross-link “climate denialist” back to your explanation.
February 20th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
George Will wrote a column claiming, most broadly, that in the 1970s there was a scientific consensus that the world was suffering from “global cooling” that was as firm as the current consensus about global warming.
Please quote the part of the column where you think Will said this.
Or are you lying too?
February 20th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
“But now that the Post as a paper is standing behind Will’s deceptions, I think it’s a problem for all the other people who work at the Post.”
Well, of course, the op-ed pages are different than the news pages.
The WaPo op-ed page has been unreliable for many years now. The Will episode is just further confirmation of that fact, not new info.
But I don’t think Will’s perfidy is a problem for folks who work on the WaPo’s news pages.
February 20th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
@5:
In the 1970s, “a major cooling of the planet” was “widely considered inevitable” because it was “well established” that the Northern Hemisphere’s climate “has been getting cooler since about 1950″ (New York Times, May 21, 1975). Although some disputed that the “cooling trend” could result in “a return to another ice age” (the Times, Sept. 14, 1975), others anticipated “a full-blown 10,000-year ice age” involving “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation” (Science News, March 1, 1975, and Science magazine, Dec. 10, 1976, respectively). The “continued rapid cooling of the Earth” (Global Ecology, 1971) meant that “a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery” (International Wildlife, July 1975). “The world’s climatologists are agreed” that we must “prepare for the next ice age” (Science Digest, February 1973). Because of “ominous signs” that “the Earth’s climate seems to be cooling down,” meteorologists were “almost unanimous” that “the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century,” perhaps triggering catastrophic famines (Newsweek cover story, “The Cooling World,” April 28, 1975). Armadillos were fleeing south from Nebraska, heat-seeking snails were retreating from Central European forests, the North Atlantic was “cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool,” glaciers had “begun to advance” and “growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter” (Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 27, 1974).
He’s deliberately conflating two distinct phenomena: a growing understanding of orbital mechanics in driving (over the long term) glaciation cycles, and the (vastly shorter term) cooling effect of aerosol pollution. By eliding the context he is lying- using citations for the former as if they support the latter when they did no such thing.
There was no scientific consensus of an impending ice age or catastrophic cooling during that time. If anything, there was a fledgling consensus emerging concerning anthropogenic warming.
February 20th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
The Post and Will are guilty of “suggestio falsi” by equating sea ice extent (an areal value) with total sea ice (a volumetric value).
Will didn’t equate sea ice area with sea ice volume.
February 20th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
From the VERY FIRST LINK in the post:
February 20th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
I posted this before, but I’ll do it again because, it brings climate change in with the First Law of Thermodynamics. Who knows, maybe Will, et al. will start denying that, too:
The sun emits short wave radiation to earth.
The atmosphere (composed of water vapor, CO2, and a bunch of other things) is know as a selective absorber, it absorbs long wave radiation and doesn’t absorb short wave radiation.
The short wave radiation goes through the atmosphere, the earth’s surface absorbs it, warms, then emits it again in the form of long wave radiation.
The difference in short and long wave radiation depends on the temperature of the object emitting the radiation (warmer objects emit shorter wavelengths).
This long wave radiation CAN be absorbed by the atmosphere, which warms, then re-emits the long wave back to the earths surface. This causes the earth to heat up more, which is the greenhouse effect (a natural phenomenon).
The problem is that, by the First Law of Thermodynamics, energy is neither created or destroyed, which means what goes in MUST come out. So the energy that comes into the top of the atmosphere MUST go out to space. This means that the earth must heat up to a point where the radiation it emits is of a short enough wavelength that it passes through the atmosphere.
You put more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more heat gets trapped.
Now, here’s the link to the CO2 record at the Mauna Loa observatory, which has been monitoring CO2 for more than fifty years now. This could possibly be the most famous graph when it come to discussing climate change/global warming:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html
The up and down fluxes in the yearly data correspond to seasonal differences in CO2 (plants take it up in summer, don’t in winter in the N. Hemisphere).
This is the reason why all these changes are happening. Period.
February 20th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
One could say that on this subsidiary point, Will perhaps made an honest mistake that the Arctic Climate Research Center has since corrected. But the Post instead says that Will is right and the Arctic Climate Research Center wrong about what the ACRC’s own research says.
No, the Post quotes the ACRC making a virtually identical statement to Will’s:
ACRC:
“Observed global sea ice area, defined here as a sum of N. Hemisphere and S. Hemisphere sea ice areas, is near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979,”
Will:
“According to the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.”
The claim that Will seriously misrepresented the ACRC’s statement, let alone that he “lied” about it, is absurd.
February 20th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
From the George Will column in question:
He uses the term “sea ice level” to describe the amount of ice in the ocean, without stating that he is discussing only its two-dimensional area.
February 20th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Fred: “Consensus” is irrelevant to science
Since the first five words of your spew so clearly displays your total and complete ignorance about science and the scientific process, why bother commenting? Just as a reminder that John Stuart Mill’s observation is a true today as it was 150 years ago: “”Not all conservatives are stupid people, but most stupid people are conservatives.”?
February 20th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
He’s deliberately conflating two distinct phenomena
He didn’t “conflate” anything. He cited numerous sources reporting a trend of global cooling.
February 20th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Man, fish in a barrel.
“Observed global sea ice area, defined here as a sum of N. Hemisphere and S. Hemisphere sea ice areas, is near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979,”
Will:
“According to the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.”
AREA. The sentence fragment (why did you quote a sentence fragment, mjohnson?) in that quote refers to sea ice area. The very report that quote is from goes on to state that sea ice volume is the relevant criteria for judging the sea ice levels.
February 20th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
He uses the term “sea ice level” to describe the amount of ice in the ocean,
No, he doesn’t. He doesn’t define “level” at all. You’re attributing to him a claim he never made, just like Matt.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
mjohnson — it’s abundantly clear that Will lied. Even the ombudsperson’s pitiful response makes that clear.
Will said:
“According to the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.”
ACRC:
“Observed global sea ice area, defined here as a sum of N. Hemisphere and S. Hemisphere sea ice areas, is near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979.”
“near or slightly lower” is not the same thing as “equal.” Will was asserting that, while maybe some warming occurred after 1979, weather changes & ebbs & flows, and here we are now, right back “equal” to 1979, so no problem!
The ACRC was clearly saying that we are below 1979.
And, of course, this is without getting into the fact that ACRC offered additional statements & data clarifying just how full of shit Will was.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
No, he doesn’t. He doesn’t define “level” at all.
High comedy. This is supposed to be a defense of Will?
February 20th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
More fish, smaller barrel:
He didn’t “conflate” anything.
Ahem.
“According to the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.”
According to the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, as explained in the very report from which Will’s statement was drawn, sea ice VOLUME is the appropriate measure of “sea ice levels,” not sea ice AREA.
By stating that SEA ICE LEVELS are now equal to those in 1979, he is taking a statistic that refers to SEA ICE AREA, and describing it as if it applies to SEA ICE VOLUME.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
The very report that quote is from goes on to state that sea ice volume is the relevant criteria for judging the sea ice levels.
No it doesn’t. You’re lying AGAIN.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Blam! Blam blam! Shoot, now I need a new barrel.
He doesn’t define “level” at all.
Yes, that is precisely how he goes about conflating the two concepts. He does not define “sea ice levels,” leaving the reader to think his statistic refers to the amount of ice in the sea, when in fact, it refers only to the area of sea ice.
“near or slightly lower” is not the same thing as “equal.”
In this case, it is not remotely the same thing. IIRC, the reduction was in the neighborhood of 10%, amounting to a land area larger than Texas and Oklahoma combined.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Arctic Climate Research Center, as explained in the very report from which Will’s statement was drawn, sea ice VOLUME is the appropriate measure of “sea ice levels,” not sea ice AREA.
Repeating your lie won’t make it any less of a lie. The ACRC report does not say what you claim it says. You’re lying. Stop lying, Joe.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
This is really funny. Global warming denialists are basically John Cleese in the argument skit at this point.
Another thing I enjoy is that there is apparently 100% overlap between the people who say “the earth isn’t warming” on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and those who say “global warming is due to solar variability” on Tuesdays, Thursdays and the weekend. It’s ALMOST AS IF their scientific opinions are motivated by some previously held political attitude!
February 20th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Yes, that is precisely how he goes about conflating the two concepts.
Now you’re contradicting yourself. You first claimed that Will “uses the term “sea ice level” to describe the amount of ice in the ocean.” Now you admit that Will doesn’t describe what he means by “level.” You’re hilarious, Joe. You can’t even keep your own lies straight.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
He Frankensteined together two very different phenomena operating on vastly different timescales for the purposes of creating the false appearance of scientific agreement on something that enjoyed no such agreement.
Perhaps you’d like to look up the word “conflate“. Quote mining papers discussing Milankovitch cycles alongside news clippings discussing short term aerosol dimming as though they pertain to the same phenomenon is the definition of conflation.
I’m not sure who the bigger idiot here is- Will, WaPo, or you.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
mjohnson,
Go cry to your mommy now.
Arctic summer sea ice is only
one potential indicator of
climate change, however, and
we urge interested parties to
consider the many variables and resources available when considering observed and
model-projected climate change. For example, the ice that is presently in the Arctic
Ocean is younger and thinner than the ice of the 1980s and 1990s. So Arctic ice
volume is now below its long-term average by an even greater amount than is ice extent
or area.
You know where I got that? Why, the ACRC web site, the same place that was the provenance of Will’s false, oft-refuted, thoroughly discredited claim.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
The ACRC was clearly saying that we are below 1979.
No, the ACRC said: “Observed global sea ice area, defined here as a sum of N. Hemisphere and S. Hemisphere sea ice areas, is near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979, as noted in the Daily Tech article.”
February 20th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Now you’re contradicting yourself. You first claimed that Will “uses the term “sea ice level” to describe the amount of ice in the ocean.” Now you admit that Will doesn’t describe what he means by “level.” You’re hilarious, Joe. You can’t even keep your own lies straight.
Tag you’re it no tagbacks infinity LOLZ
February 20th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Go cry to your mommy now.
Go learn how to read now. Nowhere does the ACRC report state that “sea ice VOLUME is the appropriate measure of “sea ice levels,” not sea ice AREA.” You just made that up out of thin air. You’re lying, Joe. Stop lying.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
He Frankensteined together two very different phenomena operating on vastly different timescales for the purposes of creating the false appearance of scientific agreement on something that enjoyed no such agreement.
No he didn’t.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
@33
See @8. He very clearly did.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Oh, look, the fattest fish of them all, right at the rim of the barrel.
You do know that I can just quote the Will article, right?
As global levels of sea ice declined last year, many experts said this was evidence of man-made global warming. Since September, however, the increase in sea ice has been the fastest change, either up or down, since 1979, when satellite record-keeping began. According to the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.
I know you denialists are good at not understanding things, but this speaks for itself. If “the levels of sea ice” are not supposed to refer to the amount of sea ice, what are they supposed to refer to?
There is nobody capable of operating a computer who does understand the difference between volume and area. There is nobody capable of using a computer who does not understand that Will was talking about the amount of sea ice.
Stating that he cannot have been conflating two different phenomena because he “merely” used the same term to refer to them both, rather than actually laying out an argument that they are in fact the same, is not something a serious person writes.
Fish in a barrel. Seriously, just give this one up.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
The study — in the paper Will cited — said that number was not the appropriate measure.
I just read the report and I see no statement that area is “not the appropriate measure.” johnson is right. You’re just making things up.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
There’s no serious argument about the accuracy of Will’s article.
The only thing worth discussion is what damage this has done to WaPo’s brand.
A year ago, I think I considered WaPo and NYT equally reliable news sources. That’s not at all my impression now.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Oh, this is awesome.
Nowhere does the ACRC report state that “sea ice VOLUME is the appropriate measure of “sea ice levels,” not sea ice AREA.”
You poor fool.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/global.sea.ice.area.pdf“>http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/global.sea.ice.area.pdf
That is the link reading “Statement on….” that you see when you click on the link to the ACRC site.
Just stop. I’m feeling embarrassed for you.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
This is quite ignorant. One scientist proving to himself some the truth of some hypothesis has no effect. Until he subjects his findings to peer review, he has proved nothing. Fleischman and Pons “proved” cold fusion occurs in hydrogen adsorbing materials. When they subjected their results for review, they were demonstrated to be wrong by the consesus who could not replicate their results by duplicating their methods.
George Will is contending that the present scientific consesus about global warming should be ignored because a previous consensus about global cooling was wrong. He is being dishonest in this.
If you examine the result of the alleged consensus of the “Matt Yglesiases of the 1970s”, you see that it resulted in studying the possibility and dismissing it. The dismissal was due to scientific consensus, and public acceptance of that consensus.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
You do know that I can just quote the Will article, right?
You do know that quoting Will saying X does not support your assertion that Will said Y, right?
February 20th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
well i guess we know how the post will respond to kristol’s future errors.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
You poor fool.
You poor, demented, lying fool. You seem to think that repeating your lie over and over again will somehow make it true.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
I just read the report and I see no statement that area is “not the appropriate measure.” johnson is right. You’re just making things up.
I just linked to it and quoted it!
What are you, kidding me?
February 20th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
This thread makes me laugh. Good job with the barrels, joe, but I’m sorry to have to report (and I know you’ll be shocked!) that not -everyone- is arguing in good faith.
And, and if my income is near or lower than my neighbor’s income, that means our income is equal.
I can prove that, too, if anyone’s interested.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
You know, it is really kind of pathetic to call someone a liar when their statement can be verified by anyone with a web browser. George Will definitely changed the quote from “sea ice area” to “sea ice level”. And he lifted that quote from a context that was explaining that “sea ice area” isn’t a particularly meaningful thing to measure, and that there was an expectation that sea ice area would go UP as the climate warmed.
Cites are here, with links to source material. Check it out for yourself.
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/02/the-washington-posts-multilayer-editing-process.html
February 20th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Bush may have left town, but DC is still in the grips of double-down conservatism–never admit error, never prudently shut up and move on, just doggedly stand by your lie!
February 20th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Doctor Jay:
What you oh-so conveniently overlook is that nowhere does Will define ’sea’!
Checkmate, my friend! Checkmate!
February 20th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
OK, Johnson. You keep telling yourself you don’t look like a fool, and that I haven’t demonstrated Will’s dishonesty here.
Everyone can read the thread. The links to the article, and to the ACRC, are right there for everyone to read.
Please, keep writing “nuh-uh” to your heart’s content. I’m fine letting everyone draw their own conclusions – about you, about Will, and about the underlying data.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
“But I don’t think Will’s perfidy is a problem for folks who work on the WaPo’s news pages.”
I’ve never understood why lies on last two pages of the A section of a newspaper don’t count as lies.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Joe,
Please quote the text where the ACRC says that “sea ice VOLUME is the appropriate measure of sea ice levels, not sea ice AREA.”
Thanks.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Oh, pwned! He was clearing refering to DJ C-Ice, whose record sales in 2008 were the same as those in 1979.
And as George Will and mjohnson will tell you, you can’t prove he wasn’t. No takebacks infinity.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
I’d like to hear Camille Paglia weigh in on this subject.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
From the ACRC website:
February 15, 2009
In an opinion piece by George Will published on February 15, 2009 in the Washington Post, George Will states “According to the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.”
We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Do we need to have an argument over the meaning of the word “now”?
February 20th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Why would I want to repeat my 1:10 comment?
Tell you what: I’ll quote even more:
February 20th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Joe,
I want that quote too. I read the report and it does not say what you claim it says. In fact, it refers to both volume AND area of sea ice as sea ice indicators. It says nothing to the effect that sea ice volume is “the” appropriate measure of sea ice levels or that sea ice area is “not”.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Is there NOTHING a conservative can say that is so stupid that people won’t come here to defend it? I think I already know the answer.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Notice the complete and utter absence of any attempt by the denialists to defend Will’s statement as true.
I think we probably do have to have an argument about the definition of “now,” Bloix. That would seem to be the next logical step in the progression, as the argument has consistently moved farther away from the accuracy of Will’s claims, and towards something more akin to copyediting.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Yeah. No two arrangements of words in the English language could possibly produce the same meaning. There is no way a grouping of one set of words could possibly imply what a different set of words does.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Tell you what: I’ll quote even more:
Joe, we’re still waiting for you to quote the text that says “sea ice volume is THE APPROPRIATE MEASURE of sea ice levels, NOT sea ice area.” Where is that statement?
February 20th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
I was thinking more of the fight with the Black Knight in Holy Grail.
You realize asserting that Will said Y does not change the fact that Will actually said X, don’t you?
February 20th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
You do that, Mr. Cleese. You wait right here.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Thank you. Great post.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Do we need to have an argument over the meaning of the word “now”?
Do you need someone to explain to you that “near or slightly lower” does not mean “lower.”
February 20th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
You have 2 glasses of water of equal size.
Glass A has a 1/8″ sheet of ice on its surface.
Glass B has a 3″ solid chunk of ice on its surface.
Which glass is warmer?
February 20th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Njorl understates the case.
Pons and Fleischmann published their cold fusion work in a peer reviewed journal. This elevates it to the status of wrong, as was shown in many followup papers.
There being nothing to support it in the literature, climate change denialism is not even wrong.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Near or slightly lower does not mean lower?
What the hell does it mean? Higher? The same?
Floodwaters this year are near or slightly lower than they were during the Great Flood of 1938.
If flood waters were at 11 feet in 1938, which of the following could be the level of this year’s flood waters?
A. 11 feet
B. 12 feet
C. 10 feet
D. 2 feet
February 20th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
You realize asserting that Will said Y does not change the fact that Will actually said X, don’t you?
You realize that pretending Will said X does not mean Will actually said X, don’t you?
Still waiting that quote from the ACRC report that sea ice volume is “the appropriate measure” of sea ice levels and that sea ice area is “not.” Where is it, Joe?
February 20th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
You don’t get these semantic quibbles from people who are confident of their facts.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
It’s been provided three times now, dipshit.
Please, let’s discuss his punctuation now.
I’m out.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Near or slightly lower does not mean lower? What the hell does it mean? Higher? The same?
“Near” could include either higher or lower levels. “Slightly lower ” implies a much smaller degree of change than simply “lower.”
February 20th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
It’s been provided three times now, dipshit.
Sorry, Joe, I don’t see it, either. You’ve been asked for a quote that specifically says that sea ice volume is “the appropriate measure.” You have provided no such quote. You’ve quoted lots of text that says other things, but nothing that says that volume is “the appropriate measure.”
February 20th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
OMFG.
Sea ice levels cannot be both above and below 1979 levels – can we agree on that, m. clinton?
So, “near or slightly lower than” cannot mean “higher,” since there is one level we’re talking about here, and it must be possible to describe it as “slightly lower than.”
So, “near,” which does not mean “equal to,” but rather “close to,” is a level lower than the benchmark, but even closer than “slightly lower than.”
None of those options allow for the interpretation “equal to.” Will misstated both the subject of the ACRC’s report – which was ice area, not ice levels – and what it reported on about that area.
So, therefore, the most important subject is how best to phrase the statement “Sea ice areas do not describe the amount of ice in the ocean as accurately as sea ice volume.”
The smell of desperation on this thread is nauseating.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Re: Everyone at the Post has a problem. Not sure who has the problem other than the usual suspects (Broder, Krauthammer, Hiatt, Will, Parker, Cohen, etc)nor what the problem is by I stand by Dan Froomkin as a WaPo blogger extraordinaire and E.J. Dionne as good guy opinionist.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
In the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most
relevant indicator…Arctic summer sea ice is only one potential indicator of climate change, however, and we urge interested parties to
consider the many variables and resources available when considering observed and model-projected climate change. For example, the ice that is presently in the Arctic Ocean is younger and thinner than the ice of the 1980s and 1990s. So Arctic ice volume is now below its long-term average by an even greater amount than is ice extent or area.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/global.sea.ice.area.pdf
I’m trying not to quote the entire report, but the answer has been providing something like a half dozen times already.
Shall we indulge in a discussion of what “not the most relevant indicator” means?
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick. WFT, people?
February 20th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
I think this thread is as good a place and time to publicize this Greasemonkey script I wrote.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
This little sub-dispute is like a microcosm of global warming denialism as a whole.
Nuh uh. It doesn’t say that. I don’t see it. You can’t prove it. No. No. No. No. Nuh uh. You’re lying. No. It doesn’t say that.
In the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most
relevant indicator
Is this how people making a good-faith effort to understand and discuss the truth behave?
Read the quote! READ IT!!!
February 20th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
So, if sea ice *area* is nearly the same as in 1979, but sea ice *volume* (which I suppose we’re using as a convenient proxy for mass) is not, does it follow that Will’s credibility is on thin ice?
February 20th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Matt, I don’t know how much tolerance you have for listening to right wing radio. But the specific tightening synchrony between Ingraham, Limbaugh Levine, Savage, Larson, et al and the so called print media punditry WaPo onpionists for example and the U.S. congress is more intense that I’ve ever noticed. A backlash against the siginificant repudiation of rightwing ideology by circling all the wagons on common message? Bush stood by Gonzo, Now Hiatt stands by Will. Loyalty to the base? Being right is means never having to say your wrong?
February 20th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
E.J. Dionne’s problem is that he works for a paper willing to print lies, and unwilling to acknowledge the lies even in the light of factual, objective evidence. Now, when we read E.J.Dionne, we know that he could lie with impunity. He would not need to fear public contradiction of his lies by his employer, nor any discipline from them. I think E.J. Dionne would view that as less than desireable.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Wow, how hard is this to understand?
Or is it someone’s job NOT to understand?
.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Anyway, johnson, when you apologize for calling me a liar for accurately stating Arctic Climate Research Center, as explained in the very report from which Will’s statement was drawn, sea ice VOLUME is the appropriate measure of “sea ice levels,” not sea ice AREA, or as the ACRC puts it, In the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most relevant indicator, try to be as succinct and humble as a fish can manage.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Perhaps we should just post this over and over:
Nope, I still don’t see it, either.
.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Shorter joe from lowell:
The ACRC says the sky is green and here’s a quote to prove it:
“The sky is blue.” – ACRC
February 20th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Nah. Will will just point out that he said “levels,” and that’s how he’ll weasel out.
.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
In the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most relevant indicator. – ACRC
In the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most relevant indicator. – ACRC
In the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most relevant indicator. – ACRC
In the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most relevant indicator. – ACRC
Maybe if you turn your head, and kind of squint, that isn’t a statement that global sea ice area isn’t the best indicator.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
I gotta say, the moving the goal posts the defenders are doing here is hilarious. Demanding to see the exact quote of something while giving information that means the exact same thing shows a desperate attempt to cover up incorrect knowledge.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
So, “near or slightly lower than” cannot mean “higher,” since there is one level we’re talking about here, and it must be possible to describe it as “slightly lower than.”
No, the phrase “near or slightly lower” does mean that it “must” be lower at all. You do understand the difference between “or” and “and,” don’t you?
February 20th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Hmmmmm. Looks like we need to post it again.
It’s not like we’re running out of photons.
… or illiterates.
.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Once more, with feeling: This is how you can deal with (i.e. block) trolls, people: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/41712
Only works if you have Firefox, though.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
joe from lowell,
You’ve been asked for a quote that specifically says that sea ice volume is “the appropriate measure.” You have provided no such quote. You’ve quoted lots of text that says other things, but nothing that says that volume is “the appropriate measure.”
Your latest attempt to move the goalposts, pretending that you said “more appropriate measure” rather than “the appropriate measure” is still an epic fail. The ACRC doesn’t say that volume is either “the” appropriate measure or a “more” appropriate measure.
You’ve been caught in a lie. Admit it.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
I think this is my favorite exchange:
When Johnson had just finished citing the parallel passages where Will engages in this sleight of hand, where Will changes “area” for “level.”
Johnson’s posts were eight minutes apart.
.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Of mjohnson, m.clinton, and jmo, which one do you think works for or is related to George Will?
My money’s on johnson.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Will goes on to say “Since September, however, the increase in sea ice has been the fastest change, either up or down, since 1979, when satellite record-keeping began.” This sentence falls between two that use the word “level” to refer to amounts of ice.
So, to say that George will is not using “the term “sea ice level” to describe the amount of ice in the ocean,” as Johnson does, is simply wrong.
And I suspect Johnson knows it’s wrong, but that’s the kind of people we’re dealing with here.
.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Oops! I forgot about Alan. But I think it’s more likely Alan is affiliated with Fred Hiatt or something like that. Or he may be just another global warming denialist crank.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
This reminds me of the wingnut talking point that Bush never said that Iraq was “an immanent threat” because he never used the exact phrase, only other phrases that mean the same thing.
Same idiots. Same tactics.
.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
You do understand the difference between “or” and “and,” don’t you?
Yes, I do. I further understand that it violates the laws of both physics and logic to think that a single level can be at two different levels.
Therefore, putting those two facts together, I conclude, like any literate person, that the word “or” refers not to two possible levels – one lower than something, and another higher than that same thing – but rather, to two different ways of describing a single level.
This objection is idiotic, or pointless. There is not one idiotic objection and one pointless objection; there is one objection, and it is idiotic, or pointless.
They provide the effing figures, btw. The base data shows that the area of sea ice is a half-million square miles lower in 2009 than in 1979. It is beyond dispute that sea ice area is lower than it was in 1979; which means it is beyond dispute that the phrase “near or slightly lower than” refers to a lower area of sea ice.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
joe from lowell,
You’ve been asked for a quote that specifically says that sea ice volume is “the appropriate measure.” You have provided no such quote.
OK, I’ll paste it again. It’s not like this is hard:
Please, keep drawing attention to this “dispute.” I love it.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Where are these idiots coming from? The fucking quote even explains WHY area measurements obscure the actual degree of change, which I guess is why Will used that measurement and then changed the wording to “level” to generalize further, i.e. lie.
But still the wingnuts will pretend they can’t see it.
.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Yeah, “my” moving the goalposts.
Project much?
February 20th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Looks like Hilzoy’s article has attracted some anti-science trolls, too.
.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
That picture of the seven-layer dip is making me hungry.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
God, that’s beautiful.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
[troll moves goalposts]
TROLL: Why are you moving those goalposts?
[troll goes back to moving goalposts]
.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
OK, I’ll paste it again.
You can post it as many times as you like. It doesn’t support your claim that the ACRC says that sea ice volume is “THE APPROPRIATE MEASURE” of sea ice levels. It doesn’t even support your new claim that the ACRC says that sea ice volume is a “more” appropriate measure.
We’re still waiting for quotes that support those claims. Where are they? You don’t have them, do you? Because you’re attributing to the ACRC statements that it did not make. You’re lying. Stop lying, Joe.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
I am convinced that these deniers are spoofs playing with joe from Lowell.
No one can be that reading comprehension impaired and be capable of breathing.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
February 20th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
joe from lowell,
Please shows us where the ACRC says that sea ice volume is “the appropriate measure” of sea ice levels.
Thanks.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
In the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most relevant indicator
…
For example, the ice that is presently in the Arctic Ocean is younger and thinner than the ice of the 1980s and 1990s. So Arctic ice volume is now below its long-term average by an even greater amount than is ice extent or area.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
No. You’re wrong. Nuh uh. It totally doesn’t say that. You’re wrong. Uh uh. Nope. Sorry.
AND STOP CALLING ME A DENIALIST! I’M NOT A DENIALIST! I’m not. Nope. Uh uh. You’re wrong. Nope. Look it up. Sorry. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Back to the exact quote dodge, eh? Not like I didn’t see that coming.
It explains that exactly, by showing that a change in total ice is masked by a thin ice sheet that hasn’t changed nearly as much in area.
Or maybe the troll is disputing three dimensional space?
.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Yes, I do. I further understand that it violates the laws of both physics and logic to think that a single level can be at two different levels.
No one has suggested that “a single level can be two different levels.” The phrase “near or slightly lower” allows for both a higher level and a lower level.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Ignorance is their only argument.
.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
I’m beginning to understand how you people manage to look at an annual mean temperature graph and conclude that there’s no global warming.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
joe from lowell,
“GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most relevant indicator”
does not mean:
“sea ice VOLUME is the appropriate measure of “sea ice levels,” not sea ice AREA.”
We’re still waiting for a quote from the ACRC that makes that second claim.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
The best part about watching someone use an argument like this is how pure it is. It’s not an attempt to argue counter facts or figures, rather, it’s pure semantics. Pedantry at its, um, finest?
February 20th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
AND STOP CALLING ME A DENIALIST!
I haven’t seen anyone call you a denialist. You’ve been called a liar, because you’re lying.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
That was first posted at 1:10, above. It has been repeated several times.
Have a nice day.
.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
That was a joke. And I can see why you missed it:
… because you’re a moron.
Information: supplied. You: still running.
.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Wow.
There you go, that’s why they can’t understand. Cause even parody goes over their head.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
I’ll bet $5 that all the denialists posting to this thread are sitting at the same computer.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Exactly. If he had narrowly altered the wording, like george Will, he would have been lying, like george Will. Instead, Joe offered his own paraphrase and backed up his conclusion from the report, repeatedly.
The anti-science trolls are just repeating the same stupid question over and over. I guess that’s where they’ve decided to hide.
.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
It explains that exactly, by showing that a change in total ice is masked by a thin ice sheet that hasn’t changed nearly as much in area.
More lies. It doesn’t rank the “appropriateness” of the two indicators at all, nor does it provide any description of the magnitude of the difference in change.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
It’s worse than that. For the multiheaded troll poster (it’s gotten really obvious by now, chief) not to understand that that was a joke, he would have had to read this:
as something someone might earnestly write.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
I would say that the volume of trolling and sophistry on this thread is THE APPROPRIATE MEASURE of the defensibility of Will’s claims.
If one of the denialists would like to make a positive argument that surface area is a more appropriate measure of how much fucking ice there is in the sea than volume, I’d be glad to point them to the nearest physics teacher.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
I looked back through the thread and the original use of the phrase is as a paraphrase.
It’s not a paraphrase, it’s a false claim of fact. The ACRC did not say that volume is “the appropriate measure” either using those exact words or using different words. The claim is pure invention by joe from lowell. He’s lying about what the ACRC said.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
It’s called the measure of three dimensional space. If something has the same measure of area as something else, yet contains less volume than something else, it is, therefore, less than the other thing.
Ergo, using area to measure the total ice is pointless.
There is my attempt at reasonable explanation.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Lies! More lies!
Let’s move on.
Will made a number of erroneous assertions in that column, which have been thoroughly debunked. Among these is the assertion that there was a consensus among scientists in the 1970s that we were experiencing a significant cooling trend. As a result of that gross misstatement, we’ve all now seen a literature review demonstrating that articles suggesting global warming were several times more common than articles suggesting global cooling, even back then.
Not even the denialists on this thread have even attempted to rebut that point.
Does this mean that it is now dead? So plainly debunked, by evidence so irrefutable, than even the people insisting that the ACRC hasn’t stated that sea ice volume is the best measure of global sea ice refuse to defend it?
February 20th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
joe from lowell,
Please shows us where the ACRC says that sea ice volume is “the appropriate measure” of sea ice levels.
Thanks.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
The ACRC explained why one measure would measure the change and why another wouldn’t.
As a denialist, I can see why you’d insist on using a measure that doesn’t measure change, and why you’d lie about a passage that explains why that’s a bad idea.
.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
That’s gotta be a bot. It’s not even human.
.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Wow, this thread is bizarro. Question to mjohnson: Does the phrase “near or slightly lower” have the same meaning as the word “equal”?
February 20th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Lol, they just won’t stop.
Everybody can read the quote, and everybody can go to the page. One would think this would deter them from claiming the quote hasn’t been provided. One would be wrong. One would be mis-underestimating them.
It’s the whole “reality-based” vs. “reality-creating” thing. They think that if they say something enough, it will become true. If enough people keep saying I haven’t provided that quote, then somehow, I will not have provided it. Who cares if anyone can skim the thread and see it pasted, over and over again? There are a number of people all saying that I have not, so I have not.
And if you can’t actually find a number of people to say that, just keep posting under different handles. Then everybody will THINK there are a number of people who are saying that, and it will work just as well.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
From the ACRC report:
The “sea ice extent” that the ACRC says is the “most significant response” to increasing GHG concentrations is sea ice AREA, not sea ice volume.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
and more than that, they said In the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most relevant indicator.
which generates the reply It doesn’t rank the “appropriateness” of the two indicators at all
Bizarro indeed.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Does the phrase “near or slightly lower” have the same meaning as the word “equal”?
No, but it does have the same meaning as “nearly equal.”
February 20th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
No, but Johnson tried to pretend that George Will had not made that claim.
That was fun!
.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Poor Joe from Lowell. Trying to fight the stupids with facts and plain English. You have to stop projecting your own desire to understand on to others, Joe, or you’ll drive yourself nuts.
I mean they seem completely unaware that the only reason you even bother to measure ice surface area is because you want know how much fucking ice there is.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
The ACRC explained why one measure would measure the change and why another wouldn’t.
No, it didn’t “explain” that. It didn’t even assert it.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
That was with reference to model projections, as in the future. Will’s assertions concerned observed phenomena in the past.
.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Posted. Above.
You are now in denial of the English language.
.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Thanks James. So not only does the ACRC say nothing to support Joe’s claims that volume is “the” appropriate measure of sea ice levels, or even merely a “more” appropriate measure than area, it directly contradicts Joe’s claims.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
That was with reference to model projections, as in the future.
Yes, the period 1979-2005 is clearly “in the future.”
February 20th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Here’s the paragraph that Johnson says George Will didn’t write:
The denialists are in denial. This is not news.
.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
I want to know how much fucking ice there is in the sea. Should I only measure the part I can see? Or should I also measure its thickness? Hmmm.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
james,
No, the ACRC reports that “climate models suggest that” the most significant RESPONSE BY THE CLIMATE to global warming will be a lessening of the sea ice extent. This is NOT a statement about what the ACRC thinks, but what climate models show. More importantly, this is not a statement about the best data to consider to determine the extent of climate change, but about what will happen to the globe as a result of warming.
Both before and after that statement, the ACRC discusses what variables are best to use:
In the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most relevant indicator…Arctic summer sea ice is only
one potential indicator of
climate change, however, and
we urge interested parties to
consider the many variables and resources available when considering observed and
model-projected climate change. For example, the ice that is presently in the Arctic
Ocean is younger and thinner than the ice of the 1980s and 1990s. So Arctic ice
volume is now below its long-term average by an even greater amount than is ice extent
or area.
The first statement is about what climate change models predict will happen to global ice as a result of global warming; that this ice cap will behave like this. The quotes I provided, on the other hand, are about a different question: what measurements the ACRC considers to be the most relevant for determining the effects of ongoing climate change.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Wrong sentence, dumbass. The one you emphasized has a verb of being in it. Can you tell me what the tense of the bolded verb is?
When you’ve finished, help Johnson. He doesn’t seem to be able to read very well.
.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Arjuna: ACRC, I am measuring global sea ice in terms of area. Is this the most relevant way to measure, in terms of climate change?
ACRC: “In the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most relevant indicator.”
Arjuna: Oh crap. That means I am measuring incorrectly. Tell me, ACRC, what way would be more appropriate?
ACRC: “consider the many variables and resources available when considering observed and model-projected climate change.”
Arjuna: Oh, that makes things more complicated. If I am not looking at global area, because it isn’t appropriate. I have to look at a lot of different things. Give me one example of something more appropriate to look at, please.”
ACRC: “Arctic ice volume”
Arjuna: “Why Arctic is volume, instead of area?”
ACRC: “Arctic ice volume is now below its long-term average by an even greater amount than is ice extent or area.”
Arjuna: So the volume decreased more than the area. Why is that important?
ACRC: “there have been some recent studies suggesting the amount of sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere may initially increase”
Arjuna: I don’t understand. If we are seeing global warming, the sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere increases?
ACRC: “sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere may initially increase as a response to atmospheric warming through increased evaporation and subsequent snowfall onto the sea ice.”
Arjuna: So the warmer it gets, the more evaporation there is, and therefore the more snowfall. Tell me, ACRC, is this only in the Southern Hemisphere?
ACRC: “observed N. Hemisphere sea ice area is
almost one million sq. km below values seen in late 1979 and S. Hemisphere sea ice area is about 0.5 million sq. km above that seen in late 1979, partly offsetting the N. Hemisphere reduction.”
Arjuna: So globally, we won’t see much change. But we’ll see more in the Southern Hemisphere, and less in the Northern Hemisphere. Is this consistent with predictions?
ACRC: “Global climate model
projections suggest that the
most significant response of the
cryosphere to increasing
atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations will be seen in
Northern Hemisphere summer
sea ice extent. Recent
decreases of N. Hemisphere
summer sea ice extent (green
line at right) are consistent with
such projections.”
Arjuna: Thank you ARCR, you are most wise indeed!
February 20th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
No dog in this fight, but this thread is annoying. Surely the statement is saying that global area may not be the best indicator because eg. Northern area might be a better indicator. The problem isn’t *area*, as I read it, but *global.* And *then* they *also* go on to observe that it might be a mistake just to look at area however you do that, because maybe we should look at eg. volume too. Also both global area and Northern volume are lower than they were. Doesn’t seem to address global volume but maybe they do so elsewhere? Haven’t tried to track it down.
Civility would have helped straighten out some pointless disagreements earlier.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Thanks joe from Lowell. So not only does the ACRC say nothing to support johnson’s claims, it directly contradicts johnson’s claims.
(I’m so smrt, nobody’s gonna figure this out!)
February 20th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
So if “near or slightly lower” means “nearly equal”, is the phrase “nearly equal” the same as the term “equal”?
February 20th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
But the troll cut that part off.
Nice.
We are not dealing with honest people.
.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Ordinarily, I’d agree with you. But this argument didn’t start today. One could be sure that they were dishonest when they took the position they did.
What respect should we show dishonest people?
.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Wow. This thread is hilarious. Definitely Monty Pythonesque. Some kind of horrible hybrid of the black knight and the dead parrot. (And way to fight the good fight, Joe, although I think you could have saved yourself a good deal of work with just a couple of cut and paste macros…)
The “sea ice extent” that the ACRC says is the “most significant response” to increasing GHG concentrations is sea ice AREA, not sea ice volume.
I’m convinced that being a denialist basically involves equally parts poor reading comprehension and hippie hatred. This is the former:
“significant” in that quote very plainly means something like “dramatic” or “visible”, NOT the sense in Joe’s paraphrase, which is more like “useful” or “indicative”.
Of course, more than that, that sentence refers to NORTHERN hemisphere ice. And northern hemisphere ice cover is indeed a useful indicator.
It’s also way down, which is why Will had to lie with GLOBAL figures instead.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
So, nothing at all on the “global cooling consensus” of the 1970s?
Good! Maybe this column will turn out to be a net positive, if that lie is dead.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
A few random things to mention:
In the sea ice world, “area” and “extent” aren’t the same thing — satellite measurements report the concentration of ice over a smallish area (forming a grid over the whole region). “Area” takes the sum of the grid areas weighted by their concentration, “extent” fully counts the area of each grid reporting 15% concentration or more.
In a perfect world, volume would be the decisive metric for obvious reasons, but it’s very difficult to measure. Area (and extent) serve as standins.
The ACRC quote above (139) talks about northern hemisphere ice extent, not global. It’s been tanking in the summer. The last two winters, it’s recovered to be more than it had been in the previous 3 or 4 years, and, indeed, the last 2 winters in the arctic have been colder than other recent winters. Not historically cold, really, but colder than usual “lately.” A trend that will result in the recovery of the lost ice? I guess you’ll have to wait and see, if that’s the only thing that will convince you.
In the 70’s, what concern regarding cooling that there was was associated with aerosols that were also causing other harmful effects to the environment such as acid rain. Everybody got together and mostly fixed the problem in the 80’s. (Yay, policy!) The statement “aerosols cause cooling” wasn’t and isn’t wrong. (Well, more appropriately, “aerosols result in a negative forcing,” I guess.) But, climate science being somewhat in it’s infancy then, there was some valid discussion over which factor, aerosols or CO2, was dominant or if they were a wash. “OMIGOD it’s an Ice Age!” was indeed a Newsweek cover, but I’d imagine if you did a survey over their whole history, it’d be pretty embarrasing. No argument there.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
No, the ACRC reports that “climate models suggest that” the most significant RESPONSE BY THE CLIMATE to global warming will be a lessening of the sea ice extent. This is NOT a statement about what the ACRC thinks, but what climate models show.
Of course it’s a statement about what the ACRC thinks. The ACRC also points out that “recent decreases of N. Hemisphere summer sea ice extent (green line at right) are consistent with such projections.” Did you miss that part?
February 20th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
What causes people who are smart enough to troll this effectively to commit themselves to denying global warming? I guess they could be paid to do it. It’s still odd behavior.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Wrong sentence, dumbass.
Hard to believe you are this stupid, moron. You’re seriously claiming, are you, that sea ice extent observations that have already been made are “in the future,” are you?
February 20th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Of course it’s a statement about what the ACRC thinks.
Yes: they think that “climate models suggest that” we’ll see reductions in arctic ice area. They further think that the field data bear this out.
My point, which I agree I could have made clearer, is that unlike the statements about global ice volume being the best measure – which is a statement that originated with them, and represents their position on a question – the statement about what climate models show is just a straight reporting of information, and not a statement about the conclusions drawn by the ACRC.
It’s the difference between “Player X had 24, 28, and 26 home runs in the last three years” and “Slugging percentage, not home runs, is the best way to measure Player X’s run production.”
February 20th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Maybe the ACRC didn’t go into painstaking detail about the differences between volume and area because that should be really effing obvious to anyone who doesn’t live inside a Game Boy.
Perhaps the “m” in mjohnson stands for Mario?
February 20th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
“significant” in that quote very plainly means something like “dramatic” or “visible”, NOT the sense in Joe’s paraphrase, which is more like “useful” or “indicative”.
Jack Lecou is very plainly making up things he wished the ACRC had said, and ignoring what it actually said.
Of course, more than that, that sentence refers to NORTHERN hemisphere ice.
That’s right. Because according to the ACRC NORTHERN hemisphere ice extent is “the MOST SIGNIFICANT RESPONSE of the cryosphere to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.”
February 20th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
My point, which I agree I could have made clearer, is that unlike the statements about global ice volume being the best measure – which is a statement that originated with them
The statement James quoted directly contradicts your claim that “global ice volume” is the best measure.
If you had a half a brain cell, you might realize this. Sea ice volume is primarily a matter of water temperature. Sea ice area is primarily a matter of air temperature. Air temperature responds much more quickly to increases in GHG than water temperature. Hence, sea ice area is the “MOST SIGNIFICANT RESPONSE” to increases in GHG.
February 20th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Jack Lecou is very plainly making up things he wished the ACRC had said, and ignoring what it actually said.
Wow. Ben can read my mind! That’s an impressive talent. Right up there with Uri’s spoons.
I’d tell him to stay out of my head, but he clearly hasn’t even been close. I actually made that statement in good faith. Based on my interpretation of what the words mean. People do that! Weird!
(I do think joe’s baseball analogy more squarely describes the semantic distinction I was trying to make though.)
That’s right. Because according to the ACRC NORTHERN hemisphere ice extent is “the MOST SIGNIFICANT RESPONSE of the cryosphere to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Once again, in case you missed it, ACRC definitely says NORTHERN sea ice extent is an indicator of warming.
But the point is that that is a very poor rebuttal indeed to joe’s statement that GLOBAL VOLUME is a better indicator than GLOBAL AREA, and also a very very poor defense of Will’s column, which attempts to conflate the two as some evasive new quantity known as “global sea ice ‘level’”.
February 20th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
If you had a half a brain cell, you might realize this. Sea ice volume is primarily a matter of water temperature. Sea ice area is primarily a matter of air temperature. Air temperature responds much more quickly to increases in GHG than water temperature. Hence, sea ice area is the “MOST SIGNIFICANT RESPONSE” to increases in GHG.
To the extent that is true, it only means that ice area is the more RAPID response to (air) warming. I.e., significant only in the sense of “dramatic” or “easily visible” or “first sign”, but not necessarily in the sense of “most meaningful”.
And since we are talking about global warming, not atmospheric warming, all you’ve really done is make the argument that the most SIGNIFICANT response is therefore, again, VOLUME, since that’s reflecting increases in air AND sea temperature. (The sea being a major temperature reservoir.)
February 20th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Is this from the ACRC website, or your imagination?
February 20th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Wow. Ben can read my mind!
No, Ben can tell the difference between what the ACRC says and Jack Lecou’s misrepresentations of what it says.
Once again, in case you missed it, ACRC definitely says NORTHERN sea ice extent is an indicator of warming.
Conisdering that the statement of mine you just quoted explicitly states that the ACRC says NORTHERN sea ice is “the MOST SIGNIFICANT RESPONSE of the cryosphere to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations” I’m not sure why you think I may have missed it.
But the point is that that is a very poor rebuttal indeed to joe’s statement that GLOBAL VOLUME is a better indicator than GLOBAL AREA
The ACRC not only provides no support for joe’s statement, the ACRC directly contradicts it.
February 20th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
To the extent that is true, it only means that ice area is the more RAPID response to (air) warming. I.e., significant only in the sense of “dramatic” or “easily visible” or “first sign”, but not necessarily in the sense of “most meaningful”.
Until you provide a clear empirical definition of what you mean by “most meaningful” this statement is essentially meaningless. It’s the “most significant” but not the “most meaningful?” What the hell’s that supposed to mean?
February 20th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
In case many of you missed Arjuna’s questions, the ACRC states that measuring global ice area is a poor method of deduction because we expect to see A) an increase in ice AREA in the Southern Hemisphere and B) a decrease in ice extent in the Northern Hemisphere. Thus, while we might not see much GLOBAL change in ice, climate change models predicted this. See chart.
Therefore, George Will’s argument that GLOBAL ice measurements contradict global warming predictions is patently false. The ACRC states that global warming will cause an increase in snow in the Antarctic, and a decrease in Arctic ice. The decrease in Arctic ice, which is more important than GLOBAL ice, has been measured in both AREA, and more importantly, VOLUME.
Good God, I feel like nobody is reading!
February 20th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Even more than the death of billions of humans and the end of civilization.
Do please let us know when the death of billions of humans and the end of civilzation occurs.
February 20th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Therefore, George Will’s argument that GLOBAL ice measurements contradict global warming predictions is patently false.
Will didn’t say that. You’re lying AGAIN.
February 20th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
I can see day, and you say night,
tell me it’s black when I know that it’s white,
always the same, it’s just a shame, that’s all.
February 20th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Njorln: To say that if Will is allowed to lie without retraction by WaPo editors therefore everyone can lie at the WaPo and so you can’t trust anyone who writes opinion for the WaPo seems a misapplication of the great power of generalization and the perhaps a misuse of logic. Although I am skeptical about everything I read by opinionists everywhere I am thinking you’re reasoning is over the top here and perhaps a little hysterical.
February 20th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
No, Ben can tell the difference between what the ACRC says and Jack Lecou’s misrepresentations of what it says.
Except Ben has provided only his rather iffy mind-reading talents as evidence that his semantic interpretation is correct, and mine is not only incorrect, but mendacious.
The ACRC not only provides no support for joe’s statement, the ACRC directly contradicts it.
Let me see if I can understand how this goes…
ACRC: global sea ice cover isn’t the most relevant indicator. The models predict that while northern ice cover will shrink, southern ice Things like global ice volume, or northern ice cover are probably better, although there isn’t one indicator.
George Will: ACRC says global sea ice ‘level’ [wtf?] is still the same as the 1970’s. Checkmate fools.
joe from lowell: ACRC actually says global area is somewhat lower, but also that global area is not as good a measure as global volume
Ben: [quotes ACRC about northern ice extent] Checkmate joe! The ACRC directly contradicts you!
Is that about right?
February 20th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
The statement James quoted directly contradicts your claim that “global ice volume” is the best measure
No, dimwit, it doesn’t. I’ve explained this already, but I’ll try to use smaller words this time.
The statement James quotes is about the predicted effects of global warming. My statement, which is ACRC’s statement, is about the best way to measure global warming.
Stating that shrinking Arctic ice is “the most significant” change predicted by climate models doesn’t mean they think that is the best way to measure global warming.
This is a statement about the best way to measure global warming:
In the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most relevant indicator
…
For example, the ice that is presently in the Arctic Ocean is younger and thinner than the ice of the 1980s and 1990s. So Arctic ice volume is now below its long-term average by an even greater amount than is ice extent or area.
February 20th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Oops, I botched the paraphrase for ACRC, should read: “…while northern ice cover will shrink, southern ice cover may grow. Things like…”
February 20th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Ben: The ACRC not only provides no support for joe’s statement (ie, ice volume is a better measure than ice area), the ACRC directly contradicts it.
The ACRC: In the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most relevant indicator.
Baffling. Just baffling.
February 20th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Commendations all around, for the craziest fucking thing I’ve read in a while.
My favorite part: the semantic argument about “near or below” and its relationship to equality… when we HAD ACCESS TO THE QUANTITATIVE FIGURES, WHICH SHOWED A DECREASE. But the deconstruction of the description of the numbers was beautiful.
February 20th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
mjohnson Says:
February 20th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Therefore, George Will’s argument that GLOBAL ice measurements contradict global warming predictions is patently false.
Will didn’t say that. You’re lying AGAIN.
From Will’s column: As global levels of sea ice declined last year, many experts said this was evidence of man-made global warming. Since September, however, the increase in sea ice has been the fastest change, either up or down, since 1979, when satellite record-keeping began. According to the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.
February 20th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
A climate change thread is going to be aggravating enough without piling Phil Collins on top of it, thank you.
February 20th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
The statement James quotes is about the predicted effects of global warming.
No, it’s about both observed and predicted effects, moron.
February 20th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Jack Lecou,
Still waiting for that empirical definition of “most meaningful” and on what basis you claim the most “significant” response is not also the most meaningful one.
February 20th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
joe from lowell: “sea ice VOLUME is the appropriate measure of “sea ice levels,” not sea ice AREA.”
ACRC: “the MOST SIGNIFICANT RESPONSE of the cryosphere to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will be seen in Northern Hemisphere summer sea ice EXTENT.”
Baffling, just baffling. Is joe from lowell now seriously claiming that when the ACRC wrote “extent” they actually meant “volume?”
February 20th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Still waiting for that empirical definition of “most meaningful” and on what basis you claim the most “significant” response is not also the most meaningful one.
Seriously? Stupidest commenters EVAR today. Let’s quote wiktionary:
significant (comparative more significant, superlative most significant)
1. Signifying something; carrying meaning.
2. Having a covert or hidden meaning
3. Having a noticeable or major effect; notable
4. Reasonably large in number or amount
5. (statistics) Having a low probability of occurring by chance (for example, having high correlation and thus likely to be related).
You see how there are five distinct meanings of the word significant?
You see how joe might have been using meaning 1, in a sense something like the ACRC uses “relevant”, while the ACRC in the quoted paragraph (about, once again, NORTHERN, not GLOBAL ice extent), might have been using 3, 4, or even 5?
February 20th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Stupidest commenters EVAR today.
Jack Lecou: Dumbest commenter EVAR (sic).
You see how joe might have been using meaning 1,
Joe didn’t use the word. The ACRC did. You’re very confused, aren’t you?
Still waiting for that empirical definition of “most meaningful” and on what basis you claim the most “significant” response to increasing GHG is not also the most meaningful one.
in a sense something like the ACRC uses “relevant”, while the ACRC in the quoted paragraph (about, once again, NORTHERN, not GLOBAL ice extent), might have been using 3, 4, or even 5?
February 20th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Well, I for one have been completely convinced by the global warming skeptics’ absurd kabuki dance about the plain English meaning of words. Why, I had no idea that doing science was as simple as pretending that somebody who said something didn’t actually say what they say. Why, that’s certainly the mark of super-serious intellectuals!
February 20th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
C’mon, Joe. Who are you gonna believe? Ben or you’re own lying eyes?
February 20th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Ben,
When you have to truncate the source you’re quoting to make your point seem like it has support, it means you’ve lost.
You lose. The ACRC comes right out and states that ice area is NOT the best measure. It might be possible to read the truncated quote you provide the way you wish to (though even that would be a stretch) in the absence of any other commentary, but there IS other language which definitively proves that the ACRC is not saying what you are claiming. They explicitly state precisely the opposite: In the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most relevant indicator. This is not ambiguous, this is not open to interpretation.
February 20th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
You see how there are five distinct meanings of the word significant?
And your point is….? How does ANY of those meanings suggest that a less significant response (volume) is “more meaningful” than a more significant response (area)?
But Ben is right. Until you provide a clear description of what you mean by “meaningful” in this context, you’re not saying anything relevant. You’re just blabbering.
February 20th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Not only do I see that, I see that none of those five meanings corresponds to “the most appropriate variable to measure.”
As opposed to this: In the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most relevant indicator, which has no other possible meaning.
February 20th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
The ACRC comes right out and states that ice area is NOT the best measure.
Yet another lie. You’re really outdoing yourself, joe. The ACRC says: “the MOST SIGNIFICANT RESPONSE of the cryosphere to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will be seen in Northern Hemisphere summer sea ice EXTENT.”
Extent means “area,” joe. Not “volume.” Your claim that the ACRC says that volume is the “most appropriate measure” is complete and utter nonsense. A lie. Stop lying, joe.
February 20th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
You’re right, I meant the sense I was using of the word when I used it to paraphrase joe:
“significant” in that quote very plainly means something like “dramatic” or “visible”, NOT the sense in Joe’s paraphrase, which is more like “useful” or “indicative”.
In fact, joe actually used words like “appropriate”.
So, how does that help you exactly? How is this establishing your case that the ACRC could ONLY have meant “meaningful”, not notable, major, large, etc?
And then how does this establish that I really knew this all along and was lying?
February 20th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Yet another lie? The ACRC doesn’t say In the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most relevant indicator?
Yes, they do. It’s right there, in the quoted piece. Everybody can read it. When you claim that the ACRC doesn’t say that, you are lying. You see the sentence. You see the link. You see the entire piece. To say the ACRC does not say X, when I have cut and pasted Sentence X directly from the ACRC’s statement, seems an incredibly stupid thing to do.
The ACRC says: “the MOST SIGNIFICANT RESPONSE of the cryosphere to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will be seen in Northern Hemisphere summer sea ice EXTENT.” Yes, and absent the piece I quoted, which once again, EVERYONE CAN READ BY CLICKING THE LINK OR READING WHAT I CUT AND PASTED, it might be possible to read the word “significant” as meaning that the variable in question – the extend of northern sea ice – is being held out as the best measure of global warming.
But as much as you keep insisting the sentence I quoted doesn’t exist, it does, and thoroughly refutes that reading.
Extent means “area,” joe. Not “volume.” No shit, Sherlock. That’s not the question.
Your claim that the ACRC says that volume is the “most appropriate measure” is complete and utter nonsense. A lie. Stop lying, joe THE QUOTE SAYING EXACTLY THAT IS RIGHT THERE, where you and everyone else can read it. Who do you think you are going to fool with this nonsense. WE CAN ALL READ THE QUOTE I PARAPHRASED.
February 20th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Try this Ben:
“the MOST VISIBLE RESPONSE of the cryosphere to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will be seen in Northern Hemisphere summer sea ice EXTENT.”
No. Couldn’t possibly be what they meant. IMPOSSIBLE even. Anyone who suggests otherwise must be lying.
And note, for the umpteenth time, northern sea ice extent IS a relevant indicator. It’s global sea ice “level”, as used by Will, that’s the problem.
February 20th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
ben: “The ACRC comes right out and states that ice area is NOT the best measure.
Yet another lie.”
The ACRC: “In the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most relevant indicator.”
Global
Sea
Ice
May
Not
Be
The
Most
Relevant
Indicator.
Is it a browser problem? Is that statement just not showing up when you click the link?
WTF?
February 20th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
DenierTrolls playing these stupid semantic games are eerily similar to the ridiculous parsing we got from Bushco flacks and spokespeople while they were trying to distract us from the repugnant torturing they were doing.
Here are things that are utterly undeniable:
1) The Northern Hemisphere sea ice extant is considered to be a good future indicator of global warming. This is already happening.
2) Global sea ice area is not a good indicator.
3) George Will clearly quote mined, data mined and obfuscated in an obvious attempt to demagogue the issue.
4) Reputable agencies that publish and research the relevant information felt compelled to issue statements after Will’s column ran that very politely pointed out that he did so and directed people to look at the issue in a more informed manner. For instance, in noting that global sea ice area wasn’t a good indicator it was pointed out that you might look instead at sea ice volume.
In sum, George Will = liar and global warming = happening.
February 20th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Still waiting for that point, jack. How does ANY of the meanings you list suggest that a less significant response (volume) is “more meaningful” than a more significant response (area)?
But Ben is right. Until you provide a clear description of what you mean by “meaningful” in this context, you’re not saying anything relevant. You’re just blabbering.
February 20th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
ben’s preferred reading:
The most measurable response by the cryosphere to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will be seen in Northern Hemisphere summer sea ice EXTENT.”
Do any of these mean “measurable?”
1. Signifying something; carrying meaning.
2. Having a covert or hidden meaning
3. Having a noticeable or major effect; notable
4. Reasonably large in number or amount
5. (statistics) Having a low probability of occurring by chance (for example, having high correlation and thus likely to be related).
No, they don’t.
Normal people’s preferred reading: The most important, noticeable, dramatic, big, some other word suggesting a large scope response by the cryosphere to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will be seen in Northern Hemisphere summer sea ice EXTENT.”
You know, like #s 3 and 4?
February 20th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Is it a browser problem?
No, it’s a joe from lowell problem. What part of ““the MOST SIGNIFICANT RESPONSE of the cryosphere to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will be seen in Northern Hemisphere summer sea ice EXTENT” makes you think that volume is the “most appropriate measure?” You do understand the English language, right?
February 20th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
joe from lowell,
How does ANY of the meanings you list suggest that a less significant response (volume) is “more meaningful” than a more significant response (area)?
February 20th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
What part of ““the MOST SIGNIFICANT RESPONSE of the cryosphere to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will be seen in Northern Hemisphere summer sea ice EXTENT” makes you think that volume is the “most appropriate measure?
None of that; rather, it’s that OTHER quote, the one you keep pretending not to see, this one In the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most relevant indicator. that make me think that you are misinterpreting the phrase “the most significant response.”
BTW, that quote you refuse to acknowledge? It’s in English.
Theory 1: The ACRC contradicts itself in the space of two paragraphs, stating that sea ice area is the best indicator of global warming, then stating that it is not the best indicator of global warming.
Theory 2: The phrase “the most significant response” is not meant to indicate that the subject of the sentence in which it appears is the best indicator of global warming.
This is one of those really easy, obvious, unambiguous points you have to work very hard not to understand.
February 20th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Still waiting for that point, jack. How does ANY of the meanings you list suggest that a less significant response (volume) is “more meaningful” than a more significant response (area)?
What are you talking about?
I believe this is pretty clear already, unless we need to go all night on the meaning of “meaningful” now. (You know, contains information, etc. Semantics trolls FTW!)
It’s very simple:
In one sentence, ACRC says northern sea ice shrinking will be one of the most notable/dramatic/visible/take-your-pick effects of warming on the cryosphere.
In another sentence they point out that global sea ice extent is not a relevant indicator of warming, and one should instead use global volume or perhaps northern ice extent.
These sentences do not contradict one another, nor do they contradict anything joe or I has said.
February 20th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
“Northern” versus “Global,” “Near or slightly lower” versus “equal,” “significant” versus “relevant”…
I wonder if people debating great scientific issues in the past in the those dark, pre-interwebs days got bogged down in awesome semantic battles. Like, did Schroedinger and Heisenberg duke it out over comma placement while debating quantum physics?
February 20th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
GRF,
I never made any argument that the definitions prove anything; rather, I refuted one.
It isn’t the definitions that prove my point; it’s the existence of the quote I keep pasting, which none of you dishonest hacks are willing to acknowledge: In the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most relevant indicator.
In
The
Context
Of
Climate
Change,
Global
Sea
Ice
Area
May
NOT
Be
The
Most
Relevant
Indicator.
Ergo, unless you are postulating that the ACRC contradicted itself within the space of two paragraphs, it must be true that the quote you’ve tied yourself to is NOT a statement about the most appropriate, relevant variable for determining whether global warming is occurring, to to what extent.
February 20th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Global sea ice needs to stop embracing victimhood. Is it really so fragile that it can’t stomach a little more CO2 in the atmosphere? And so what if it does melt? I for one would celebrate sea ice’s rejection of high reflectivity and a crystal structure that enslaves its fluid and absorptive impulses.
February 20th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Do please let us know when the death of billions of humans and the end of civilzation occurs.
Sure. But it’s patently a more important response.
February 20th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
And just to stick our heads out the weeds for a moment:
Will lied. He misrepresented the data.
The data: global ice area has shrunk by a half million square miles.
Northern ice area has shrunk by a million square miles. (BTW, northern ice area – as opposed to global ice area – is a reliable measure of whether global warming is happening).
Southern ice area has grown by .5 million square miles. The growth of Antarctic ice is not a reliable indicator of whether global warming is happening, however, as such growth is consistent, when paired with a larger shrinkage of Arctic ice, with global warming.
Global ice volume has shrunk as well. (BTW, global ice volume – as opposed to global ice area – is an even more reliable measure of whether global warming is happening).
Global warming is happening. All of the data we have about ice – Arctic, Antarctic, global, volume, area – either demonstrates global warming, or is consistent-with-but-not-demonstrative-of global warming.
February 20th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
hey trolls –
you do understand, don’t you (of course you don’t), that this directly undermines what you’re trying to assert overall? what, exactly, do you think “increasing GHG concentrations in the sea ice AREA” means? hint; it does not mean ’sea ice levels’. it has nothing to do with your claims regarding Will’s accuracy. just … nothing.
February 20th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
I believe this is pretty clear already, unless we need to go all night on the meaning of “meaningful” now. (You know, contains information, etc.
More evasive blather. What do you mean by “more meaningful” as you used the phrase in this discussion? We need a clear, empirical definition. How does any of the meanings of “significant” you quoted suggest that a less significant response (volume) is “more meaningful” than a more significant response (area)?
These sentences do not contradict one another,
Nobody said they did. I don’t know why you keep “responding” to a claim no one has made.
nor do they contradict anything joe or I has said.
The ACRC statement that extent is the “most significant” response absolutely contradicts joe’s claim that volume is “the appropriate measure.”
February 20th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
I’ll elaborate because I botched the quote. my bad. anyhoooo, the “most significant response” in this case would mean, that if you saw a real drop-off in sea ice area, it would be really SIGNIFICANT, because of how much corresponding and proportional VOLUME was being lost overall, as per their statements about the ice being ‘younger and thinner’ (and saying its thinner, is, you know, by definition saying its ‘thinner’!!!). in other words, we are losing volume (or mass) of ice, but below sea level, and the ice area visible during winter is near or slightly lower. so, its already generally lower. which is, as per above, significant in an of itself. if it were larger or the same, the whole paper would be different, in myriad ways. if we start to experience notable losses of sea ice area, then we will really be in irreversible trouble. Will’s claim that the ‘levels’ are the same are silly, and not backed by his citation.
February 20th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
The only lies here are from George Will’s critics:
1. Matthew Yglesias LIED when he wrote that Will wrote “that in the 1970s there was a scientific consensus that the world was suffering from “global cooling” that was as firm as the current consensus about global warming.”
2. joe from lowell LIED when he wrote that the ACRC stated that “sea ice VOLUME is the appropriate measure of ’sea ice levels,’ not sea ice AREA.”
February 20th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
More evasive blather. What do you mean by “more meaningful” as you used the phrase in this discussion? We need a clear, empirical definition. How does any of the meanings of “significant” you quoted suggest that a less significant response (volume) is “more meaningful” than a more significant response (area)?
More evasive blather. What do you mean by “mean”? We need a clear empirical definition before this discussion can move forward.
…
Seriously, do you not see how ACRC is not only not using the word “significant” the way you want them to be, but that the quote you think proves all about how sea ice extent is TEH BESTEST is a) about NORTHERN sea ice extent, and b) is clearly not saying that even northern sea ice extent is the be all and end all indicator, because several sentences later they explain how global ice volume is important. The one thing they say is not that good is global ice area.
Read for content, trolls.
February 20th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
3. Benny Lava LIED when he wrote that “George Will” argued that “GLOBAL ice measurements contradict global warming predictions”
February 20th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
More evasive blather. What do you mean by “mean”?
mean: To act as a symbol of; signify or represent”
Stop evading and answer the question: What do you mean by “more meaningful” as you used the phrase in this discussion? We need a clear, empirical definition. How does any of the meanings of “significant” you quoted suggest that a less significant response (volume) is “more meaningful” than a more significant response (area)?
Stop being an evasive troll and answer the question, you trolling troll.
February 20th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
1. Hansen LIED when he claimed Will did not imply there was a global scientific consensus for cooling in the ’70s:
February 20th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
shorter jack lecou:
When I wrote “most meaningful” I meant SOMETHING related to climate change. I just have no idea what it was.
February 20th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
4. Jack Lecou repeated Benny Lava’s LIE that “George Will” argued that “GLOBAL ice measurements contradict global warming predictions”
February 20th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
2. Hansen LIED when he claimed that the ACRC report does no support joe’s contention that global sea ice volume is a more relevant measure than global sea ice area:
February 20th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Shorter “charles”:
I have fixated on one word from about 50 comments ago, and this fully justifies my refusal to understand the actual topic of discussion or the substantive arguments being made thereon.
February 20th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
jack lecou,
There is nothing about a “global consensus,” scientific or otherwise, in the text you quote.
February 20th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
shorter jack lecou:
I’m just going to keep evading and changing the subject to try and divert attention from the fact that I have no idea what I meant by “most meaningful.”
February 20th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
3. hansen LIED when he claimed that George Will had not implied that sea ice measurements contradicted global warming predictions:
February 20th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
jack lecou,
The text from the ACRC report you quote does not say that global sea ice volume is a “more relevant measure” than global sea ice area.
February 20th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
5. Jack Lecou LIED when he wrote that the ACRC states that that global sea ice volume is a “more relevant measure” than global sea ice area.
February 20th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
6. Jack Lecou LIED when he wrote that hansen “claimed that George Will had not implied…”
February 20th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
In the hope that it will reduce the sock puppets by one or two:
To the extent that is true, it only means that ice area is the more RAPID response to (air) warming. I.e., significant only in the sense of “dramatic” or “easily visible” or “first sign”, but not necessarily in the sense of “most meaningful”.
This seems to be the only place I used it. I’ll see if I can help you out with your reading comprehension:
In this case, I think a workable substitute phrase might be something like “most relevant/important/accurate cryospheric indicator of climate change”.
February 20th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
The text from the ACRC report you quote does not say that global sea ice volume is a “more relevant measure” than global sea ice area.
No, it does not use those exact same words.
Most of us learned sometime around the time we learned to read that different words can be strung together in different ways and still mean the same thing as another string of words. This is called “reading comprehension”.
As I pointed out in the brackets, it also helps if, while you are reading, you pretend that you have some minimal background in the dynamics of sea ice formation, climate change, and basic physics, and that you are not some kind of half-lobotomized global warming Eliza-bot running on George Will’s home computer.
February 20th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
In this case, I think a workable substitute phrase might be something like “most relevant/important/accurate cryospheric indicator of climate change”.
Nonresponsive. You need to provide a clear empirical definition. “More relevant” is meaninglessly vague.
Then you need to explain why a less significant response is the “most meaningful” one, whatever “most meaningful” is supposed to mean empirically.
February 20th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Yep, as I suspected, this is the refutation of a strawman.
The word “consensus” does not appear in Will’s original article. Will informally cites and quotes a number of sources in support of global cooling from the period but never claims there was a scientific consensus about it.
So what do the Gorebal Warming fanatics do? Show that not everyone believed in cooling and claim will lied for claiming a “consensus”. Too funny.
February 20th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
No, it does not use those exact same words.
It doesn’t use any words to express the statement you falsely attributed to it. It doesn’t provide any kind of ranking of the measures in terms of “relevance” or anything else. You just made that up out of thin air, because you’re a lying troll.
February 20th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
The word “consensus” does not appear in Will’s original article.
Will makes no claim of a consensus at all, either using the word “consensus” or any other words. He simply lists a series of news sources reporting findings of cooling. The claim that Will said that there is a consensus is a lie.
February 20th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
“hansen”:
You might consider producing some kind of actual argument. Anyone who can read can see plainly what George Will said and implied.
If you have some other interpretation of his words though, you should present that.
Note that it still wouldn’t actually prove anyone had lied, because even if another reading is possible, a plain reading still supports the “liars” claims about George Will’s statements. Even if it turns out some of Will’s detractors were wrong, which seems very unlikely at this point, they still weren’t necessarily lying.
February 20th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
I’m increasingly convinced that jack lecou is a disabled 15-year-old boy who never leaves the basement where his parents keep him locked up in front of his computer.
February 20th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
“jack lecou”
You might consider producing some kind of actual argument.
No, you need to produce some kind of evidence that George Will said what you claim he said. Since you can’t do that, because he didn’t say what you claimed he said, you keep changing the subject.
February 20th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Will makes no claim of a consensus at all, either using the word “consensus” or any other words. He simply lists a series of news sources reporting findings of cooling. The claim that Will said that there is a consensus is a lie.
Will uses the phrases “widely considered inevitable” and “well established”, then lists about a dozen nominally scientific sounding publications to support that claim.
If you want to be super weaselly, no, he didn’t use the word consensus. He certainly did imply it though.
(And he for damn sure didn’t see fit to mention the inconvenient fact that a large majority of climate research at the time was not only skeptical of a serious cooling threat, but in fact in support of a growing consensus on warming.)
February 20th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
So what do the Gorebal Warming fanatics do? Show that not everyone believed in cooling and claim will lied for claiming a “consensus”. Too funny.
Wait, “Gorebal Warming fanatics”?
You know, even IF assume Will wasn’t lying, it doesn’t actually provide some kind of win for global warming deniers. His claims are, if not mendaciously false, than at best hopelessly misinformed and irrelevant. Anthropogenic global warming remains a fact strongly supported by all the available science.
February 20th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
The plain meaning of “most significant” in
“the MOST SIGNIFICANT RESPONSE of the cryosphere to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will be seen in Northern Hemisphere summer sea ice EXTENT” is obviously the “omg we are all going to die” meaning.
Melting the Artic ice cap implies much more of the sun’s heat will be absorbed in the artic during the artic summer which means the permafrost will melt much faster which means enormous increases in CO2 and methane from the organic material in the permafrost which means an enormous jump in the feed back which means “GAME OVER MAN” (best Aliens’ quote ever)
February 21st, 2009 at 4:07 am
Wow, trying to read back through this thread made my eyes bleed.
February 21st, 2009 at 8:03 am
http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=62
February 21st, 2009 at 12:13 pm
One thing pissed-off Washingtonians might do, which is only really minor vandalism, is to take a leak on a WaPo paper box…
Difficult to read, if they’re all yellow and soggy…but apt…
Disclaimer: I would NEVER encourage anyone to do anything even the least bit illegal.
February 21st, 2009 at 12:22 pm
I’m old.
I probably won’t live to see the big collapse, in any case. I’ve got at MOST another 15-20 years. With luck, mebbe the crash can be postponed til the beginning of the NEXT century.
And I don’t have any direct genealogical heirs or assigns: no kids. So, no grand-kids to worry about whether they can grow gills while trying to tread water.
So, other than for an altruistic affection I feel for the planet and the rest of the species thereupon, I don’t really have any reason to give a fuck.
So I don’t. And I care considerably less than a flying fuck for the futures of those poor, benighted children, the off-spring of the climate-change deniers. Drown, and take your asshole dna with you, for all I care.
Truth be told, I have come to care more about the polar bears, pelicans and penguins than about the people, especially the people without the sense to see that they are creating the problem…
So screw all-a-ya. Die, for all I care.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:04 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
March 28th, 2009 at 11:51 am
LOVE your site, will visit again
Submitted this post to Google News Reader.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Very nice site! cheap viagra
March 31st, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Very nice site! cheap cialis http://oieypxa.com/oryrqqr/4.html
March 31st, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Very nice site!
March 31st, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Very nice site! [url=http://oieypxa.com/oryrqqr/2.html]cheap cialis[/url]
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:07 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:07 am
Great site. Good info
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Hi all. My theory of evolution is that Darwin was adopted.
I am from Tonga and now teach English, give true I wrote the following sentence: “The current travel deals for cheap airline tickets.”
With respect
, Paulos.