Thread: Scientists: Mediterranean Sea “Not Warming”

Omnologos wrote:-

Euro-Argo is the European component of an international project called ARGO, whose goal is the (spatially and temporally) intensive (observation and) analysis of the seas in order to understand the impact of climate (change) and global warming on the waters of our planet and, as a consequence, also on the ecosystems

Thank you - & I don’t doubt the accuracy of your translation.

But…… I also asked if you knew the EXACT wording that the MedArgo spokesman used about his preliminary results, and in the whole context.

I would further like to make the point that even if the Mediterranean isn’t warming, or as much, as predicted, then a proper peer-review will consider any other potential causes.
- Not a trivial implication from those politically opposed to AGW that if no warming is found, then the whole consensus of AGW will crumble.

Originally Posted by Clippo

Without knowing all the facts, I obviously can't comment accurately.

And yet you continue to do so about climate change


can never resist an open goal

However you choose to wriggle & squirm out of the hopeless debating position you have got yourself into, in this thread here the facts are clear. :-

1. MPKDavies posted a link to a website claiming ‘no warming in the Med.’.
- Mr Davies has a stupendous history here of posting links to anti-AGW sites and/or cherry picking or implying statements from any link that support his extremely minority opinion. His opinion was, until recently, (& I’ve not seen a firm correcting statement from him) that even ‘warming’ wasn’t occurring. With that prior nonsense in mind, ….

2. I read every such link and form an opinion on the scientific ‘authority’ (definition - whether the link’s pronouncements are reasonably believable).
When I did so in this case, I was met by web pages full of completely anti-AGW propaganda. My conclusion in this case was that the Omniclimate website had no reasonable or serious scientific credibility. I also deduced that the Omniclimate website is your personal blog and thus your ‘authority ‘is tainted by implication.
(To avoid excessive detail, I nickname such sites as ‘nutter’ or sometimes ‘crackpot’ and perhaps other words).
In my opinion, my post #13 was one of the most thorough condemnations of such a website that I have ever made. You have not countered anything there – how can you?

3. Because of mpkd’s tendency to pervert what is actually written to suit his case, I also try to study what is actually written and then I ask myself about the ‘authority’ of the writer, and the ‘conclusions’ that that writer has made.

Again, in this case, it seems that (although it was a little confusing at first), I deduced that the story it was a quotation from an article in ‘Il Foglio’, of a supposed quotation to them from a MedArgo spokesman.

(I knew nothing about Il Foglio – I’d not done even a simple wiki search upon it. However, honestly, just now I did – and for the benefit of other readers, I reproduce part of the wiki description (which, to use an mpkd phrase ‘says it all’) )

Il Foglio is an Italian right wing newspaper.
Anglo-American conservatism can roughly be considered its closest political position, especially the policies of the Bush Administration (and in general its foreign policy). Il Foglio strongly backed the American intervention against Taliban's regime in 2001 and the war in Iraq in 2003. In Italy it promulgates a neo-conservative line. It features editorials inspired by the American newspapers, especially by the Wall Street Journal.
In the last five years, Il Foglio has also been strongly supporting the Catholic Church and especially Pope Benedict XVI on topics like bioethics and the battle against relativism. It has a pro-Israeli stance.
Il Foglio can also be considered pro free market in Economics.

In which case I will leave the reader to make their own judgements over the validity of climate change reports of this paper.

4. You stated in post # 4

It is also insulting to all Argo scientific managers, and researchers, since it has been them to decide who would be the best co-ordinators. that I was criticising the quality of the research of the MedArgo.

I replied clearly in post # 10 that I wasn’t, absolutely not at all.

Furthermore, I am in no way questioning the scientific integrity of the members of the ARGO project - I just find it rather naive of any of them to draw conclusions when their work isn't actually completed.

The point I was trying to get across was that those who cannot accept the overwhelming support of real, peer-reviewed science in support of AGW, resort to cherry picking, incomplete quotation, deliberate misinterpretation and other ‘dirty-press’ tricks to support their case. That is why I asked the question in post # 17 if you had a source to exactly what the Med Argo spokesman said.

5. Further to the statement, I expressed the opinion, based on many years of experience (not personally), that it is professionally ‘risky’ for a scientist in any discipline to publicly pre-judge his research – even tho’ he/she may actually be pretty certain. To ensure such subsequent embarrassment if they are shown to be wrong, (at least as one reason), the ‘peer-review’ process has evolved over several centuries. You then in post # 15 chose to raise your ‘personal’ peer-review problems.

6. The peer-review process isn’t infallible – but it is the best defence science has against misinterpretation, or fradulent use of research. And, it has proved its’ worth thousands of times over especially over recent decades by exposing the US tobacco industry’s proven cancer doubt link, and the simlar Climate Coalition techniques (Which continue now if you read the recent thread I started).

The vast, vast bulk of scientific papers published are ‘filling in’ tiny aspects of known subject boundaries and therefore don’t present any problem for peer-reviewers. The problem occurs when a ‘different’ paper’comes along and I was careful not to criticise your paper – in fact in that context, in post # 16 is where I used the phrase :-

Without knowing all the facts, I obviously can't comment accurately.

which g hall, (another proven nutter - ), cherry-picked out of context to try to insult me.

I even suggested some polite reasons why your paper may not have been published (& you still haven’t given us the name of the publication). Instead you imply some sort of political ‘censorship’ – which is absolutely so ludicrous that it it is hilarious.
...................

I’m getting tired of this – and can’t be bothered to expose your fallacies any more, but I noticed in a very recent post you wrote:

You may also be happy to know that a non-warming Mediterranean is perfectly compatible with some sort of anthropogenic global warming theory (the warming is confined to the air, you see...). Just like a warming Mediterranean is. Just like pretty much anything else apart from a couple of centuries of continuous cooling, or perhaps even that...

Very, very confusing

So, ????
Is the Med warming or isn’t it?

If it isn’t, and you say that this is compatible with AGW theory, then why did you quote it in your anti-AGW weblog?

You imply that GW is atmospheric only –is that so?
……………………….

Omnologos, Your ‘authority’ is dead & buried.

For what little it’s worth I am absolutely convinced that we are experiencing Global Climate Change as a consequence of Global Warming, itself at the very least considerably increased as a result of the combination of pollution and activities that mankind is engaged in.

The propaganda put out from the US for both socio-political reasons and because of lobbying by big (oil) business has been swallowed hook, line, and sinker by people who don’t want man made global warming to be a fact.

Even if there is a cyclical effect to be factored in (and Clippo may see where I’m coming from on this) that same cyclical effect may be based on a natural oscillation involving the CO2 levels, the corresponding greenhouse effect, the resultant biomass bloom, and the consequential reduction in CO2 levels.

This may or may not be in the form of a damped oscillation triggered by some solar event but one of the nasty things about resonant networks is that if you add gain or reduce losses the dammned things can take off and produce some very high amplitude swings indeed.

If man made activity is limiting the amount of biomass as a consequence of pollution or other activities that have affected the components in the self regulating CO2 (and Methane and other hydrocarbon Green House Gases) cycle, then a runaway effect is not only possible, it is a certainty if the changes are of sufficient degree.

Clippo, I’m thinking about a damped tuned circuit in a feedback loop of an amplifier having a gain slightly less than the damping suddenly having the damping reduced …. You with me? The word “squegging” is one that might apply but then, I’m old school!

Bear, (hope you don't object to the abbrev.)

I have to say it is like a breath of fresh air to see somebody posting with a non-political agenda on the topic of climate change.

My resonant circuit knowledge has decayed over the years but I am trying to create a detailed reply to you - may take a day or so.

Stay 'tuned'