Steele saga - Repost 4/5 - Jim can you clarify your argument?

  

This is a reposting of the forth of five responses I made regarding various aspects of Jim Steele's 1/7/15 WattsUpWithThat 'essay' - in light of Steele's recent comment, I think it's only fair to bring it up again.

Here's an example of my process in action and using these incidents to further my own understanding.  While Jim was off at his private club trashing me, I was trying to find a way to simplify the issues for more constructive discussion.

I tried boiling it down to it's most fundamental and came up with two basic questions for Jim.  I figured this would be a good place to start our debate, but Mr. Steele pretended not to hear.  

How about it Jim, you've had over a year to stew on it.

_________________________________________________________

Friday, January 30, 2015

Mr. Jim Steele, Can you clarify your argument?

A) That wildlife biologists working in extreme conditions and over continental landscapes make mistakes?

B) Disputing that Anthropogenic Global Warming with it's profound changing climate driven landscapes alterations causes adverse cascading consequences for wildlife and eco-systems (read our biosphere)?  

Mr. Jim Steele, Can you clarify your argument?

A) That wildlife biologists working in extreme conditions and over continental landscapes make mistakes?

B) Disputing that Anthropogenic Global Warming with it's profound changing climate driven landscapes alterations causes adverse cascading consequences for wildlife and eco-systems (read our biosphere)?  

Can Mr. Steele come clean and explain what his fundamental thesis is?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I have been wrestling with Mr. Jim Steele's YouTube "Climate Science Horror Story" talk to the IEEE for quite a while because it slammed right into my long-time {some call it} obsession with trying to grasp how people can so easily lie to themselves about something as fundamental as understanding and appreciating how our fantastic, beautiful, bountiful, wonderful planet Earth functions and how our society and we ourselves are damaging it.

Besides the YouTube talk Mr. Steele has a blog "Landscapes And Cycles" and his spiel is that local landscapes and natural cycles are ALL important and that we the people should disregard the global.  His talk ignores that natural cycles and wildlife dynamics operate within the biosphere which is dependent on our Earth's protective atmosphere… which regulates the conditions our biosphere inhabits.  

To me it seems that Jim and his public doesn't want to recognize that we exist within a "global heat distribution engine" and that as with any engine when we supercharge it with extra fuel/energy {just like at NASCAR} that engine will break loose.

INDEX - Jim Steele's climate science horror collection, Landscapesandcycles, 2014

This blog has been a personal learning process and I'll admit some posts are duds, others aren't all they should be, but then, a few hit the nail.  

Since the past decade has taught me that climate science denialism is an insuperable ideological point of faith with many - I've switched my focus to the few who want to study the tactics and dynamics that climate science denialist types employ in order to misrepresent and distort the science.  These tactics are dedicated to confusing and misleading people.  

Thereby turning what should have been a sober learning process into a contorted dishonest political farce.  A farce forced on us by special-interests employing disingenuous jokers such as the "Lord" Monckton or this current rising star Mr. Jim Steele.  

His message: 
'Think locally, ignore the global.' 

His tactics:
    Obsessive focus on flaws in extremely challenging wildlife population studies.
    Misrepresent the scope of those flaws and the learning process. 

As an excuse to:
     Ignore the physics of atmospheric greenhouse gases.
     Ignore the fact that industrialized society has increased our planet's atmosphere's insulation medium (GHGs) by nearly 40%.
     Ignore the fact that our climate system is a global heat distribution engine.
     Ignore the overwhelming observational evidence of continued global warming.

Employing:

    Political theater to dismiss well established science.
    Political theater to disparage dedicated professional scientists.
    The magician's tactic of distraction and sleight of hand.
    The Serengeti Strategy which is explained here and here.

I have invited Mr. Steele's comments and assured him I'll post what he offers, but he does his best to ignore me and has offered nothing. Except occasionally complaining about me at other venues and having me banned from commenting on his YouTube Climate Science Horror series.  Hopefully that will change.

For a detailed look at how I've arrived at and support my conclusions here's the index for my 2014 articles specifically focused on understanding Mr. Steele's "Landscapes and Cycles" game.  Stay tuned, given continued health, there will be more.

INDEX FOR 2014 BLOG POSTS: 

Appendix Steele's penguin "climate horror story" YouTube series, Video 4b

{Since Dr. Ainley took the time to answer my emailed questions and was quite helpful in exposing me to various background and studies I was unaware of, I sent him a courtesy copy of my post and this appendix - to see if he had any objections or suggestions before posting them.

Interestingly, he pointed out that I had not mentioned LaRue 2014, which happens to be the same study Steele's "Landscapesandcycles" (and the rest of the echo-chamber) have been trumpeting as supporting their 'No Worries' attitude towards the changes being observed in the Antarctic.  So I've spent the evening reading through that study and I do think comparing that study to what's being claimed on its behalf will make for a good follow up post, but for now what I have here will do.  Happy learning. }

This appendix goes together with my review of Jim Steele's IEEE "climate horror story" YouTube series, Video 4 part 1 regarding Penguins and condition at the Antarctic.  I've posted it in this stand alone page - so that my review and supporting information can be looked at side by side.

Mr. Steele says at 0:25: "... that population has giving rise to all these the horror stories about them going extinct by the end of the century."

It is a scientific horror story to misrepresent the truth!  

 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Steele accuses these papers of being an "extinction horror show" yet you won't find the word "extinction" in them - instead you'll find assessments of conditions and sober nuanced projections based on the available facts.

[1a]

Projected continent-wide declines of the emperor penguin under climate change

Jenouvrier, Holland, Stroeve, Serreze, Barbraud, Weimerskirch, Caswell

Nature Climate Change | Letter | Published online 29 June 2014

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n8/full/nclimate2280.html

"... We project the dynamics of all 45 known emperor penguin colonies⁵ by forcing a sea-ice-dependent demographic model^{6, 7} with local, colony-specific, sea ice conditions projected through to the end of the twenty-first century. Dynamics differ among colonies, but by 2100 all populations are projected to be declining. At least two-thirds are projected to have declined by >50% from their current size. The global population is projected to have declined by at least 19%. ..."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[1b] 

Antarctic penguin response to habitat change as Earth's troposphere reaches 2°C above preindustrial levels

David Ainley, Russell, Jenouvrier, Woehler, Lyver, Fraser, Kooyman

Ecological Society of America  |  Accepted: May 5, 2009

http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/08-2289.1

"We assess the response of pack ice penguins, Emperor (Aptenodytes forsteri) and Adélie (Pygoscelis adeliae), to habitat variability and, then, by modeling habitat alterations, the qualitative changes to their populations, size and distribution, as Earth's average tropospheric temperature reaches 2°C above preindustrial levels (ca. 1860), ...

Steele's Ocean Acidification Horror Story, a closer look.

Examining some of the claims in the YouTube video "Recovering Whales, Ocean Acidification, and Climate Horror Stories," I wrote 
Dr. Evans, who's data Steele uses and he responded to my questions with an enlightening email, along with suggestions for further investigation.   Now that I've spent more time looking into the question of 'what' and 'how' scientists know about ocean acidification, I've decided to give Steele's talk from 2:45 to 5:59 another dissection.  

For students of The Art of the Republican Attack on Science, this will be worth your while. 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Recovering Whales, Ocean Acidification, and Climate Horror Stories by JIm Steele (2:45-5:59)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooaZLoJXhu4&t=2m45s

Part 3 Jim Steele's Presentation to the Life Members of the International Electrical and Electronic Engineers. Jim is the author of "Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist's Journey to Climate Skepticism"

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2:45 - "Here's your question about ocean acidification.  This upwelling is a tremendous benefit.  If you do a vertical profile of the ocean, if you look at the surface the pH is gonna be around 8.2-8.3, as you drop down what you see is that it very quickly it becomes more acidic, because bacteria digest everything, we start to releasing the carbon. So you can see in the upwelling zones you can see it's down to 7.7 And when it upwells it brings it right to the coast"

~ ~ ~
First off, notice Jim drawing his audience's attention away from how the oceans absorb CO2, instead focusing on regional upwelling of abyssal acidic waters along the continental shelf.

That's the way magicians work, draw the eye away from where the trick is happening.

Listen in on Steele's talk.  You'll hear a hint of the problem he chooses to ignore.  The surface of the ocean is on average basic ~8.2-8.3pH as Steele tells us {7 being neutral}.  CO2 is acidic and easily binds with water molecules.  We live in a world where the atmospheric CO2 concentration has skyrocketed by ~40% in a geologic blink.  How will that system behave?    How can Steele's IEEE audience be blind to that?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

3:20 - "People say on average the pH is getting more, they don't know that.  It's a model."

Recovering Whales, Ocean Acidification the Jim Steele Horror Story - reviewed

Or, what a tangled web Steele weaves.

There's a tactic called the "Gish Gallop" where a speaker tosses out so many varied claims that it's impossible for the serious listener to keep up.  Steele has perfected this skill, but it's easy for him since his audience (Life Members of the International Electrical and Electronic Engineers) only wants to hear reassurances that they have nothing to worry about and can continue consuming like there's no tomorrow. 

I'm more serious and skeptical, so I've taken the time to chase after the various bones Steele tosses out.  This post will focus on his claims regarding whale population recovery thanks to La Nina along with Steele's bizarre take on the ocean acidification story*
*{for an update on that mischief, link here}. 

Recovering Whales, Ocean Acidification, and Climate Horror Stories by JIm Steele (considering 0:00 to 6:00)

update December 8, 2014

Wiley Evans, Ph.D. shares some thoughts regarding Steele's description of ocean pH studies.

Steele's Yosemite Nat'l Park mystery temp graph? W.U.W.T.?

There's a temperature graph going around the blogosphere claiming to represent the temperature trend in Yosemite National Park since 1900.  Climate science denialist types love this graph because it seems to indicate no warming in Yosemite, as if that represents the whole state or something.  

Besides, consider Yosemite National Park, it comprises some 1,169 square miles ^- (3,027 km²) with an elevation range from 2,127 to 13,114 feet (648 to 3,997 m) on both sides of the Sierra Nevada mountain divide.  Vegetation zones start with chaparral oakwoodland, lower montane forest, upper montane forest, subalpine zone, all the way up to alpine.  Seemed odd that anyone would claim a single graph from YNP as some definitive statement on the situation within the park, let alone beyond.  

Yet Mr. Steele claims it, and does so on many occasions.  Including this recent video (12:10) which I'm in the process of reviewing.  He never tells us where this data came from, nor who compiled the graph, we're supposed to accept the authority of his word on it - 
I thought they rejected appeals to authority?

Unfortunately, I've learned to be skeptical of Mr. Steele's claims and I tried finding its origin.  No luck on the internet.  Finally I sent an email to the Western Regional Climate Center to see if they could offer any insight and they certainly did.  
I share their response:
{I added paragraph breaks for clarity}

WRCC Data <wrcc@dri.edu> December 1, 2014 

"Hello,  

This is not one of our graphs and I’m not exactly sure where this data was recorded.  

The official coop station Yosemite Park Headquarters began collecting temperature data in 1907 and this graph began in 1900.  There are several issues with this graph - spelling for starters, we would also reference the WRCC so others could contact us if there was a question and these numbers are off.    

Looking at the data, these numbers and years are not correct.  For example, the average annual max temperature occurred in 1926, not 1930-something as the graph displays..  

I’m sorry, I cannot help you.  I’ve tried to find this graph but no luck. I can tell you this is not our graph nor is the data correct."   

signed by the Service Climatologist,  

Western Regional Climate Center

The mystery graph

Jim Steele, why you "cleansing" YouTube comments? W.U.W.T.?

I've been spending the past couple days reviewing Jim Steele's third video in his series dedicated to attacking climate scientists.  While listening to the video and transcribing his talk, (this time without the marginal aid of YouTube's transcriptions, since it appears he turned it off for this video), I've also been researching his claims - which offer up more puzzles than answers. So, I've been posting constructive questions to Jim Steele in the comments section, along with requests for citations - since most of the time he doesn't offer any information about the data and "official" claims he presents.  

My questions seemed to be getting posted, yet I just discovered that they appear to only being visible under my log in and that anyone else viewing this video sees none of my reasonable, if skeptical questions.  

What can I say, except that, here is yet another example of the dishonest battle against rational, constructive discussion, that this WattsUpWithThat team wages.  Yet this Mr. Steele is the same man who has the chutzpah to quote Carl Sagan and lecture scientists about how to conduct an honest investigation.

My review will follow, but for now I want to post the questions that Steele has cleansed from his one sided presentation.

Recovering Whales, Ocean Acidification, and Climate Horror Stories by JIm Steele

Droughts and Heatwaves: Ocean Oscillations vs CO2 by Jim Steele - examined

This is the continuation of my interrupted critical review of Mr. Jim Steele's recent spat of YouTube videos attacking the fundamentals of climatological understanding.  In my previous review I transcribed all of Jim's talk, but after finishing my first draft this time I decided that was too much of a waste of time and space.  So from here on I'll limit myself to transcribing key quotes and going from there.  The entire video is included for those who want to hear every word.

#2 Droughts and Heatwaves: Ocean Oscillations vs CO2

Jim Steele 

{in Courier font}

0:01  {picking up the talk mid-stream} "...how much does it (global warming) contribute to drought or how well does people that push "its CO2": "How do we know it's CO2?  We look at their models." 

#B Jim Steele's IEEE Presentation: Climate and Drought: Landscape Changes vs CO2, examined

This the second half of my review of Jim Steele's recent talk. 
The first half can be viewed at 
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/11/steeles-ieee-talk-landscape-changes-vs.html
{I fear tomorrow evening when I can get back to double checking these two posts, I'll find more typos then I care to, but it's too late now, and don't want to wait till tomorrow evening to post this. }

"Jim Steele's IEEE Presentation Part 1: Climate Sensitivity and Drought: Landscape Changes vs CO2" by Jim Steele

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FuKSK7kP0s

7:37  To look locally, look there's a network the US historical climate network and the nearest one where we were doing our work was in Tahoe City and there's a couple things that stood out.  The first thing was in the thirties it was warmer, so how could global warming be accumulating heat if it was warmer in the thirties.  See CO2 couldn't be, you'd have to see something higher than the thirties. Where's this accumulation.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Jim Steele seems to be going by the assumption that global warming means that the entire globe is suppose to warm at the same rate every where.  That's tragically disconnected from the reality of our global biosphere.  Furthermore, it's quite ironic how he shrugs off the significance of the night time trend and in fact the day time trend since 1966.

More importantly Jim's using one graph from one location and calling it a slam dunk, those who are interested in learning about what's actually happening need to cast a wider net, might I suggest:

Tahoe Climate Information Management System

A joint collaboration between the Desert Research Institute and UC Davis

http://www.tahoeclim.dri.edu

- - -

Climate change in the Tahoe basin: regional trends, impacts and drivers

Climatic Change, Robert Coats, Apr 2010

http://paperity.org/p/15282143/climate-change-in-the-tahoe-basin-regional-trends-impacts-and-drivers 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

#A Jim Steele's IEEE Presentation: Climate and Drought: Landscape Changes vs CO2, examined

The other day I had the dubious serendipitous honor of being the first viewer of a YouTube video from Jim Steele a rising star within the climate science contrarian movement with a book to sell.  Jim starts his talk promising: "I think it (my talk) provides a powerful analysis, suggests powerful local solutions without worrying about global politics." and finishes it with: "I think I made it clear how much landscape change can affect the climate."

Well he didn't make anything clear except that he thinks we should ignore what scientists have learned in well over a century of study.  What I find ironic is that the same guy who says stuff like: (4:46)  There's a push to try to get rid of any kind of skepticism, there's push to try to get rid of the debate, so you see people like David Suzuki a scientist saying deny the deniers the right to deny.  To me that defiles science."

But, when I try engaging Mr. Steele in a constructive debate by asking some specific questions he replies with calling me an "internet snipers", because I'm skeptical of his claims, investigate them and have the nerve to call him on his misrepresentation.  Still he deems my questions an "orchestrated attempt to stop sincere discussion".  Then in the comments he claims I've deleted messages from him, though I haven't received anything from him - and he knows I'd be more than happy to take a close look at whatever he sends me.

As I've had the opportunity to explain to him before, we don't have to like each other to have a constructive dialogue.
If he were only up to it. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jim Steele's IEEE Presentation Part 1: 

Climate Sensitivity and Drought: Landscape Changes vs CO2

Jim Steele

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FuKSK7kP0s

0:14  Thanks so much for inviting me to speak before the IEEE life members, my talk: "Climate change: More Optimism More Debate" is based on years of observations on how climate can change at the local level.  I think it provides a powerful analysis, suggests powerful local solutions without worrying about global politics.
0:35  I'm not a climate scientist in terms of an atmospheric scientist I'm an ecologist.
0:39  I got into the climate game trying to understand, I worked for thirty years up in the Sierra Nevada's about sixty 60 miles north Lake Tahoe and I was trying to understand how local landscape changes changes changed the local climate.   I wanted understand how natural cycles like the Pacific decadal oscillation El Ninos changed the climate and it changed wildlife.
It's very different from what you hear from people like a Jim Hansen who's a atmospheric scientist, he started studying climate by looking at planets, where there is no life where there is no oceans.  In his view a bit was very top-down he was looking at how changes in radiation changes in atmospheric gases change the radiation budget.  So he sees it from a very global perspective, I come to it from a very local perspective.

~ ~ ~
Why does Jim Steele ignore the obvious fact that our atmosphere is a very global thing, and that climate drives our weather and knows no political borders.  Local/regional conditions do influence local/regional weather patterns, but all that happens under one atmosphere who's dramatically increasing greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing the atmosphere's heat insulating ability, thus warming our global heat distribution engine, which is setting our planet on a course of the most radical ecological changes it's experienced in many millions of years.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~