Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Exclusive: BP to Risk Worst Ever Oil Spill in Shetlands Drilling
Internal report warns of ecological disaster if new well bursts
BP is making contingency plans to fight the largest oil spill in history, as it prepares to drill more than 4,000 feet down in the Atlantic in wildlife-rich British waters off the Shetland Islands.
Click HERE to view graphic (207k jpg)
Internal company documents seen by The Independent show that the worst-case scenario for a spill from its North Uist exploratory well, to be sunk next year, would involve a leak of 75,000 barrels a day for 140 days – a total of 10.5 million barrels of oil, comfortably the world's biggest pollution disaster.
This would be more than double the amount of oil spilled from its Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf of Mexico last year, which had a maximum leak rate of 62,000 barrels a day in an incident lasting 88 days – and triggered a social, economic and environmental catastrophe in the US which brought the giant multinational to the brink of collapse.
The North Uist well, in a seabed block named after the Hebridean island but located 80 miles north-west of Shetland, is part of BP's ongoing attempts to open up the West of Shetland sea area, sometimes referred to as the "Atlantic Frontier", as a rich new oil province to replace the dwindling productivity of the North Sea.
The project appeared to have been shelved by the former BP chief executive Tony Hayward last year in the aftermath of Deepwater Horizon and the barrage of criticism directed at the company for its safety record. But it is now going ahead, and the well will be drilled by a drilling ship, the Stena Caron, some time from January onwards, as long as it is given a licence by the Energy Secretary, Chris Huhne.
The company already has three West of Shetland wells producing oil, at depths from 140 to 500 metres (460 to 1,640ft). But North Uist, described by BP as "stepping out, in terms of depth", will be nearly three times as deep, at 1,290m below the surface, in immensely testing conditions similar to those of its ill-fated Gulf well, which was located 1,500 metres down, and began its unprecedented "gusher" leak in April last year.
The difficulty of capping a gushing well at such depths, vividly illustrated by the three months it took for Deepwater Horizon to be staunched, is greatly concerning British environmentalists who point out that the waters which might be affected by a North Uist spill are among the most wildlife-rich in all the UK.
Seabirds including many rare species are found in enormous concentrations on Shetland, the nearest landmass to any spill, and in the surrounding waters, which also contain large numbers of whales, dolphins and seals, as well as substantial fish stocks.
A major destination for wildlife tourism, Shetland has already been badly affected by a previous oil spill, that of the tanker MV Braer, which ran aground on Shetland in January 1993. BP documents referring to the North Uist project themselves list more than 20 vulnerable Shetland nature sites, including eight Special Protection Areas, two Special Conservation Areas and 12 Sites of Special Scientific Interest, which involve the breeding grounds of otters and rare birds such as the great skua, the red-throated diver and Leach's petrel.
"This project is so risky that even BP is quietly planning for the possibility of the world's worst ever oil spill happening off Scotland's precious coastline," said John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK.
"It would be utterly reckless for Chris Huhne to approve this plan as if the Deepwater Horizon disaster never happened.
"Instead of chasing the last drops of oil from one of our country's most sensitive and important natural environments, ministers should be developing a comprehensive plan to get us off the oil hook."
A spokesman for BP said that the company was legally obliged to model the worst-case scenario, "but the reality is, the chances of a spill are very unlikely". Since Deepwater Horizon, he added, BP had invested "a huge amount of time and resources strengthening procedures, investing in additional safety equipment and further improving our oil spill response capability".
In particular, a major new well-capping device, designed for use at depths of up to 10,000ft, has been constructed, tested and made available, and could quickly be deployed, and any leak from North Uist is likely to be at a much lower pressure than that in the Gulf.
"We are confident that the improvements that have been made provide the level of assurance necessary against the risks," the BP spokesman said.
North Uist: The story so far
In the storm of criticism of its safety record that followed the Deepwater Horizon blow-out, BP blew hot and cold about drilling the North Uist well. After confirming that it would go ahead, in August 2010, the company faced more criticism that such a similar deep well was inappropriate in the aftermath of the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Tony Hayward, BP's chief executive at the time, hinted to the House of Commons Energy Select Committee in September 2010 that BP would hold its plans for deep water drilling off the Shetlands. He left the company shortly afterwards, and a final decision was taken to go ahead with North Uist, although more than a year later than originally intended.
BP has held a public consultation about the project, which ended last week. However, it was not widely advertised, had virtually no publicity, and a BP spokesman said there had been "no responses" from the public.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
92 Comments so far
Show AllI see Aleph Null posted (a portion) of what I wrote, takinng a complete sentence or paragraph totally out of context,,, like any good shill will do to promote their false agenda.
Null also did not say a word abut my later comment in that post ,,,(" The sad thing is the Professional GW Deniers used that to promote lies and cause doubt about the global warming issue.").
I'm no troll or a GW denier,, as Siouxrose, ctrl-z, Quick Silver, Gerald, Webwalk, Locust, Rebel Farmer, Beforkids, Thomas Jefferson, coco, Lucitanian, Jclientel, Hero For Peace and dozens others of the CD commenters I am certain would readily confirm.
You stand alone with your sorry and sad disorder Aleph Null, rave on with your foolishness and lies about me. You displaay the symptoms of the Semilwiess mental disorder Null.
If I were replying to ~Aleph Null~, which I am not here with this post, I would ask Null why he so strongly and very ignorantly denies that scientists climate computer models have been seriously flawed and highly regarded scientists have admitted they are seriously flawed?
Why would any sensible, honest, reasonable, intelligent preson deny that fact and continue to make a fool of himself?
Give up, troll. Your cover is blown. If there's anyone around here who thinks you are a sincere person, rather than a mouthpiece for Exxon, it isn't me. I'm not going to engage with your asinine corporate talking points.
Let'ss see what have I ever written about Exxon/Mobil hiring shills to wite GW denyinng articles? As I recall, several times I have posted comments here at CD that Exxon, the Koch Bothers and others are corrupt by their paying millins to public relation firms to hire Professional writers to write GW denying articles and comments on websites had caused irrepairable damage and caused the very important Copenhagen Conference to be a disasterous failure.
Things like that I have written andposted here, so I very seriously doubt any sensible and honest person would say I shill for Exxon... But Aleph Null has very well proven he is neither sensible nor honest.
But Null has his (personal) false agenda to promote. .
Climate denialist Mark Morano makes a living by making life miserable for the courageous climate scientists on the frontline of our global crisis. Our friendly neighborhood troll has been carrying Morano's vicious slanders forward in this thread. It is no exaggeration to decribe what Morano and Wayne are doing here as terrorism. Because this campaign of slander culminates in death threats against scientists and their families, it is a form of political violence purposing to frighten people into silence.
'Climategate' scientists receive death threats
Two of the scientists involved in "Climategate" – the e-mail hacking incident at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, UK – have been emailed death threats since the contents of their private e-mails were leaked to the world.
Violent Backlash Against Climate Scientists
"I have hundreds" of threatening emails, Stephen Schneider, a climatologist at Stanford University in California, told Tierramérica.
He believes scientists will be killed over this. "I'm not going to let it worry me... but you know it's going to happen," said Schneider, one of the most respected climate scientists in the world. "They shoot abortion doctors here."
"We're in a bizarre time, powered by greed and fear. The general public is more confused than ever," said [Andrew] Weaver. "And good scientists are saying to themselves, 'Why would I want to participate in the IPCC?"
For Climate Scientists, Death Threats Come With The Job
Some of it is almost certainly from individual crazies. Others suggest these attacks are orchestrated... Regardless of the source, I fear it is only a matter of time before abusive words translate to abusive actions.
"The effect on me has been tremendous," Stanford University scientist Stephen Schneider told The Guardian. "Some of these people are mentally imbalanced. They are invariably gun-toting rightwingers. What do I do? Learn to shoot a Magnum? Wear a bullet-proof jacket?"
Null,,, why do you fail to admit what top scientists have said about their flawed climate computer models? Oh, of course, if you did that, you would have to admit you were wrong and retract all you wrote here about me.
Why does ~Aleph Null~ fail to acknowledge scientists climate models have been and some still are flawed, as many of our top scientists have acknowledged?
I fully agree the professional GW Deniers like the corrupt Anthony Watts have done irrepairable harm, but sometimes they have written articles stating (exactly) what scientists have said,,,, if it fits into their false agenda.
Unfortunantly is is not always possible to give links for newspaper articles which have printed what specific scientists have reported... We do the best we can to show what scientists say, and if it was quoted by a newspaper source with more than one credible source, no sensible person would rant and rave on as Null does about it. He is almost funny displaying his obtuse and strange behavirable nature,,,, almost.
Here is an article from the Guardian which concerns flawed climate computer models.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/24/models-climate-policy-optimistic
From the article,,,( Computer models predicting future climate change are (*underestimating*) emissions and overestimating technology, warns climate scientist Kevin Anderson…..."Too many models use an extrapolation of old data and this gives results that are too optimistic," said Anderson. "When I present my findings I am often pulled apart for taking away people's hope. But what these models are giving us is false hope. Surely that is worse?").. End quotes.
I agree, just like the computer models of some of our top climate scientists are flawed and they have recently acknowledged that fact and are trying to correct them.
Are those top climate scientists trying to receive (death threats) by stating the truth?
I don’t think so, some ignorant idiots may…. Anyone see any of those type of idiots posting bizarre comments here who refuse to acknowledge what top scientist have reported?
True to troll form Wayne does not state, but deceptively implies, that the Guardian article linked here backs up his claim that the climate models are "seriously flawed."
Anyone interested enough to look at the full text of the article, taken out of context here, can see that the models this article discusses are economic Integrated Assessment Models (not Global Climate Models) - the researchers in question here are economists, not climate scientists.
Nice try, troll. Go ask Watts and Morano if they have any better links than this one. The defamatory assertion Wayne stands by, though he will never be able to substantiate it except with more denialist propaganda, is that climate modelers have engaged in professional misconduct by exhibiting a reluctance to admit their mistakes.
Any reasonable person can see that the comments of Gavin Schmidt and Gary Strand, even as reported by the corporate propagandist Morano and retailed by our troll, do not at all support the slanderous claim that any climate scientists are reluctant to admit to mistakes in their models. But our troll stands by his defamatory assertion no matter what. That's what Exxon is paying him to do, after all.
I could post several such links as the last one I posted and the words of top climate scientists who admit their computer models are flawed... Null says I'm a shill for Exxon for agreeing with those scientists, so he will have to say those top climate scientists are also all trolling Exxon shills or liars
Dr.James Hansen recently stated there are two major errors in his models and not only that also: "even though the (other) GCMs were developed in separate laboratories in different countries, and even though they all agree on the global temperature rise, they are all wrong in the same very important way.".
Dr. Hansen also said: "Radiative balance is complicated and there are some things we aren't getting quite right, and these problems lead us to wrong conclusions regarding climate, so we need to make better measurements."
Those statements by Dr. Hansens in no manner means global warimg is not a slam dunk fact, because it is and all predictions of climate scientests are not wrong...It means that climate models are not perfect and they need to be revised as necessary as more research of a rather complicated subject is a relatively new science.
I stated climate computer models were flawed and scientists say the same thing. That does not make me a trolling shill for anyone... Speaking the truth with Aleph Null present is rather difficult.
Where ya at Null? Let us hear more rants and raves dreampt up from your peculiar mindset,,,, because they are very funny.
Null wrote,,,(""There are some things we aren't getting quite right" means that climate scientists should be denounced for professional misconduct, according to Wayne").
No, that is not what I believe or what I wrote Mr. Null... I wrote, "( Those statements by Dr. Hansens in no manner means global warimg is not a slam dunk fact, because it is and all predictions of climate scientests are not wrong...It means that climate models are not perfect and they need to be revised as necessary as more research of a rather complicated subject is a relatively new science.").
Aleph Null wrote, ("I mean, since the only source you have for this garbage is a notorious denialist,")
Apparently Null thinks the Guardian is a nototrious denealist paper.
I'll post this link one more time for Aleph Null as apparently Null missed it, and Null is no longer "funny"... And when scientists had to admit at a congressional hearing it is because they were reluctant to acknowledge they had some flaws in their climate computer models... And unfortunatly that happened and the professional GW deniers used that as ammunition to cause a lot of irrepairable damage.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/24/models-climate-policy-optimistic
The Guardian article, as previous noted, is about economic models, not climate models.
Evidently our troll's handlers have instructed him to just keep repeating the defamatory assertion that climate scientists have been "reluctant to acknowledge they had flaws in their climate computer models," despite the fact that the only source Wayne has for this allegation is Mark Morano, now a colleague of Wayne's working for Exxon, formerly an employee of Senator James Inhofe and Rush Limbaugh.
From the Gaurdian article I posted ,,, ("Computer models predicting future climate change are (*underestimating*) emissions and overestimating technology, warns climate scientist Kevin Anderson…..."Too many models use an extrapolation of old data and this gives results that are too optimistic," said Anderson. "When I present my findings I am often pulled apart for taking away people's hope. But what these models are giving us is false hope. Surely that is worse?").. End quotes.
That is not ("economic") models Mr. Null... That is ("climate models") the climate scientist Mr. Anderson was speaking about. You are purposly lying and you are also lying about me... You have a serious personal problem Aleph Null and I won't reply to you any further.
People can read it for themselves. Here's the first paragraph:
Integrated assessment models (IAMs) used by researchers today – where climate change data is integrated with economic data – are dangerously flawed because they are based on naïve assumptions, according to Kevin Anderson from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change at the University of Manchester, UK.
The article is about economic Integrated Assessment Models, not Global Climate Models.
No, it is about both... We were discussing climate modeling flaws... You wish to disregard ALL of what the scientist has said.
An Integrated Assessment Model is not a climate model. The inputs to the IAM are fundamentally economic: a number of guesses about future economic and technological choices and opportunities. The output includes the climate conditions resulting from the inputs.
Kevin Anderson's critique is that the economic assumptions forming the inputs to IAMs (e.g. emissions growth, CCS availability, nuclear power) are too optimistic. He is not saying that the climate model components of IAMs have significant flaws in how they calculate from the economic inputs.
Nothing Anderson says has anything to do with the fabulous distortions of Watts, Morano, and Wayne that climate models are seriously flawed, or that climate scientists are guilty of professional misconduct because they show reluctance to admit their mistakes. Anderson talks about a reluctance among scientists (though not specifically climate scientists) to speak out:
The reality is far more depressing, but many scientists are too afraid to stand up and speak out for fear of being ridiculed. Our job is not to be liked but to give a raw and dispassionate assessment of the scale of the challenge faced by the global community.
Hansen has discussed scientific reticence, a reluctance to speak too boldly, which resembles the "fear of being ridiculed" Anderson decries. This is not at all the same thing as the unprofessional defensiveness you allege. Any apprehensions scientists already have about speaking out are greatly magnified by the prevalence of character assassins such as Watts, Morano, and Wayne.
What you posted Null is exactly why I have stated climate scientists are reluctant to acknowlege errors in their computer modeling.
And the paragraph I posted of Anderson's comments about flawed computer models was about flaws in computer modeling of climate,, that coment of Anderson has nothing to do with economics.
The denialist troll has repeatedly said that climate scientists show reluctance to admit their mistakes. The optimistic assumptions Anderson points to are not those of climate scientists, and are not in the climate component of the integrated model. Anderson's statements do not at all support the serious allegation of Watts, Morano, and Wayne that climate scientists have engaged in professional misconduct.
Never in my life have I said, or written, or implied that any scientists have engaged in professional misconduct, never!
I have agreed with the scientists who say their climate computer models were seriously flawed and have written that in no manner means all the scientists have reported is wrong.
Wayne has acknowledged in this thread that Mark Morano, the author of the article Wayne admires and recites so fervently, is a known climate denialist. Wayne is not himself a denialist, we are asked to believe, though he carries the denialist campaign of vicious slanders against climate scientists into this thread. It's embarrassing work, being a troll, because the pretensions of sincerity a troll must maintain wear so thin.
The link I posted, an article by Mark Morano, was direct quotes from a Washington Post article, or I would not have used it to show what some top Climate scientists have stated about their flawed climate compputer models.
I have written nothing other about flaws in climate computer modeling than that which top level climate scientist have said,,, which is not vicious slander.
The only vicious slander posted on this thread is from you against me Aleph Null.
You continue to repeat, and refuse to retract, an allegation which comes not from the Washington Post or anywhere else but your denialist colleague working for Exxon, Mark Morano: that climate scientists are "reluctant to acknowledge they had flaws in their climate computer models." This is the vicious slander you have posted here repeatedly. You are doing the work of a climate denialist troll, when you retail denialist propaganda.
The original article you quoted from expresses warm admiration for Anthony Watts several times. This isn't some innocent mistake. You know what you're doing: you're working with Watts and Morano.
If any other than our "friendly" Mr. Null and I are reading the comments, you may find this of interest...You may not, lol, but I'll post this anyway.
My major concern and one area I have often commented about since 2005 is the Arctic’s (methane threat) and ~Aleph Null~~ has previously also strongly and abusively disagrees with me on that issue… It is an issue which I have always strongly disagreed with Anthony Watts and all other professional GW Deniers and GW skeptics who argue in the same maner Aleph Null does.
On my first posts on this thread ~Michael Desautels~ and I were having a pleasant conversation, before and after Aleph Null rather rudely had challenged Michael, I posted the following comment in a reply to Michael.
Quote,,, (“One serious problem is our best scientists have published their peer reviewed papers for the last 15 + years on the subject and their (computer models) were seriously flawed... Now that many have re-calculated their equations they are having a very tough time admitting they had ever erred, whic of course is a bad human nature trait... "Pride goeth before a fall").. Unquote
I wrote that because it is true and is a major reason things related to global warming have been happening ten times faster than scientist had predicted with their computer modeling and is not a GW Denier comment,, on the contrary, it is one of the reasons the Professional GW Deniers have been so successful with their false agenda... They use that fact to imply all science of climate is flawed, which is a lie.
This article for this link explains why the Arctic methane threat is so very, very serious and that most climate scientists did not compute methane into their models and when they did, they were not aware that the manner in which they computed atmospheric methane was seriously flawed.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/03/04/205600/science-nsf-tundra-permafrost-methane-east-siberian-arctic-shelf-venting/
From the article...("No climate model currently incorporates the amplifying feedback from methane released by a defrosting tundra…... The new Science study, led by University of Alaska’s International Arctic Research Center and the Russian Academy of Sciences is,,, “Extensive Methane Venting to the Atmosphere from Sediments of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf”. .. The must-read National Science Foundation press release warns, “Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.” The NSF is normally a very staid organization. If they are worried, everybody should be.
According to new science calculations, the impacts of methane on climate warming may be (double) the standard amount attributed to the gas. The new interpretations reveal methane emissions may (account for a third) of the climate warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases..... The IPCC report, which calculates methane’s affects once it exists in the atmosphere, states that methane increases in our atmosphere account for (only about one sixth) of the total effect of well-mixed greenhouse gases on warming.
And that is where the climate computer models were seriously flawed.
Mr. Null disagrees with those scientists about the very serious threat of SOON to release vast quantities of methane and says the thawing Arctic sea ice has no bearing on the release of the Arctic's methane... Null could not be more incorrect.
Aleph Null says the Arctic could warm for the next 200 years and it would not be a problem of releasng methane from the once frozen permafrost... Null is not in the least bit concerned about the rapidly thawing Arctic's perennial sea ice.
Null says ALL we have to do is comply with Dr. James Hansen's proposans, which he has computed, (while ignoring the Arctic methane threat), will reduce our atmospheric Co2 level to 350 ppm by the year 2100,, 88 more years, but Null discounts the scientists who say the Arctic will be ice free within the next three to four years, that would include much of the Arctic's permafrost which has trillions of tons of methane still safely locked in the ice.
Null's proposal is one the Oil Barons and the Shipping Barons would just love to see, as they will love to see an ice free Arctic... So who is actually shillling here? And that my friends is why Aleph Null so viciously attacks me,,, because I have him pegged as a very probable closet shill for big oil and or big shipping, by his own words he has recently posted on at least three seperate threads here at CD... He will be back.
And finally,,, to reply to ~~Aleph Null's~~ false comments he has repeatedly posted here about me being a trolling shill for Exxon, etc. here are just three of hundreds of prior comments I have posted here at CD.
If I was a troll for Exxon or GW Deniers they would have put me in a dungeon a long, long time ago.
Published on Thursday, April 28, 2011 by Science
Watching Climate Change Through a Farmer's Eyes
Posted by WayneWR Apr 28 2011 - 6:57pm
BP, Exxon/Mobil, Chevron/Texaco, the Koch brothers, etc, spend millions every year paying public relation firms which hire excellent writers to shill and troll the web spouting their global warmng denials. And then there is the deniers top dog, "Anthony Watts", a TV and radio weatherman who has his website "Watts up with that". Which has been extremely effective to create doubt and skeptism with millions, including more than half of our DC elected.
Published on Tuesday, May 10, 2011 by The Los Angeles Times Climate Change and the Flood This Time
Posted by WayneWR May 11 2011 - 11:05am
The professional global warming deniers who are funded by the Koch brothers, Exxon/Mobil, big coal and uranium, etc, have accomplished their mission. Many have taken their lies and well written mis-information as gospel, including the majority of our elected in the US and most leaders of every county on Earth.__ Tragic! They don't even realize as yet of what forever lasting, permanent damage they have done for their thirty pieces of silver.
Published on Wednesday, April 20, 2011 by The Salt Lake Tribune
Climate Activists Arrested at US Capitol
Posted by WayneWR
Apr 20 2011 - 12:48pm
We certainly do have a very serious issue with global warming and the beginning of dramatic world wide climate changes. We are now seeing a bit of that here in the US.
Wayne praises the work of Mark Morano, an article extolling the wisdom of Anthony Watts, as "very credible." He will not retract, but keeps reasserting the defamatory assertion of Watts, Morano, and Wayne that climate scientists are guilty of professional misconduct. This is a denialist, openly associated with the most vile exponents of anti-science propaganda. His job requires that he maintain an environmental façade, in order to expand the denialist campaign of slander against climate scientists into this forum.
We both know that isn't true Null, but you keep up your dishonest raving.. I found what the climate scientists said at the Congressional hearing to be very credible.
We both know that you are working with Watts and Morano. In the past, you've attempted to sound like you disapprove of Anthony Watts. Now you are blatantly propounding his anti-science propaganda. Which is the real Wayne: the one who castigates Watts, or the one who kisses his ass?
No Aleph Null,,, we both know you are lying.
I have written what scientists have said,,, not what Anthony Watts or Morano says.. What Dr. Schmidt said in the link I posted was Dr. Schmidt's words spoken at a Congressional hearing and as reported in the Washington Post,,, not Anthony Wattts or Morano's words or opinions.
Rave on with your deranged thinking sad sack and when the methane starts to burst out of the Arctic in ernest in the nest year to three, tell you family that you are very, very sorry,, or maybe just "oops", and try to find Dr. Hansen and see if he has any other ideas.
This attempt by Anthony Watts and Mark Morano to discredit climate scientists, which Wayne finds "very credible," is really pathetically lame:
U.S. Government Scientist's Shock Admission: 'Climate Model Software Doesn't Meet the Best Standards Available'
The featured "shock admission" of NCAR software engineer Gary Strand:
“As a software engineer, I know that climate model software doesn't meet the best standards available. We've made quite a lot of progress, but we've still quite a ways to go,” Strand wrote on July 5, 2009, according to the website WattsUpWithThat.com.
Watts and Morano try to twist this statement to imply incompetence, but any software professional knows that virtually no codebase with a legacy component is ever up to date with the best standards available. Whether in research or industry, there's always the choice between rewriting (and then debugging) legacy code to conform to the current state of the art, or else adding badly needed extra functionality. Strand is talking about an eternal verity, not grounds for allegations of incompetence, as Wayne and his denialist colleagues contend.
The statement from climatologist Gavin Schmidt is even more innocuous.
The problem with climate prediction and projections going out to 2030 and 2050 is that we don't anticipate that they can be tested in the way you can test a weather forecast. It takes about 20 years to evaluate because there is so much unforced variability in the system which we can't predict — the chaotic component of the climate system — which is not predictable beyond two weeks, even theoretically.
Schmidt is articulating a truism: that we cannot model chaotic behavior. That's nothing more than a definition of the word chaotic. He alludes to the fact that chaotic behavior is progressively more difficult to constrain when formulating predictions for smaller regions. By "even theoretically," he means that an ideal modeling system would still have this problem.
The idea of standing that statement on its head, trying to make it sound like an admission of incompetence, is so hackneyed it would not occur to anyone not motivated by a pathological hatred of science, as are Watts and Morano. This is clear to any objective person after a cursory reading. But our denialist troll is not objective. Like his masters Anthony Watts and Mark Morano, he is infatuated with the perversity of taking cheap shots at scientists.
From top climate scientists... ("No climate model currently incorporates the amplifying feedback from methane released by a defrosting tundra.").
The climate computer models are seriousl flawed.
Ya got that Null?
Our troll has now hopped from his precarious perch openly defending the work of arch-denialists Watts and Morano, changing the subject to positive feedbacks.
A model cannot incorporate wild guesses as to the magnitude of feedbacks like methane from defrosting tundra. If it did, it would not be as reliable as models which await the collection of sufficient data to properly quantify such feedbacks. Positive (amplifying) feedbacks like methane tend to be more significant than negative (diminishing) feedbacks - this is why climate models generally underestimate to the degree that worst-case projections tend to be dead on.
The Community Earth System Model is open source. Download it and fix it yourself, since you know so much about how to do things better than the incompetent scientists.
Ha Haa Haa,,, Anthony Watts denies positive feedback to global warming, or AGW.
Null's incredible nonsense about not incorporating the actual methane releases from the Arctic is sheer B/S... The scientists are scrambling now to incorporate that very thing... You are saying the scientists I have quoted, from NOAA, NSIDC, CDIAC, etc are stupid or don't know what is correct.... You are really screwed up Null.
As soon as there is sufficient data to quantify a feedback, it will be incorporated into the models, of course. This happens all the time, and is by no means indicative of "serious flaws" in the models.
There are many sources of methane: some marine, mostly terrestrial. Once the response of a methane flux to a temperature increase is known to a reasonable extent, that feedback is factored into models. What is it about this that you and your boss Anthony Watts find so amusing?
There are many sources of methane which enter the atmosphere... That is correct and many are humans created, coal mining, animal husbandry, rice cultivation, human waste disposal plants.
The very point top scientists have recently made is the VAST amount of methane in the Arctic region which WILL release as the Arctic becomes ice free was not computed in any scientist's climate computer models and the computer models are seriously flawed.
You wrote,,, (" A model cannot incorporate wild guesses as to the magnitude of feedbacks like methane from defrosting tundra")... Wrong! __ Now YOU say,,, ("Once the response of a methane flux to a temperature increase is known to a reasonable extent, that feedback is factored into models.")...More B/S from Aleph Null or any scientists who have said that.
Scientists recently determined the release of methane has caused a third of the planet's temperature rise, not a sixth, as scinetists computer models showed.
Dr. Gavin Schmidt for one was fully aware of the Arctic methane threat prior to 2003 but he and no other climate scientists ever computed that methane threat into their climate modeling and have acknowledge that was a serious mistake.
When scientists recently did compute the amount of methane in the Arctic's permafrost and how dangerously fast it already is releasing they were absolutly shocked at the dire climate model results.
I find nothing whatsoever "amusing" about it at all Mr. Null,, for when that Arctic methane soon begins to release in (massive) quantities, it will trigger a global warming feedback loop which will make it impossible for anything at all to be done about it and that will be the beginning of the end of human and most other life on Earth.
Anthony Watts and his type of ilk say there is no problem with the Arcic being ice free and AGW is a farce... I have never in my life agreed to that... However Watts writes exactly like you Aleph Null on that ice free Arctic issue.... It's good for big oil and shipping .... And that's your flawed agenda Aleph Null,,, not geoengineering issues.
On the first comment posted on this thread ~Aleph Null~ said we must not drill for Oil in the Arctic... However, Null proposes we ONLY do as Dr. James Hansen advises and reduce our carbon output by 6%, tax carbon output and by the year 21000 all will be well... A proposal which is exactly what the Oil and shipping Barnos would love to see.
Null is supporting the Oil and Shipping Barons strong desires with that propopsal and sounds exactly like a shill for them, because if that is the ONLY thing we do, the Arctic will be ice free withn the next three to four years,,, allowing the Oil and Shippping Barons to do as they desire in the Arctic region
What I find to be extremely interesting is I have denied being a troll or a shil for anyone, but Null does not protest the charge he may be shilling for big business... Of course it is clearly obious what Null is doing, not assumptions as he posts... Whether he is doing it for notheing or being paid to do it, that's what Null is doing... Yak on Null.
BTW,,, most here at CD realize is, no matter what is printed in newspapers or magazines, or what climate scientists write or say, the professional global warmng deniers will use their words as ammunition to promote their false agenda.
I posted a link for an article written by a pro GW denier and used the credible words of a top climate scnitists from that article to show what he had stated abott flawed computer models... Mr. Null says it was a mistake for me to use that reference. Mr. Null says a lot of irrational crap..
"Null proposes we ONLY do as Dr. James Hansen advises..."
This is an implicit plug for geoengineering. Anyone who opposes massive, deliberate pollution of the oceans and atmosphere must be looking forward to the economic opportunities accruing from an ice-free Arctic, according to this absurd line of reasoning. All the right-wing think tanks advocating geoengineering, along with Wayne and his arch-denialist colleagues, have our best interests at heart. Opponents of deliberate pollution are shills.
The idea is to stop the pollution. Not to pile more on, moron.
Nope Aleph Null, those are YOUR (assumptions) and outright lies.... I have often stated Dr. James Hansen's proposals are not near good enough... I have also stated the only method I know of to prevent the Arctic from being ice free within the next three to four years would be to artificially cloud the Arctic in the summer months,,, but as I am (not a scientist), that is not something that should be done unless scientists dertemined that could be done ("safely"). And it probably cannot, or it would already have begun.
Those were MY words and I will stick by them,,, and they in no manner suggest I promote geoengineering. I have asked if it would be a safe method... I have also said if scientists cannot find a "safe" method to prevent the Arctic from soon being ice free, we are all screwed... All would include you and your family if any Null.
But (you twist) what I have written, post sentences I have written out of context to the entire paragraph and call me a liar, a dispicable scum, a prostituting whore, a crazy kook, a moron and a shill for geo-engineering and Exxon. You clearly have a flawed agenda Null.
First you say I've got a hidden agenda because I oppose geoengineering. Next thing I know, you also oppose geoengineering. First you say you hate Anthony Watts. Next thing I know, you're kissing his ass. You keep bouncing around like a ping-pong ball.
I never said anything like what you wrote sonny... You feel better now don't you... Of course you are an expert at saying what others (didn't) write or say and then you swear to it and keep repeating your lies.