Yeah, yeah. You knew already that deniers are WUWT are a weird mob. But did you know just how weird they are?
There's finally another WUWT article (archived here) by Bob Tisdale about the BoM alert for El Nino, which you might have read about here the other day. That isn't what I'm writing about. What I'm writing about is some of the comments in response.
This is the 21st article that Bob's written on the possibility of an El Nino this year (at least), but do you know what some of the riff raff are writing? Are they complaining that WUWT is obsessed by ENSO? Nope. Are they complaining that Bob Tisdale is trying to frighten the fake sceptics? Nope.
It's not WUWT or Bob Tisdale who they are complaining about. What the WUWT lot are claiming is that the BoM fortnightly ENSO updates are all a plot by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology to frighten the pants off the dumb deniers at WUWT.
Hold on to your hats. Here comes the conspiracy brigade - over ENSO would you believe!
nicholas tesdorf decides it's all an evil plot:
November 19, 2014 at 5:07 pm
The BOM ‘Alert’ is more likely a way of diverting public attention from ‘The Pause’ and other conflicting data. It also fills in time for the Warmistas until the firebugs get the bushfire season underway.
hunter obviously doesn't live in eastern Australia and doesn't know anyone who does. He probably doesn't live in California either. He does think an ENSO announcement is designed to scare people, however:
November 19, 2014 at 8:57 pmAn “alert” for a friggin’ El Nino? As if it is a storm or tornado, and not a multi-month to year plus natural phenomenon. It is annoying how everything under control of climate freaks and kooks is described in alarmist or scary terms.
November 20, 2014 at 4:12 am(Curiously it seems that Anthony has stopped showing the CO2 levels. Getting too obvious p'raps?)
BoM trying to scare people into worrying over climate yet again
especially with fire season upon us
funny is the rain we are getting finally on a fair part of east coast n qld
PS
Mods /Anth**y/ anyone..
what happened to the Co2 meter that used to be on the sidebar?
I liked getting a chuckle as it rose and temps did not.
Joel O'Bryan calls the fortnightly ENSO update "weather alarmism"
November 19, 2014 at 9:05 pm
Weather alarmism is a where the Climate Alarmists are headed. They haven’t gotten the public’s attention with the deceitful Climate Change “alarmism”, so now go with Weather alarmism.
Greg Holmes, who would fail a spelling test, thinks our prestigious, world class, official weather bureau is "dodgy":
November 20, 2014 at 3:11 am
Not sure I would trust anything coming from the BOM in Australia. They have been subject to various enquireies over the legitimasy of there reporting in recent years. Dodgy outfit?
Come on all you science deniers out there, tell us these crazy comments are just anomalous anomalies at WUWT!
"It was a yes or no question" Donald, in a simple terms, the answer you ask for is ceteris paribus, "yes". Also, you may be under the disillusionment that CO2 is believed to be the only factor affecting warming trends. Then again, perhaps it's not a disillusionment and you can cite a quote of a climate scientist who states that the sun (solar insolation), aerosols, etc. are irrelevant to warming trends.
ReplyDeleteAnd, in reference to one of your comments above, in really simple terms the relative heat capacities of the hydrosphere and the atmosphere are 1000 to 1. Given that the ocean has an average depth of 4.3 km, arithmetically and ignoring the dynamics involved, non-uniform heat distribution, time scales, etc., the top 4.3 metres of the ocean can absorb the same amount of heat as the atmosphere.
Donald: Your point might have been simple, but you didn't say what you meant. A mere ongoing rise in CO2, at a constant rate, won't change the time interval you need for statistical significance much. If anything, it will *increase* it slightly due to the logarithmic nature of the actual T-CO2 relationship (more CO2 needed at higher concentrations for a constant change in T). However, maybe the high-frequency changes with T (e.g., ENSO becomes more or less active) so that the length of the record needed becomes longer or shorter; or postulate your own reason for temperature-dependent change in high frequency variability.
ReplyDeleteYou might think Jammy and I are being obtuse, but you screwed up your question. This was explained to you a long time ago but you chose to ignore us.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteMake whatever point(s) you want to make and be done with it already.
ReplyDeleteSo, for example, if you were to provide a better AOGCM then the current lot of AOGCM's, than you would score some point(s).
Your funding for said alternative universe will be provided by the Ayn Rand Institute and your thesis adviser will be Rand Paul. Good luck.
Otherwise, whatever point(s) that you are not willing to make, kind of leaves you in Limbo/Purgatory/Hell (you know, of your own doing).
I'm sure Donald has some reason for thinking this and I'd sincerely like to know what it is. It appears to be somewhat foundational in his most recent comments, so he can hardly have plucked the notion out of thin air.
ReplyDeleteCome on. You state a poorly worded assertion that doesn't make sense and get frustrated when nobody agrees. When others point out good links to help you understand the science, you either ignore those links or just ignore the data as you did with your comments about the ocean. If you really want to learn, go read the articles and engage on the science. However, it doesn't seem that you want to learn and instead just want to argue, which I take from this sentence fragment: "so I could use it to make a point." Unfortunately, it's hard to agree to incorrect premise for you to make your point.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you'll listen now. I'm not sure, but I'll try. Here goes. What I'm about to say is not controversial among scientists that study this stuff every day (regardless of what you may read on anti-science blogs). CO2 has increased from ~280PPM to ~400PPM since the industrial revolution. The extra CO2, as a greenhouse gas, is causing more and more energy to be stored within the atmosphere. Even if we cut CO2 emissions to zero today, the energy would still be increasing because we have not yet hit equilibrium from the additional 120PPM of CO2 already in the atmosphere. The total additional energy added to the earth is ~10^20 joules per year. That energy may go into surface temperatures or may go into the ocean, but it's going somewhere. You can see the effects in declining worldwide ice, especially in the Arctic and Antarctic land ice. You can see it in the increasing sea level. You can also see it in the increasing surface temperatures. Deniers typically point to the RSS temperature history as their one last way to obfuscate the issue, but the RSS temp history is the worst of the temperature data sets to use. First, it doesn't cover the poles where rate of surface temperature increase has been most great. Second, there are issues with their reliability since it's a complex calculation. Don't take my word for it, read it from the RSS blog ( http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures ) where you'll find this: "A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!)." Lastly, the work of Weng et al is beginning to question all satellite data sets. All the surface datasets are showing that 2014 will be among the hottest years on record, if not the hottest. GISS has I believe 3 months already that are the hottest on record in 2014.
So to repeat, the Earth is accumulating an extra 10^20 joules per year from GHGs, with the forcing coming specifically from CO2. CO2 has grown ~40% since the start of the industrial age. The extra energy naturally accumulates more in the ocean than on the surface because it covers more of the Earth's surface and can hold much more heat. You can see that in the ocean measurements as others have linked to. You can also see it in the rising sea level. Surface temperatures are increasing, especially at the poles, but not all data sets capture that. The best way to understand surface temperatures is in the work of Cowtan and Way (Google their names and find the Youtube video if you really want to learn).
Donald, I find it hard to believe you've read "countless articles". If you have you've either not read the relevant ones or you've not understood what you've read.
ReplyDeleteNor do I believe that you bothered to read any of those articles I went out of my way to provide links for after you asked your question. Nor that you have any grounds for disputing "my" conclusions, which aren't mine but those of people who've taken and analysed measurements. You call objective measurements and scientific analysis "guesses" and "leaps" - and this coming from you, who've shown us that you don't even know why earth can accumulate heat without it all going to raise the temperature of the atmosphere.
Dunning and Kruger material, I'd say.
Donald, if the warming trend is linear then no, there will not be any tendency for trends to "reach statistical significance sooner." It's possible that there will be random periods of about 10 years that will have higher-than-average or lower-than-average slopes, because the temperature trend has serial dependence. And of course these periods of drift can interact with El Nino / La Nina events to appear even steeper or flatter than the overall trend. But in the long term, a linear trend should show no tendency for trends to "reach statistical significance sooner."
ReplyDeleteThat is the cause of your "pause" and the reason that different periods of time in the data series might be similarly statistically.
Donald, as pointed out many times above, you did not ask the question you claimed to have asked because, apparently, when you talked about "increasing CO2" you really meant "an increase in the rate at which CO2 rises". The right thing to do now is apologize for mis-phrasing the question and getting annoyed at people. Man enough to do it?
ReplyDeleteMarco got it from the Henry's law Wikipedia page with a direct link to the paper it references stating it applies just to PCO2(aq) instead of PCO2(g).
ReplyDeleteCountless? In your case that would be about 4 then.
ReplyDelete"I've read countless articles" sounds like my friend who claimed to have read the IPCC reports and discovered that they were not nearly as certain about human influence as what gets reported in the press.
ReplyDeleteHe didn't reply when I quoted the relevant page of AR5 SPM at him.