Scroll To Top

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

Open thread

Sou | 9:49 AM Go to the first of 60 comments. Add a comment

It'll probably be another couple of days before getting back to daily blogging. In the meantime, feel free to comment about anything.

Australia is shocked that Greg Hunt, whose department got the UN to rid a report of the Barrier Reef, is claiming credit for keeping the Great Barrier Reef off the endangered list for a bit longer. That's during the worst coral bleaching event in modern times. UNESCO is going to keep an eye on it for a while, even if Greg Hunt isn't.

Over at WUWT, the audience has been reduced to a joke. I know it's not the done thing to call people stupid, but how would you describe these comments?

The vandalism of CSIRO continues.

60 comments :

  1. The first I heard of Greg Hunt was a snippet where he was quoted saying "The good news is, 25% of the reef is fine". But that tweet really takes the cake.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Those WUWT comments, as they often do, remind me of Terry Pratchett's 'some minds you couldn't change with a hatchet'.

    These are the rusted-on idiots, completely impervious to inconvenient information. Even if we manage to recreate the Eocene Thermal Maximum these guys and their ilk will still be announcing it has been cooling since last Wednesday, and anyway it was much warmer in the Hadean!

    Like Trump fans they'd be merely pathetic if they weren't so fricking dangerous (and, let's face it, those are strongly overlapping sets!)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have found it interesting that climate science moves on, more peer-reviewed analyses are published, the world warms more, Arctic sea ice melts more, sea levels rise more, etc. Yet the comments on WUWT stay the same. Is it that the minds are rusted-on? Or is it from new people enjoying the wonders of climate denial and thinking that what they are reading is reality-based? Has anyone assessed the half-life of active commenters on WUWT?

      Delete
    2. After the Pause excursion we are right back to what we were hearing thirty years ago - the models are wrong, the data is manipulated, climate always changes, clouds, UHI, what are they hiding, heretics, Galileo, would a British viscount lie to you? In Latin?

      Thinking of which, the Vatican's inclusion in the conspiracy of all time is something new. Can't say I saw that coming.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, that's the beauty of conspiracies, they are so flexible - pretty much anything can be accommodated

      A feature afforded to them when they don't have to anchor anything on facts

      Delete
    4. The fact that climate change deniers peddle climate change denier talking points shows they do not understand the science, or they are intellectually dishonest.

      I suspect the "moderates" who honestly doubted some of the science left the building some time ago, and only the intellectually dishonest remain.

      Delete
  3. The WUWT comments are the product of a moderation policy intended to eliminate the intelligent and the inmates are running out of things to parrot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A new article at WUWT requiring its quota of numpty comments must be something like this.

      Delete
    2. My empirical hypothesis is that AGW denial has become so embarrassing to try to uphold that anyone with half a brain stepped outside the echo chamber for a breath of air, and ran away when nobody was looking.

      Delete
  4. The twitter comments on Greg Hunt's tweet are scathing.

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/robstott/never-tweet?utm_term=.gg6ZWzKyw8#.wra93RWLjo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But why. This is a chosen govt so Aussies should in general be happy.

      Delete
  5. Over on LinkedIn, Jim Steele has a thread about an article of his insisting coral bleaching is hardly ever caused by warm water. And besides, coral bleaching is a good thing.

    I'm not joking. That's what he says.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is also published on Judith's blog. She just keeps sinking and sinking...

      Delete
    2. Same essay was posted at Curry's a few days ago. My latest comment to him is in moderation, but that snapshot I think contains everything I've written that has come out of moderation.

      I learned a bunch about the Adaptive Bleaching Hypothesis, which I'd never read about previously. So that at least was worth the price of admission.

      Delete
    3. Eh, we appear to have crossed, Lars. I should refresh more often ... :-)

      Delete
    4. The usual denialist rubbish. See eg. Veron (2008):

      The five mass extinction events that the earth has so far experienced have impacted coral reefs as much or more than any other major ecosystem. Each has left the Earth without living reefs for at least four million years, intervals so great that they are commonly referred to as ‘reef gaps’ (geological intervals where there are no remnants of what might have been living reefs). The causes attributed to each mass extinction are reviewed and summarised. When these causes and the reef gaps that follow them are examined in the light of the biology of extant corals and their Pleistocene history, most can be discarded. Causes are divided into (1) those which are independent of the carbon cycle: direct physical destruction from bolides, ‘nuclear winters’ induced by dust clouds, sea-level changes, loss of area during sea-level regressions, loss of biodiversity, low and high temperatures, salinity, diseases and toxins and extraterrestrial events and (2) those linked to the carbon cycle: acid rain, hydrogen sulphide, oxygen and anoxia, methane, carbon dioxide, changes in ocean chemistry and pH. By process of elimination, primary causes of mass extinctions are linked in various ways to the carbon cycle in general and ocean chemistry in particular with clear association with atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. The prospect of ocean acidification is potentially the most serious of all predicted outcomes of anthropogenic carbon dioxide increase. This study concludes that acidification has the potential to trigger a sixth mass extinction event and to do so independently of anthropogenic extinctions that are currently taking place.

      Deny, deny, deny...

      Won't stop a damned thing.

      Delete
    5. I get that deniers are having to deal with the collapse of coral reefs all over the world, particularly around Australia.

      If I remember, the stages of denial are: 1) it's not happening, 2) it's happening but we're not doing it, 3) we're doing it but it's not that big a deal, 4) it is a big deal but it'd be too expensive to fix, and 5) it's too late.

      Steele's paper is a mix between 2 and 3. He can't say it isn't happening, so he says we're not responsible for bleached corals, but even if we are, it's nothing to be concerned about.

      Delete
    6. Sometimes closed off with 6) somebody should have said something.

      Delete
    7. Brandon G

      BBD, thanks for Veron (2008), I have put it to good use.

      So you did :-)

      Delete
  6. Since we have an open thread here, this is a good time to share a little audio clip that shows what a laughingstock Fox News is with the American scientific community.

    Last month, Professor Jeff Severinghaus delivered the Keeling Memorial Lecture at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Listen to this 10-second audio clip to hear how the audience reacted when he uttered the words "Fox News" (the audio quality not the greatest; you have to listen closely to hear the speaker).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are very few jokes for which "Fox News" can't be used as the punchline.

      Delete
  7. "The world’s oceans contain enough cold water to quench any imaginable anthropogenic global warming for hundreds, more likely thousands of years. If that deep water is upwelling around Antarctica, keeping the Southern Ocean cold, it is difficult to see how significant global warming can occur, or significant Antarctic contribution to sea level rise can occur, until that reservoir of freezing cold deep ocean water is finally depleted."

    See, nothing to worry about, we can go back to burning as much oil as we can, as fast as we can, the oceans stored cold will take care of all the CO2-retained heat, and then some.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm just worried we may not have enough coal, oil and gas to do the job of warming those frigid waters.

      Won't someone please think of the poor fish shivering away in the wet, cold, dark, still-too-alkaline depths?

      Delete
    2. Best heat sink ever recorded!

      Delete
  8. This is what Bob Marley & The Wailers were singing about. Stir it up.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Proposal: we should drop the word "equlibrium" from the term "climate sensitivity". It's misleading & dangerous.

    It's true that the physics imply that temperatures will stabilise for centuries, perhaps millennia, as the ice sheets melt. Ice responds to warming first by reaching ~0° C, at which point the energy of warming goes into melting ice. After the completion of this phase change, as warming continues, water warms up again.

    So with warming, temperatures will (approximately) stabilise for a time, but the ice sheets will be melting chaotically, causing bursts of sea level rise that will be unpredictable & incredibly destructive - not to mention permanent on human time scales, since it would take tens of millennia to rebuild the ice sheets.

    So how about it? Let's stop using the word "eqilibrium" attached to "climate sensitivity"; the only meaningful equilibrium is Earth system sensitivity, which applies after the ice sheets melt & albedo falls as a result. What do others think?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. another fan.

      I can't see why ECS should be changed, it IS an equilibrium measurement. I would rather call a spade a spade.

      I don't think the heat absorption by the ice melting is all that significant (it goes into latent heat) - most of the globe's water is already above freezing. Unless you have the figures?

      At one point I was willing to bet on the probability that global warming will cause sea level to fall - increased precipitation over Antarctica will lock up more water. But it now seems pretty certain that Greenland will continue to lose ice as it is not cold enough, and the wild card is Antarctica ice shelf collapse due to a warmer ocean.

      Delete
    2. Arguably transient climate response (TCR) is more relevant in real-world terms.

      Delete
    3. From an ecological/evolutionary perspective I'd argue that an equilibrium climate sensitivity is very much relevant.

      Unless one does not grant that species and ecosystems merit consideration, that is.

      Delete
    4. Slow-feedbacks sensitivity is called ESS (Earth System Sensitivity) as distinct from ECS. When there is a significant cryosphere, ESS is *higher* than ECS.

      Delete
    5. I didn't say climate sensitivity was irrelevant, I just said it was misleading to call it an "equilibrium". Chaotically rising sea level as ice sheets melt would be for humans a very uncomfortable "equilibrium" indeed, even though warming would stop temporarily.

      Most likely, TCR is ~2° C, CS ~3° C & ESS ~6° C. A TCR of ~2° C is consistent with the ~1° C warming we've had with ~40% higher CO2, & ESS ~6° C is consistent with the paleoclimate data.

      The temperature response to CO2 is U-shaped, though, with runaway cooling leading to snowball events at low levels & runaway warming leading to Venusian-type conditions with high levels.

      I believe that accumulating evidence is telling us the EAIS is indeed vulnerable to warming oceans (even if it takes centuries), & increased precipitation won't be enough to offset ablation at the edges.

      Delete
    6. I didn't say climate sensitivity was irrelevant, I just said it was misleading to call it an "equilibrium".

      I know what you mean but disagree with your use of "misleading" in this context. I think the problem arises when these formalisms are encountered by people who aren't familiar with their correct definitions. There's no attempt to mislead, but technical discussions of climate science require the participants to get the terminology straight. In other words, it's on us, not on scientists, who in no way can be said to have misled anyone.

      Delete
  10. Lol, Their comments read like people who have see fire for the first time

    ReplyDelete
  11. I have compelling proof that Dave Stealey (aka smokey et al) is still a mod at WUWT. Two hours after a thread closed at WUWT after its two week run, 10 comments appeared in a matter of minutes. Poor smokey had his ass handed to him and this is the only way he could save face.
    https://archive.is/qhQg7

    Unfortunately he forgot about timestamps, there is no way to argue those post weren't made after comments closed.

    I have been informed off the record that there were alterations and removal of comments on that thread, vanishing without a trace..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lots of my comments were delayed or disappeared. Not to mention an attempted doxxing (it was amusing, some tried to imply I was a member of SKS I was almost flattered).

      I still cannot post on the comments so I assume I am still blocked.

      Delete
    2. Reginald,

      Thanks for that. Here's a gem:

      barry, give it up. I made the second comment in this thread, but you didn’t like it. So you cherry-picked an extremely short time slice out of the entire record — the same thing the NSIDC is trying to do to claim that the current ‘ice’ variability is un-natural.

      Smokey literally will say *anything* to "win" a point, even if it torpedoes his own frequent past behaviour ... and especially if it doesn't even apply to the actual conversation he's blundered into.

      Delete
    3. Wow. hell just froze over
      May 31, 2016 at 11:32 am
      [snip – inappropriate response by a moderator who should know better – Anthony]



      WTF is this about?

      https://archive.is/fKA27#selection-10089.0-10265.61

      Delete
    4. I love the way stealey (and most deniers actually) try to prove their point by linking to a scientific article/study that actually states the opposite - if you take the trouble to read them

      Presumably deniers simply accept a link as "proof"


      Delete
    5. Reginald,

      WTF is this about?

      Apparently DB went off on a conspiracy theory rant as per his usual, Saul from Montreal pointed out it made WUWT look ridiculous and Willard Tony agreed. There was some discussion about it here a few articles back, I didn't see it first hand so I may have the details wrong.

      Delete
    6. Thank you for that guys. It was enjoyable reading.

      Delete
  12. Desperation is a stinky cologne, Harry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PS: I still cannot post on the comments so I assume I am still blocked.

      I'm still getting through (when I can trouble myself to post) so obviously you've done some tremendously better work over there than I have. :-)

      Delete
    2. Bert from ElthamJune 2, 2016 at 4:43 PM

      Here is my latest image. I call it the Kadaitcha Man. 8MB

      http://d1355990.i49.quadrahosting.com.au/2016_05/KadaitchaMan.jpg

      It is actually part of Corona Australis.

      The Kadaitcha Man in Aboriginal Mythology came in feather boots to make his walk silent after those that broke the immutable laws of nature.

      Bert



      Delete
    3. What appears to have happened is that Watts has admitted that Stealey is still a moderator and abused his authority by posting comments on a thread that was closed. Saul from Montreal got the better of him and Stealey came back after comments closed and posted around a dozen comments.

      Delete
    4. Brandon.

      Well, I did say clearly several times when I thought an article had drifted over into total Conspiracy Theory territory. And I upset Bob Tisdale once or twice.

      And I always gave DBStealy a serving when he lashed out with his trollish comments, he did not like me calling him a woof woof. Comments like his make me wonder about the state of his mental health, he must realize he is making a fool of himself in public.

      Delete
    5. Harry,

      Tisdale is easy to upset, simply waste his time asking him a perfectly reasonable question which is sceptical of one of his arguments.

      No, I can't imagine DBS likes being called an attack poodle. We'll never know for sure, but how I figure it is he knows what he's peddling is rank bullshit, but he's banking on his fans not knowing the difference.

      Delete
  13. Tadaaa

    Presumably deniers simply accept a link as "proof"

    Of course they do and probably 98% of them don't even look at an abstract. And in many cases the person supplying the link probably has not read it either, just was impressed by a catchy title. Happens all the time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The deniers are only interested in "winning", not the facts.

      Delete
  14. That tweet of Greg Hunt is wrong on so many levels. Mind you, this is the same guy who proposed crowd-funding of research into Antarctic walrus.

    ReplyDelete
  15. WUWT airs it's dirty linen ....

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/02/more-wordpress-com-troubles-for-wuwt-post-thread-closure-comments/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aha good find

      The post by a guy called Brandon Scholenberger nails it

      "I didn’t think this needed to be said, but for all you people who think dbstealey was a sacrificial lamb being used to maintain the air of integrity, you’ve been had. That’s not why this happened. This happened because dbstealey has a long history of writing abusive, paranoid rants and they have been a constant source of embarrassment for our host. The behavior in the last few weeks has been particularly embarrassing, to the point our host has had to step in and delete his comments multiple times because of how bad they were.

      99% of the posts I ever read on WUWT are bat sh1t crazy conspiracy rants, and I suspect Watts is simply tired of it

      he seems like a weary king canute figure, trying to hold back the rising tide of paranoid delusional claptrap that gets posted

      His problem his that if he did, it would be a lonely place indeed

      Delete
    2. Willard Watts hasn't addressed the fact that several of Saul's comments that were visible at the time the comment thread closed were made to vanish down the memory hole without a trace.
      Nor was there mention of the numerous sock-puppets used by Dave Stealey or the fact that Stealey was a covert Mod, not on the list posted at WUWT.
      The plot thickens!

      Delete
    3. Well that appears to confirm Dave Stealey is a moderator. I always thought he was. It is incredible a blog would allow someone of that character to be a mod, even a bad Conspiracy Theory blog like WUWT.

      Delete
    4. Willard Tony is a slimy little toad. First he blames the moderation failings on Wordpress, then he uses this as a platform to backhand HotWhopper!

      I was right in removing that blog from my RSS feed. I do actually prefer to read anti-AGW blogs as well as pro ones, but my preferences have limits.

      Delete
  16. Here is conspiracy theorist Dave Stealey's comment that started this kerfuffle. Willard claims there is no conspiracy ideation at his pseudoscience blog.

    https://archive.is/j1EMU#selection-3965.0-3979.24

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I famously hate Stealey's guts but in his defence that sort of comment can be found on every anti-mitigation site on the Web. (Many such comments happily exist on CE).
      The most fantastic conspiratorial ideation comes from Lord Haw-Haw to which Anthony fervently genuflects.
      Consistency has never been his strong suite and that's unlikely to change, but his new non-smokey policy is weirdly compelling.

      Delete
  17. I have added a comment to the stealey thread, re a "discussion" I had with him back in early March.
    And yes It got posted up.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Gas cars will probably go out of sale in Norway 2025, probably not entirly baned, but for all practical reasons not available - just to expensive. Good news.

    ReplyDelete
  19. strange comment posted at wuwt minutes before comments were closed.

    Is it from someone based in reality or from one of his trolls?

    https://archive.is/7CL8a#selection-27063.0-27107.20

    ReplyDelete

Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL or OpenID. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.