tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post779091296988666851..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: David Burton @wattsupwiththat denies what's really warming the worldSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-24530743853835601542017-02-23T17:33:12.940+11:002017-02-23T17:33:12.940+11:00More than 18 months on, I'd be interested to s...More than 18 months on, I'd be interested to see Bloomberg update their graphics widget. Anyone know who to poke in the ribs to make it so?Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-24509183765938147972015-07-01T08:13:49.222+10:002015-07-01T08:13:49.222+10:00It could be worse :-)
Many of those dedicated to F...It could be worse :-)<br />Many of those dedicated to Fig 7.1(c) claimed it was from IPCC(1995), for instance, as needed to make the unsupported Deming story work. See <a href="http://www.webcitation.org/6Apedzido" rel="nofollow">McIntyre, 2005 as one example, not alone.</a>. Many people made claims about this, clearly never having studied IPCC 1990 or 1995. In academe, this is usually called false citation, or falsification.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-74277693884336980842015-06-30T22:24:21.377+10:002015-06-30T22:24:21.377+10:00Anon, yeah, I tweeted about that. Cathy must be c...Anon, yeah, I tweeted about that. Cathy must be cheering...<br /><br />:-)Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-73523355688539614542015-06-30T21:45:48.759+10:002015-06-30T21:45:48.759+10:00Don't mention the Ho, Bernard! I do hope it...Don't mention the Ho, Bernard! I do hope it's not a reference to the potential comeback of a certain pollie in the people's republic of Indi...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-34252667155116759862015-06-30T19:30:52.212+10:002015-06-30T19:30:52.212+10:00Thank you, Sou. To pat myself on the back a little...Thank you, Sou. To pat myself on the back a little, my two-cent version was basically right:<br /><br />"But in the meantime, I will give you my two-cent answer: the simulations are based on the observed data. The data itself can't tell you the actual contribution of each component to warming: they have to isolate the variables. They put the individual data into the physics of the atmosphere by themselves to see the effect each has on warming. They also model past data to see whether the simulation is accurate for that."Vaytwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06547262998332265862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-51567024849177568342015-06-30T18:29:05.987+10:002015-06-30T18:29:05.987+10:00Yeah JM, I should have spent a little more time to...Yeah JM, I should have spent a little more time to fact check. Accuracy does matter in these affairs...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-52575310029474681732015-06-30T18:20:18.689+10:002015-06-30T18:20:18.689+10:00Schrödinger's cat took over from the elves, II...Schrödinger's cat took over from the elves, IIRC ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-948951020619522442015-06-30T17:12:16.688+10:002015-06-30T17:12:16.688+10:00Magma. It is not topical but topology! I will nave...Magma. It is not topical but topology! I will nave mine in a glass thankyou. Shape unimportant as long it has a derivative as a well where some liquuid will be quasi stable. BertBert from Elthamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-26137917605206995612015-06-30T14:49:24.836+10:002015-06-30T14:49:24.836+10:00Oh, yes. I should have realised that Vaytw might n...Oh, yes. I should have realised that Vaytw might not know that the Bloomberg charts <b>do</b> show model results alongside observations. That the charts <b>do</b> show observed data (as well as model output).Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-80758158130137388482015-06-30T14:44:34.188+10:002015-06-30T14:44:34.188+10:00The observed SAT data ARE there.
The AOGCM model ...The observed SAT data ARE there.<br /><br />The AOGCM model data are there in a best effort to explain the observed SAT data.<br /><br />You can also do a very simple multiple regression analysis as BEST has done. Problem with that methodology is a lack of a physical basis and that it is very dangerous to extrapolate outside the bounds of such types of non-physically based analyses.Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-82468247701578299362015-06-30T14:35:51.517+10:002015-06-30T14:35:51.517+10:00I haven't seen that argument, Vaytw.
The rea...I haven't seen that argument, Vaytw. <br /><br />The reason simulations are used is because the scientists are working out what contribution each factor makes to global surface temperature over time, without other factors operating. That is, what is the effect of solar variability on surface temperature alone, without any other forcing such as volcanic eruptions, or aerosols etc.<br /><br />In the real world, it is not possible to collect data on temperature where one forcing is isolated from all the others. In the real world, solar radiation varies at the same time as greenhouse gases vary and a volcano may erupt adding to the mix. It's just not possible to prevent any one of them from having an impact in the real world, let alone all but one of them. <br /><br />One of the beauties of climate models is that in a model, the scientists can hold all the other variables constant while changing just one of them to see what its impact is. You can also change several selected ones together (eg all natural) while keeping others constant (eg the ones from human activities) and see what the effect is. In the real world, you can't make the sun shine evenly and dictate that it won't change for a few decades. You can't stop volcanoes from erupting while taking temperature observations. You can't stop people burning fossil fuels for a few decades while measurements are being taken. Maybe one day - for fossil fuels - but not the sun or volcanoes.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30574896561191361312015-06-30T14:22:22.540+10:002015-06-30T14:22:22.540+10:00In an argument, a denier is criticizing that the v...In an argument, a denier is criticizing that the various Bloomberg charts are based on simulations rather than observed data. Can anyone explain to me in layman's terms why they use simulations here?Vaytwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06547262998332265862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-46687822391503241902015-06-30T14:11:43.351+10:002015-06-30T14:11:43.351+10:00Elves stopped playing with CO2 when Keeling starte...Elves stopped playing with CO2 when Keeling started to track them.. it was too boring for them after that.. ;)0^0https://www.blogger.com/profile/09590270703159793784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-47776214345756668962015-06-30T13:56:27.801+10:002015-06-30T13:56:27.801+10:00Well, it was the stupidest item of June 29th 2015....Well, it was the stupidest item of June 29th 2015. I think (didn't read the other ones, one by nutty nazi Tim Ball I believe). ;-)<br /><br />This Arctic sea ice article was preceded last week by some guy who made a huge effort to nit- and cherrypick different research papers to prove that models have overestimated Arctic sea ice lose, whereas it's <a href="http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/09/models-are-improving-but-can-they-catch-up.html" rel="nofollow">the exact opposite</a>, of course. I was quite astonished at the whole exercise.Nevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15413215743703093876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10518813285083228142015-06-30T13:10:55.552+10:002015-06-30T13:10:55.552+10:00I forgive Anthony’s title mixup because I judge it...<i>I forgive Anthony’s title mixup because I judge it might be closer to the truth than the press release about the paper.</i><br /><br />WUWT - the paradise of confirmation bias! As, I note, Svaalgard endeavours to point out, to little avail...<br /><br />Watts (mis)reads via his cognitive filter, the numpties mostly fail to notice it's the wrong way round because they also routinely and identically (mis)read - or simply never read beyond the Chum headline anyway - and, finally, what they'll actually remember is the inversion, which is more It's Trooooo™ than mere truth anyway. <br /><br />These people - the rusted on rump of denial - can only be overwhelmed, not persuaded; all the 'skeptics' reachable by reason abraded away years ago.<br /><br />billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-7252989573800216832015-06-30T13:10:30.356+10:002015-06-30T13:10:30.356+10:00:=):=)Rattus Norvegicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03449457204330125792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-44271887669332242512015-06-30T13:08:02.500+10:002015-06-30T13:08:02.500+10:00I was referring to the typo, but I think I got awa...I was referring to the typo, but I think I got away with it...Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-61011890868805539902015-06-30T13:07:24.252+10:002015-06-30T13:07:24.252+10:00No, it cannot be the stupidest [item] ever, since ...No, it cannot be the stupidest [item] ever, since WUWT is in fact a HTML representation of a 4D Klein-Möbius well of stupidity that turns back and continuously rejoins itself through time and space.<br /><br />There is no bottom.Magmanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-62177012763951066862015-06-30T13:06:30.733+10:002015-06-30T13:06:30.733+10:00That was so awesome in its stupidity that he was f...That was so awesome in its stupidity that he was forced to change it!Rattus Norvegicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03449457204330125792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-68387631135416870872015-06-30T12:49:26.278+10:002015-06-30T12:49:26.278+10:00Newsflash, Anthony posts stupidest headline ever, ...Newsflash, Anthony posts stupidest headline ever, contradicted by FIRST SENTENCE of press release he cut and pasted. What a bozo.Rattus Norvegicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03449457204330125792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-66370821815110753532015-06-30T12:46:46.565+10:002015-06-30T12:46:46.565+10:00There've been some tweets from hard core denie...There've been some tweets from hard core deniers - the usual knee-jerk reaction to denying science. It's not as if the Bloomberg charts are any different to the IPCC reports or science that's already well understood. They make the science clear and obvious, and are a neat way to illustrate it.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-85042427060471160262015-06-30T11:26:34.690+10:002015-06-30T11:26:34.690+10:00Uh-oh.
Apologies Sou, if it catches on.<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2015/06/03/june-2015-open-thread/comment-page-11/#comment-339624" rel="nofollow">Uh-oh</a>.<br /><br />Apologies Sou, if it catches on.Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-41519323551573109132015-06-30T11:15:03.003+10:002015-06-30T11:15:03.003+10:00"t's just like that schematic of central ..."t's just like that schematic of central England temps by Lamb that featured on the cover of the 1991 IPCC report. "<br />??<br />It wasn't on the cover of IPCC(1990), just Fig 7.1(c), and in any case, see <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/01/26/medievaldeception-2015-inhofe-drags-senate-dark-ages" rel="nofollow">MedievalDeception 2015: Inhofe Drags Senate Back To Dark Ages</a> for the history and a map of the area covered by Lamb's sketch.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-73217255144189587012015-06-30T07:24:29.518+10:002015-06-30T07:24:29.518+10:00Does SD even begin to understand the concept of a ...Does SD even begin to understand the concept of a footprint, as in the altimetry data are NOT point measurements, and even if they were point measurements, a spatial average is taken.<br /><br />On another note, it would appear that Monkers needs to take a course (or three) in thermodynamics.<br /><br />Teh stupid, it BURNS!Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-68795043525944101302015-06-30T06:55:34.457+10:002015-06-30T06:55:34.457+10:00Have you seen this beauty from Watts yet, Sou?Have you seen <a href="http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2015/06/ocean-circulation-and-arctic-sea-ice-retreat.html" rel="nofollow">this beauty</a> from Watts yet, Sou?Nevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15413215743703093876noreply@blogger.com