Anthony Watts has published another defamatory article on his blog (archived here). I use the term without it being proven in the courts, but if one of the retired scientists mentioned wanted to take him and Tim Ball to court, he'd surely be able to make a case to be heard. Tim Ball started his false claims in the very first sentence.Some key points about the NOAA temperature reconstruction paper, Karl15
Before going into the despicable actions of Tim Ball and his publisher Anthony Watts, let me remind you about the NOAA work that they don't understand, but dislike so much they'll risk being sued (yet again, in the case of Tim Ball).
The work was built from two main pieces of research. One was an updating of a sea surface temperature record, which was in turn built from zillions of records from different sources, carefully analysed in great detail. The scientists re-aligned the data from different sources so that it provided a more accurate account of how the temperature of the sea surface has changed over time. As an example of this, the authors of Karl15 wrote:
...there was a large change in ship observations (i.e., from buckets to engine intake thermometers) that peaked immediately prior to World War II. The previous version of ERSST assumed that no ship corrections were necessary after this time, but recently improved metadata (18) reveal that some ships continued to take bucket observations even up to the present day. Therefore, one of the improvements to ERSST version 4 is extending the ship-bias correction to the present, based on information derived from comparisons with night marine air temperatures.The scientists who did this sea surface temperature research published papers about it prior to the paper, Karl15, that deniers love to trash. (I expect most deniers haven't heard of these papers, let alone read them.)
The other part of the research was an expansion of the land surface temperature data to include much more data made available by the release of the International Surface Temperature Initiative (ISTI) databank. As the authors of Karl15 reported:
The ISTI databank integrates the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN)–Daily dataset (20) with over 40 other historical data sources, more than doubling the number of stations available. The resulting integration improves spatial coverage over many areas, including the Arctic, where temperatures have increased rapidly in recent decades (1).One more thing, as I've written before, the new analysis of global land and sea surface temperature merely brought NOAA more in line with the temperature reconstructions from other independent teams. It was not a huge change. Although many, many scientist hours were clearly spent on the research and it was very valuable, the end result was a refinement not a huge change (in degree Celsius) from the previous reconstructions.
Tim Ball's defamatory and false allegations
Getting back to what Tim Ball wrote about this. He falsely claimed that the scientists were involved in "malfeasance". He falsely stated that they were engaged in "corrupted, unquestioning, naïve, limited, political science". He perfidiously wrote that they "used cherry picked, inadequate data". Remember, the researchers at NOAA used double the number of land temperature records, and improved the analysis of sea surface temperature records, using the same source data. How on earth could anyone in their right mind regard more data as cherry picking, or better analysis as "malfeasance"?
In other words, Tim Ball and Anthony Watts are wantonly and recklessly defaming the scientists at NOAA.
More nonsensical generalisations from Tim Ball
Tim went further. For example, Tim, who's never been a bureaucrat as far as I know (thank goodness), claimed that "It is impossible to be a scientist and a bureaucrat because by the definition of a bureaucrat you must do what you are told." What utter nonsense. Government employees are public servants who work for the good of the public. As in any organisations, the people who put their heads above the mob, and are prepared to say what they think, are the ones who'll get ahead. (Yes, I've worked in government and in the private sector.) Scientists who are employed by government have much greater responsibility to do diligent work and report their findings without any interference than those who work for most private corporations, where they must meet different needs of a much smaller subset of people (owners and shareholders).
Tim Ball on the other hand, who fakes a concern for honesty, can barely write a sentence without telling lies.
While not worried in the slightest about trashing the reputation of leading scientists, by telling lies about them, he is sensitive to modern norms. Tim wrote:
Some portions of the following are from my earlier writings. I say this to illustrate how insane, inane, and illogical the world of research has become when quoting yourself without citation is considered plagiarism.
Tim Ball has a very strange view of the world. His main point, if he had one, apart from trying to trash the reputation of honest scientists, was to decry the fact that scientists tend to know an awful lot about a particular subject area. He thinks that's detrimental. Apparently they should, like him, know almost nothing about everything. Tim wrote about how there are no rules today and generalisations are condemned. Perhaps he sees his wacky conspiratorial world as the last bastion of upright, honest, decent "know-nothing but steal snippets of everything" generalisation. He wrote (I dare you to understand it):
In the twentieth century, the western world went from the dictum that there are general rules with exceptions, to there are no rules, and everything is an exception. This manifests itself in society as condemning generalizations and promoting that everything is an exception – the basis of political correctness.
From the WUWT comments
No. I won't bother repeating them. Apart from two or three people who pointed out that what Tim falsely alleged was arrant nonsense, others extrapolated from the worst false claims made by John Bates (at Curry's place) and made up more lies, which were laughable if you know anything about how science is conducted in government research centres. Then the discussion (if you could call it that) devolved into the usual outright denial of climate science and the greenhouse effect.
How Anthony Watts justifies publishing this sort of thing to himself, let alone how he could possibly justify it in a court of law, is impossible to imagine.
References and further reading
Karl, Thomas R., Anthony Arguez, Boyin Huang, Jay H. Lawrimore, James R. McMahon, Matthew J. Menne, Thomas C. Peterson, Russell S. Vose, and Huai-Min Zhang. "Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus." Science 348, no. 6242 (2015): 1469-1472. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa5632 (pdf here)
Huang, Boyin, Viva F. Banzon, Eric Freeman, Jay Lawrimore, Wei Liu, Thomas C. Peterson, Thomas M. Smith, Peter W. Thorne, Scott D. Woodruff, and Huai-Min Zhang. "Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature version 4 (ERSST. v4), Part I. Upgrades and Intercomparisons." Journal of Climate 2014 (2014). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00006.1 (pdf here)
Liu, Wei, Boyin Huang, Peter W. Thorne, Viva F. Banzon, Huai-Min Zhang, Eric Freeman, Jay Lawrimore, Thomas C. Peterson, Thomas M. Smith, and Scott D. Woodruff. "Extended reconstructed sea surface temperature version 4 (ERSST. v4): part II. Parametric and structural uncertainty estimations." Journal of Climate 28, no. 3 (2015): 931-951. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00007.1 (pdf here)
Peter W. Thorne, Kate M. Willett, Rob J. Allan, Stephan Bojinski, John R. Christy, Nigel Fox, Simon Gilbert, Ian Jolliffe, John J. Kennedy, Elizabeth Kent, Albert Klein Tank, Jay Lawrimore, David E. Parker, Nick Rayner, Adrian Simmons, Lianchun Song, Peter A. Stott, and Blair Trewin, 2011: "Guiding the Creation of A Comprehensive Surface Temperature Resource for Twenty-First-Century Climate Science." Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 92, ES40–ES47. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2011BAMS3124.1 (open access)
NEW: How an Interoffice Spat Erupted Into a Climate-Change Furor - A few weeks ago, on an obscure climate-change blog, a retired government scientist named John Bates blasted his former boss on an esoteric point having to do with archiving temperature data. - Article by Hiroko Tibuchi at the New York Times, 20 February 2017
From the HotWhopper archives
- NOAA: No pause in the global surface temperature - June 2015, with references
- David Rose doubles down on #climate disinformation about NOAA. Let's get some perspective - February 2017
- The perversity of deniers - and the "pause" that never was with Tom Peterson - June 2015 - about Anthony Watts falsely accusing NOAA of fraud
- More perversity from Anthony Watts @wattsupwiththat - June 2015, about Anthony Watts after "sliming" NOAA people accused those people (and me) of doing the same, merely because they defended themselves against his false accusations
- Many more of Tim Balls' antics are written about here.
It is difficult to know if Ball actually understands anything about the Bates affair.
ReplyDeleteOther than libeling a lot of scientists Ball seems to be just rambling as usual.
A very readable primer on the Karl et al. ship vs. buoy adjustments can be found here: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/02/12/guest-post-on-baselines-and-buoys/
ReplyDeleteThere's nary an equation to be found there, so even the terminally math-challenged should be able to understand it.
Here's a live link for convenience.
DeleteOn the subject of libel and Mann v Ball.
ReplyDeleteOn February 1st Ball told PSI that his lawyers had forced some unspecified concessions from Dr Mann and that the 20th February court appearance had been adjourned to a later date.
Nobody else seems to have noticed. Anyone got more information?
"Till now Dr Ball had been eager to make good use of up to a month’s worth of courtroom time granted to him to win over jurors." Principia Scientific
DeleteCanadian defamation court cases are heard by judges alone... no juries.
One day a denier web site will accidentally include a factual statement. I can only hope I'm not driving a car, flying a plane, walking a tightrope, delivering a baby, or defusing a bomb at the time.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/MTJQPyTVtNA?t=464
ReplyDeleteanyone who mentions Ball to me, I just direct them to this Potholer video
the fun starts at 7.50
https://youtu.be/MTJQPyTVtNA?t=464
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBall: In the twentieth century, the western world went from the dictum that there are general rules with exceptions, to there are no rules, and everything is an exception. This manifests itself in society as condemning generalizations and promoting that everything is an exception – the basis of political correctness.
ReplyDeleteThat is easy to understand: Ball wants to have the right to discriminate against groups he sees as inferior (even if some exception prove that rule). That is no surprise, sounds like everyone at WUWT voted for Trump. Do you think it is a coincidence that climate change will kill people of color more than rich whites?
Judith Curry will not enjoy the opening words of this new article at the New York Times (h/t ATTP).
ReplyDeleteA few weeks ago, on an obscure climate-change blog, a retired government scientist named John Bates blasted his former boss on an esoteric point having to do with archiving temperature data.
From the article, John Bates has decided that to keep quiet is the best option. I can't say I blame him.
I've added the article to the list of references above.
I don't think Curry will like the rest either, Sou. It makes it clear she has attached herself to someone who not only has been backtracking from his original claim quite a lot, he's also been the subject of several complaints about his behaviour at NOAA.
DeleteFortunately (perhaps) for Judith, she didn't actually get named and shamed the way that John Bates was. It might create some uncomfortable cognitive dissonance for her. She'll be torn between being upset that she wasn't named (Judith craves fame and attention), relieved that she wasn't put under this particular spotlight, and angry that the article accurately portrayed the NOAA.
DeleteIt was a finely crafted article and favoured science, which was nice. It didn't avoid the disinformation either, so the fake sceptics won't have anything to complain about - or not legitimately.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete<rant>
ReplyDeleteToday I listened to a discussion of the acknowledgement of the effective extinction of all but a remnant of Tasmania's once iconic giant kelp forests. Cause of death - global warming of the oceans which caused the expansion of the herbivorous long-spined sea urchin, and which has diverted the fertile cool southern waters that used to fertilise the forests.
Vale Macrocystis pyrifera forests of Tasmania.
I later listened to a seminar given by Eelco Rohling, which was a tsunami of numbers. I quickly gave up trying to record them, but some basic ones (me paraphrasing from my swamped memory, let the record show)...
Humans have, since the commencement of the Industrial Revolution, caused the planet to warm by 1.2 °C (I seem to recall other people saying that recently...). Even if we stop burning all fossil fuel today, there's another 0.5 °C to which the planet is irrevocably committed. To stop at 2.0 °C we would need to reduce our emissions by 6% pa now, plus active draw-down. At 2.0 °C we're committed to a 2 metre increase in sea level, with 200 million refugees - not counting the drought/water and famine refugees. During the Eemian, when global mean temperatures were 1-2 °C warmer than modern temperature, the sea level was 9-10 metres higher.
We are in trouble. The only choice is how deep we want that trouble to be. If we act now with hard, 6% emissions reduction, we could do it using a fraction (~10% - I think it was ~$100 billion/pa, ballpark) of the global military budget. If we leave it to 2 °C, we would start to need to use a figure around the same size as the planet's military budget.
I talked to some climatologists afterward. They all get really depressed about where our planet is headed. Politicians do not listen, do not want to listen, but the best hopes are businesses like Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft... And China and India. Oh the irony.
Miscellaneous observations at the meeting. The German empire ended with the second world war. The Anglo-Saxon empire ended with at the beginning of the third millennium, by their own choice. By the choices of the businesses and politicians who were interested only in their own advantages, and by the populaces who voted or didn't vote according to their own selfishnesses and apathies. That thing you're sitting in - it's a hand basket. That thing rapidly growing larger in your view of view? That's hell.
There's no time left to prevaricate, to postpone your righteous umbrage until next year. It was too late last year.
And I have no time for apologists on contemporaneous HotWhopper threads who still blame failures of power supply on the sources of the power, rather than on political and corporate reluctance to invest in the easily-developed innovations that would make those power grid more robust, cheaper, cleaner, and democratic. With my own apologies to unjustifiably-maligned witches, the climate change corollary of the Salem hypothesis seems to have bearing here.
And with further apologies to Sou for what I am about to say (warning, expletives ahead) - if the world doesn't get off its fucking arse and knuckle down now, the shit fight that is going to go down in the coming decades is squarely and irrevocably on the heads of the deniers, the xenophobes, the bigots, the superstitious sky-fairy botherers and sundry other privileged, self-absorbed and self-centred trash of human society that will, without any self-awareness, bleat the loudest when their own shit hits the fan and boomerangs.
</rant>
Preaching to the converted, Bernard. Us "warmists", we all understand the urgency, but the problem (which seems an intractable one) is how to present facts to people who are not willing to venture outside their echo chamber of fake news, and how to reason with those who do interact but are only interested in trolling and pushing dumb, debunked memes and show no capacity or willingness to reason logically. So that's the challenge _ how do you reason with people who are incapable of reason.
DeleteYou'd need to perform FBI strength deprogramming on millions and millions of deniers to chip away at the ideological encrustation before you'd have any hope that they would start doing some real thinking. Only then would we start seeing some political action.
We all know who's to blame: the insidious, malignant, malevolent, self-serving right-wing propaganda machine, with some prominent cogs of that machine being Fox News and the Daily Mail as well as our much loved WTFUWT.
Because people minds are very malleable, combined with the fact that we tend to be very tribal, the importance of having sources of information that provide real facts and challenge people to think _ in other words, educating as opposed to brainwashing _ cannot be stressed enough.
I think a corrupted media lacking integrity is humanity's biggest threat, and as long as we conflate freedom of speech with freedom to lie and don't impose some sort of penalty on organizations which indulge in it, we're going to have a very perilous road ahead as a society.
I have decided to go full psychopath. It will give me inordinate pleasure to watch these ignorant denier arseholes suffer. They will try to pay to survive, but you cannot buy clean water air and food from a destitute planet.
DeleteI will sit in my hacienda in Eltham and watch these criminals against humanity squirm when they cannot even get what they need to survive.
The only humans capable of surviving the coming climate change onslaught are maybe some of the people who at this moment survive at subsistence level. It will put humanity back to the stone age.
It will not be pretty.
As for the ordinary peons they are just collateral damage. A bit like all the women and children who die in their vast numbers due to American and their allies bombers.
As an atheist I think I might need to reconsider the existence of the devil and evil. There sure is no sky fairy!
Bert
Deniers will continue to deny every step of the way to the grave. The worse things get, the more motivated they are to deny their own part in a crime of unparalleled magnitude against both humanity and the natural world.
Delete"...field of view...", but you knew what I meant.
DeleteThanks Bernard J. I too saw that kelp thing. Your rant did my soul (atheist and all) good, but surcease is only temporary as the details are fleshed out in consequences for every action of our misbegotten greedy heartless species' exploitation and looting promoters.
Delete.
Delete/cRR
Now correctly it is extremely annoying to witness the leaders of the western democracy's making dismal pontificates in the short term I do believe that everyone will realise that there is a problem and action will be taken.
ReplyDeleteAt the point of understanding one can only hope that those in power have good advice and move in a direction to not continue with the present moronic direction.
The usual gang tries to spin it into a new climategate (tm). Not surprising, as the 2009 episode gave them their hour of fame.
ReplyDeleteWhat's interesting is the reaction of medias outside the nutter world - the NYT piece was terribly accurate and devastating. In France, no mention whatsoever of the incident, contrary to 2009 when some uninformed journalists believed and regurgitated the crap sold by deniers. I think that journalists felt bad about the 2009 abysmal reporting and they learned their lessons ; I suspect also that all the communication efforts by scientists and informed journalists paid out.
Somehow, this episode makes me more optimistic.
I dunno, so what is the Catholic position on spreading lies about people? Or is Anthony a fake Catholic as well as a fake sceptic?
ReplyDeleteI don't know how far his fakery reaches but I know he has zero tolerance for threats of actions in defamation. 4 Years ago I threatened to own his house, and he backtracked and apologised in world record time. It's time we crowd-funded an action that did take the Cisco Kid's house.
DeleteTangentially related: Ball is a signatory to a petition organised by Richard Lindzen to pursuade the new president to scale back action on climate change and drop out of international agreements.
ReplyDelete300 signatures, precious few of whom have actually published on climate science. A quick word count:
Retired: 48
Emeritus: 44
Engineer: 86
Plus a basket of the discredited: Ball, Monckton, Oliver 'Iron Sun' Manuel, Nils-Axel Morner, Fred Singer, Denier Don Easterbrook.
Bound to be more .....
That seems a remarkably small number given how many people work for the fossil fuel industry.
DeleteAnd if the Oregon petition wasn't a complete fake (cough) then support for climate change denial has dropped by 99%
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOnly one, named Lindzen, ist more than enough to show, that climate alarmism is the wrong way, as Long as GCM`s are not able to reproduce the natural climate variabylity over decades and centuries. They fail all together and everybody should know that
Delete"...climate alarmism is the wrong way, as Long as GCM`s are not able to reproduce the natural climate variabylity over decades and centuries. They fail all together..."
DeleteWhat utter unsupported rubbish.
You're either a liar, or an ignorant, or an idiot. None of the options are mutually exclusive.
One tobacco scientist isn't enough to show squares have four sides.
DeleteWETTERCAFE.
DeleteI know you are just cutting and pasting climate change denier points you do not understand, but I will bite anyway.
It is not a requirement that GCMs reproduce natural variability. What is important is they reproduce the general trend in global mean temperatures due to increasing CO2 concentrations - this they do. Keep the CO2 concentration steady, and the GCMs produce no trend in global mean temperature.
The above is a scientific experiment, and it produces results which do not falsify AGW theory.
And what HT does not bother to add, WETTERCAFE, is that GCMs do reproduce natural variability as well. Remarkably well in some cases.
DeleteYou would know that if you did any investigation.
@ Phil Clark
DeleteBound to be more .....
Senator Malcom Roberts
Willie Soon
RØMCKE, Nils Håkon: (Swedish emailer who wished to sign the petition);
DeleteRømcke is some kind of engineer. Well over 70, so yet another "old guy".
DeleteWow, what kindly Responses...:-)
DeleteNo, GCM`s do not reproduce natural climate variations in a scientifically useful way and they simulate all the 20. century warming doe to greenhouse gas emissions. What a nonsense and therefor the climate sensitivity is by 2x CO2 just close to the half of the claimed 3K. By the way, tobacco has nothing to do with climate changes :-(
What WETTERCAFE is doing is arguing by assertion. Just claiming something doesn't make it so. Being wrong twice or more doesn't make it right, either. No evidence offered either. No examples given, no links to scientific papers, nothing. Just a bald and wrong claim typical of the denialati.
DeleteClimate models are very useful scientifically, and not just to see how much hotter it will get for different amounts of waste greenhouse gas pollutants we choose to pour into the air. Here is a link to some papers, articles and videos that provide some insight into climate models. (I've got to write about a couple of more recent papers, too, such as this one by Schmidt and co.)
"What a nonsense and therefor [sic] the climate sensitivity is by [sic] 2x CO2 just close to the half of the claimed 3K."
DeleteAs Sou indicates, this is simply an unevidenced assertion. It is also an incorrect assertion, as it can be easily tested using empirical data - the data that the planet itself has provided to us based on the realised warming in response to the CO₂ emitted since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
It's a relatively straightforward calculation based on a few parsimonious assumptions, and the result is that transient climate response, as taken to be the planetary response to date, pans out at 2.33 °C, and equilibrium climate sensitivity is on that basis 3.9 °C. Even a viciously conservative re-estimation of ECS based on a redefinition of TCR gives an ECS of 3.1 °C.
Oops.
@Sou,
Deletejust have your own look at the IPCC Graphs for natural climate variations the last 120a. Without the short coolings by some volcano events you find no T trend over the period and the decadal variations within +/- 0,1°C. This tells the meteorologican and climate scientist all about the creditability of GCM`s. Here are many believers in this forum on the way, but a critical look at climate changes is be the best way to understand dynamical systems, ever, so please stop kidding me and yourselves...:_)
(And if one accounts for the second millennium cooling trend the ECS is probably at least 3.4 °C. One could say "bigger oops" but assuming that the Holocene cooling trend is due to changes in orbital forcing it's effect over centuries is likely constant, and therefore probably isn't strictly germane to discussions of the warming compared to the 20th century baseline.)
Delete"Just have your own look at the IPCC Graphs for natural climate variations the last 120a."
Delete"Natural climate variations"? You mean like this where, amongst all measurable forcings, the only one that accounts for warming is the increase in CO₂?
And remember that the empirical data suggest, as I noted above, that sensitivity is likely even above the 3.0 °C often assumed for models...
I doubt anyone (with the possible exception of Bernard J) has much of a clue about what Wetter is trying to say. All we know is that he's wilfully, knowingly, or ignorantly trying to argue that climate science is a hoax, or wrong, or climate change isn't happening, or some such nonsense.
DeleteIs he trying to say something about natural variability? Well, that hasn't stopped. Short term ups and downs happen, but the longer term trend is up. Even the three most recent La Nina years (which are typically colder) are hotter than every El Nino (hot) year to 1995.
There's no logic in the argument (if that's what it is) that cooling from volcanoes is related to the very rapid rise in global temperature. Is Wetter trying to say that without volcanic eruptions the world would be hotter still? I don't know if that would be the case or not. Volcanoes have a short term effect usually, certainly the ones in the last 100 years have had only a short term effect.
BTW - globally, it's way hotter than it was 120 years ago, and each of the past four decades has been hotter than the one before. No sign of stopping. It's probably going to get hotter faster sooner rather than later (even if the incoming solar drops a bit).
Ok, you guys are not able to understand the Problems with climate models. Do you know about all the Parametrisations? What is about the clouds, the aerosol effects and of course the Insolation? Do you really think we know what the solar changes on TOA or for the lower tropophere are? There is the factor 10 differneze between the studies, IPCC uses, what surprise, the lowest by ca. 0,12W/m². And. listen carefully, the climate systems changes every time an timescale, from decades to centuries and so on and for Shure not within a insignificant range as shown in the IPCC models by +/-0,1 over several decades by using only natural forcings. The dynamic system is known to change in a stochastic way by +/- 1++ K over Centuries without any external forcings. Put off your Blinders and try to understand climatology. It´s not about Believers and Alarmism, it´s a little bit more complicated!
DeleteWETTERCAFE
DeleteA few observations on your last post.
1. Yes, we guys (and gals) understand some, (note some), of the problems with climate models. We do not understand them all. You imply you do. I get the impression "our" understanding is a little more nuanced and depthed than yours.
2. I know about parameerisations. I do not know about all parameterisations. And neither do you. You give the impression all you know is what you have cut and pasted from some denier website.
3. "What is about the clouds ..." I do not understand your incoherent sentence.
4. "Do you really think we know what the solar changes on TOA ...". Er, yes, I think we do. Do you dispute the figures obtained by satellites? I am not so sure about the lower troposphere as that is not really measurable in the same way. What do you think?
4. Another incoherent sentence. (Something about natural forcings?) If you are going to type rubbish at least spend a little time composing it better so we know what you are talking rubbish about.
5. "try to understand climatology. " Oh, we do and we do try. I am worried that you have not put any effort into it at all.
6. " It´s not about Believers and Alarmism," So why do you only post as if it is? You have not made one substantial point backed up by any science or reference.
"
DeleteOk, you guys are not able to understand the Problems with climate models.
"
Oh dear - The modulz sux argument. With a dash of ad hominem thrown in for good measure...
"
What is about the clouds
"
Yeah! - and what about the extinction of the dinosaurs?
"
And. listen carefully, the climate systems changes every time an timescale
"
Ah - the 'climate is always changing' argument. Nobody ever thought of that one before.
They never get old, do they?!
WETTERCAFE, have you focussed your amazing powers of inference at the sea-level numbers, the polar ice volume and extent numbers, or the ocean heat-content numbers lately?
They too are hard to predict and they change all the time!
Thank you for your Very Special concerns.
@WETTERCAFE is there any chance that at some time in the next ten years you will providing anything to back up any of the assertions you have made?
Delete@Jammy, never call me or anyone else "denier"!
DeleteMe and others have a critical few on some details in climate science, we are not the almost blind believers as you are and it is a shame on you and others, playing with such words.
WETTERCAFE
DeleteThank you for taking the time to reply and answering all the points raised so eloquently. I was particularly taken by your critique of using satellites to measure solar output. Your ideas for measuring the lower troposhere are just stunning.
Gratefully yours
Jammy
"...it is a shame on you and others, playing with such words."
DeleteWhy? A denier is a denier, even when they are delicate snowflakes.
Or are you a denial denier too?
By the way, your "critical few [sic] on some details in climate science" doesn't seem to be supported with any evidence or analysis. Perhaps you've forgotten to post it or link to it. Can you address that oversight?
Of course, I do but jest. No denier has ever managed to post anything resembling a scientific rebuttal that hasn't been completely and utterly deconstructed for the unsupportable rubbish that it alwasy is. You think that I'm wrong? Then show me the work that proves it.
Not ignoring that he is a fantasist denial denier Bernard. The snowflake was in such a rush to melt and be offended he failed to notice that no-one was called a denier except in his imagination. Of course it is the usual contrarian tactic from deflecting from any meaningful discussion.
DeleteThese deniers (whoa!) are so predictable.
Another Dunning-Kruger denier thinks that he understands the models and the science better than climatologists the world over. And the poor fellow can't even write an intelligible, let alone intelligent, sentence. I'll try and rewrite one of Wettercafe's contributions in a way that makes sense.
Delete_ "Me and others have a critical few brain cells working on some details in climate science, we are not the almost blind believers as you are; we're totally blind believers _ totally blind to any info that doesn't come from Fox News or WTFUWT or any of the other cretinous denier disinformation outlets. Shame on you...SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!"
@all
DeleteOh my naïve AGW fanatics, so many senseless comments, all without substance!
If you call about deniers, then you speak of what your mostly political leaders have told you so far.
Who of you is an meteorologist, climate scientist, who has a clue at all, what should be discussed, hmm?
Just naïve nonsense after stupid is a bit boring, right? Who takes climatology honest, does not believe every Mainstream blindfolded, you fanatic believers?
As usual for deniers, a lot of things seem to be missing in the top paddock: self-awareness, logic, facts...and a fair bit of grey matter too. And, Wettercafe, since you ask, I'm a know-nothing but there are quite a few Phd's who visit this blog. Even climate scientists. So my advice to you, Wettercafe, is something I've argued for in the past, and that is that if you're not an expert then appeal to authority is the only sensible course of action. And guess what? All the expertise, the "authority", is on our side, so you're shit out of luck. Step out of your denial echo-chamber and follow the science, not the conspiracy theories, you dimwit. You'll feel better for it.Thinking, like most deniers do, that you know things that somehow all climate scientists have missed or not understood is just plain stupid and delusional.
Delete@ Jp, I started like you, but then came the physics of the atmosphere...Don´t worry, just put off your blinders :-)
Delete@wettercafe : oh, you know, in this case we're all ears. Enlighten us about the physics of the atmosphere please, we cannot miss a chance to share education and physics discussion.
DeleteCould you begin with IR spectroscopy and energy balance between incoming and outgoing radiation ?
Haha, you know what is coming don't you bratisla? Some hand waving about gravity, pressure, the lapse rate and something about the 2nd law of thermodynamics being violated. If we are really lucky he will explain Force X to us!
Delete:)
Dunning Kruger
@ Jp, I started like you, but then came the physics of the atmosphere...Don´t worry, just put off your blinders :-)
DeleteYes, atmospheric physics. As in Infrared radiation and planetary temperature.
Point-by-point demonstration of error in your next comment. Everybody keeps asking for something concrete, so let's have it.
Or the sniggering will get louder and louder...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"Who of you is an meteorologist, climate scientist, who has a clue at all, what should be discussed, hmm?"
DeleteNot climate science, but ecology (with work in identifying climate change impacts on bioclimatic envelopes). Also, have an office on the same floor as climate scientists, have lunch and dinner with climate scientists, attend their seminars, proof their publications and grant applications, and...
But I think you get the idea.
So, with that out of the way, what's your experience/training in climate science?
@Bernard, I'm a meteorologist in Austria, you know- no kangaroos..why should I talk with ecologists about the physics of the atmosphere, any idea? Maybe some dinners with them is a little bit less to understand climatology, hmm?
DeleteAnswer the question please. Point by point through Pierrehumbert's essay, demonstrating error.
DeleteOr how do we know you aren't just another idiot on the internet?
"I started like you, but then came the physics of the atmosphere"
DeleteClassic form of denialism. Decades ago I learned it from those who would claim "I used to believe in evolution but then I studied biology ..."
A more recent and odd argument of this form I've been hearing from a small number of people: "I used to be a progressive but then I began studying politics and learned that only conservatives fight for our free speech rights under the First Amendment". Seriously.
Sort of like "I used to believe in the physics but then I studied meteorology"?
Delete"I used to be a progressive but then I began studying politics and learned that only conservatives fight for our free speech rights under the First Amendment". Seriously.
DeleteIt'll be unicorns next, you mark my words. The gates of alt-reality are opening.
Can this thug be wiped off the blog and in the process be called what he is: a thug. Thanks.
Delete"I began studying xxxxxx and learned..." usually means "I watched Fox News".
DeleteOR, Milicent:
Delete... usually means "I read a denier blog last week. And another one yesterday".
WETTERCAFE:
DeleteDeal with it!
Not 'defamatory'. It is allegedly defamatory.
ReplyDeleteI believe Sou is alleging it to be defamatory.
DeleteIf I report her words, then *I* get to cover my ass by saying it's allegedly defamatory, but Sou doesn't (unless she finds someone else who alleges it).
This is very nice speaking, but in term of "AGW" completely nonsens:
ReplyDelete"Scientists who are employed by government have much greater responsibility to do diligent work and report their findings without any interference than those who work for most private corporations, where they must meet different needs of a much smaller subset of people (owners and shareholders)."
Yawn.
DeleteOff topic, but does anyone know if tamino is OK?
ReplyDeleteAny reason to think he's not?
DeleteIt's common for him to put out a lot of posts, then be quiet for months. As I understand, he's an independent consultant, which gives a parsimonious explanation for the burstiness: lots of time to write about climate when he's hunting for work, not so much when he has a contract.
Late to the party, but the whole Bates fuss comes down to this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mnftiu.cc/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/filing_120711.jpg
Someone believe that they have invented science; in fact, they copy only inaccessibility and impudence, which are derived from idiots like Al Gore and other fanatics.
ReplyDeleteFor the last time, whoever uses the word "deny" is only disseminated by himself. Hardly any scientist "denies" the anthropogenic part of climate change, but many are "skeptical" to the order of magnitude and other details. This is the only way science can usefully work, critically, as far as it is technically possible. Such people can hardly be found here ...just fanatic believers!
but many are "skeptical" to the order of magnitude
DeleteWho is this 'many'? Name many names. And if you post Lindzen's list, the sniggers will erupt into outright laughter, so don't.
List many (>30) mainstream climate scientists who dispute that ECS is less that 3C +/-0.5C per doubling of CO2.
No evasions. List.
Many who are not remotely able to be considered climate scientists actively and vociferously deny the veracity of the whole discipline of climate science.
DeleteThese people are deniers.
@BDB, I don´t need Lindzens & Co to understand climatology, mabe you need help from others. Reed the Chapters of the WGI, not the IPCC Summaries and when done, come again...
DeleteSo, 'many' is a false claim then.
DeleteThanks for confirming that you have nothing.
WETTERCAFE - You are obviously just another boring, un-original, un-informed, climate concern-troll.
DeleteYou aren't the first - and you won't be the last.
In any case, as soon as you mention Al Gore, you lose all credibility. Too bad. So sad.
But - by all means - do continue to make an a$$ of yourself. It's kinda funny. Like watching a toddler play with a taser.
Please - Don't forget to tell us about Galileo in your next comment.
"It's kinda funny. Like watching a toddler play with a taser."
Delete?
Hi Christian (WETTERCAFE),
DeleteFYI: I am a Meteorologist too, well retired now after 32 years with the UKMO.
"Who of you is an meteorologist, climate scientist, who has a clue at all, what should be discussed, hmm? "
As above.
And I most certainly "have a clue".
"I started like you, but then came the physics of the atmosphere"
Odd!
Was this before you started studying physics and meteorology?
And why if you did would it change your mind?
(The wrong way)
It has informed mine.
And that comment (Al Gore is the give away however) is the sort of thing I would expect to be posted at WUWT , and CE which are full of "amateur" climate "know-alls", who think that indeed, they do "know-all" and the world's experts know-nothing
You rather fit the bill my friend.
I see you are self-employed.
From a Cafe.
Do you make much money at that?
Weather forecasting I mean - not the cafe.
Do you have a background in the ZAMG?
I must say that I profoundly disagree with your views re CC.
Why?
I studied and practised Wx forecasting with the UKMO.
And know the physics.
You?
@ Tony
DeleteRight, I also run a bar with the weather and climate part and this is great, because I do not have to participate in the politically correct climate mainstreamm. I can still think critically and say everything about the climate, which I regard as meteorological, climatologically correct. Not all meteorologists are so lucky today and the Forecasters are interested in other things ...right?
@BBD,
Deletegreat! If i`m not a denier, you call me concern troll. You are really fantastic!
Christian:
Delete"I can still think critically and say everything about the climate, which I regard as meteorological, climatologically correct. Not all meteorologists are so lucky today and the Forecasters are interested in other things ...right?"
Wrong:
I am "out of the mainstream", having been retired for 10 years.
The only concern I have is that the *arguments" fit the physics.
You have shown none, just an assertion that the "mainstream" is wrong.
So:
Are all the world's climate scientists incompetent?
Are all the world's climate scientists perpetrating a fraud?
Or:
Do they know more than you?
Common-sense says it's the last.
Don't come on here ranting about Al Gore (as an example) and hand-wave that the science is wrong my friend.
Whatever you are, you are not a true Meteorologist (no defence there re education/background).
As I said you exactly fit all the other *Naysayers* I have come across in this last 10 years.
Ideologically motivated contrarianism, laced with hollow D-K hubris.
The "down the rabbit-hole(ness)" of your "just fanatic believers!" is typical.
It is NOT belief.
It's called science.
Present some, that gainsays ~150 years of that that is now empirical.
i don`t wont to speak about al gore and other politicans, it´s just about the climate sensitivity and all the Nonsens about extreme weahter Events etc.
Deletegreat! If i`m not a denier, you call me concern troll. You are really fantastic!
DeleteI didn't do that. Please don't lie. I pointed out that you had made a false claim. You are sailing a bit close to the wind at this point.
Christian:
Delete"it´s just about the climate sensitivity and all the Nonsens about extreme weahter Events etc."
There is advocacy from some quarters of a *Catastrophic* warming to come.
However the IPCC gives an ECS of 1.5 to 4.5C.
Now it will be plainly above 1.5 (we are at +1C now at TCS with another 160ppm ACO2 to come).
It may, or it may not be as high as 4.5.
Most new science points to it being in the upper half.
I hope you do not conflate scientists with the media in their "nonsense".
Because that is the habitual mistake of contrarians.
@ Tony, and the big question is, how much of the almost +1K are anthropogenic. And another big question is, why is a warming of 1K from the coldest climate period over the last 10.000 years, the LIA, where most of the instrumental starts, so ugly, hmm? Nothing is dangerous or not a benefit so far, but that is told us be the fanatic "warmers". Yes, i think ECS is about 1,5-2,0K, not the best estimate of 3,2 by IPCC and that is a meaningful difference!
Delete@ Tony, and the big question is, how much of the almost +1K are anthropogenic.
DeleteAll of it. No evidence that the solar irradiance went up and no flatulent unicorns in sight.
why is a warming of 1K from the coldest climate period over the last 10.000 years, the LIA, where most of the instrumental starts, so ugly, hmm?
Muddle *and* conspiracy dogwhistling. The LIA was over by ~1850. So no trickery.
Yes, i think ECS is about 1,5-2,0K,
Nature disagrees with you. It's about 3C per doubling of CO2 throughout the entire Cenozoic (PALAEOSENS Project Members, 2012)
and that is a meaningful difference!
It's wishful thinking based on nothing.
and all the Nonsens about extreme weahter Events
On the increase, as predicted (Fischer & Knutti 2015).
"Yes, i think ECS is about 1,5-2,0K, not the best estimate of 3,2 by IPCC...
DeleteAs I indicated above, the simple raw numbers of empirical evidence indicate that the bottom half of previous IPCC sensitivity ranges is ruled out. Tony Banton reminded you of this and you blithely ignore it: equilibrium climate sensitivity is at least 3.0 °C, and very likely above.
BBD points out that Cenozoic ECS was around 3.0 °C. There's a clue there...
And something that I think should be emphasised is that Cenozoic ECS was based only on the quantum of carbon in the biosphere and in permafrost and similar potentially-labile sources of carbon. The current carbon cycle now includes hundreds of billions of tons of fossil carbon that was previously locked out of the carbon cycle in the several hundred million years prior to industrialisation. This introduction of new carbon will very likely amplify feedings-back, and increase the ECS value for the contemporary climate.
So tell us, please, what is your evidence that ECS is 1.5-2.0 °C/K, and what is your evidence that refutes the empirical expression of the planet's response to human-emitted fossil carbon?
Yes Bernard. But he "thinks" it. And nowadays that is enough for it to be so.
DeleteIt is extraordinary. How do people blithely ignore the considered range offered by scientists and suggest a different result based on absolutely nothing but a "feeling"?
And then try to claim they are the open-minded, free thinking, unreligious, unfanatical, objective clear thinkers?
"i don`t wont to speak about al gore and other politican"
DeleteReally? So why did you kick off with this? :
"... which are derived from idiots like Al Gore and other fanatics."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCan we please not descend into insults, no matter how provoked? It's obvious to people who actually follow science that false claims are not true, but getting into the mud doesn't help.
ReplyDelete"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." (GBShaw)
I came over here to go OT, and perhaps I should put it in the chats, but in the interest of changing the subject, this is for Sou and anyone else interested in Austalian space pix. "Flood Waters Reach Kati Thanda–Lake Eyre, 27 February, 2017"
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=89723&src=eoa-iotd
Aha! link: Lake Eyre
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI hope the blog is updated shortly because not one of the people who link here has updated for at least 14 hours.
ReplyDeleteAs to the aspect of if mankind has an effect on the temperature on earth all I can say is why are we witness to changes that are not driven by the sun?
There can only be one other driver and I am afraid it is you and I.
If any person can stand up and say he or she can tell me that they are not aware that there is a change to climate in our lifetime I will astounded.