tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post1207576788878177310..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Occam's Razor sez Eric Worrall is a science denierSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger79125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-84672862905679497962014-04-05T15:12:23.169+11:002014-04-05T15:12:23.169+11:00I notice that Eric Worrall hasn't returned to ...I notice that Eric Worrall hasn't returned to defend his logical fallacy...Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-88543351011554315162014-03-25T23:34:32.031+11:002014-03-25T23:34:32.031+11:00Bernard, I concur. The argument presented by EW is...Bernard, I concur. The argument presented by EW is incorrect on more than one level. It's logically incorrect, a propositional fallacy or affirmation of the consequent. As far as EW is concerned, he'd possibly even argue the modus ponens form, "If A results in B. A, therefore B". Not withstanding, it's also scientifically incorrect and a bad effort all round.George Montgomeryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07042191140401441348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-39120340972378743362014-03-25T20:40:11.486+11:002014-03-25T20:40:11.486+11:00Recapchate is sentient. After I added my parenthe...Recapchate is sentient. After I added my parenthetical comment above it said "this editso".Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-39186367468334585912014-03-25T20:38:49.969+11:002014-03-25T20:38:49.969+11:00George, I'd assert that the simplest explanati...George, I'd assert that the simplest explanation here is actually the most accurate one. Bear with me for a moment...<br /><br />A consequence may have one cause, or it may have many causes. In our world the latter is very frequently the case, and I would suggest that it is the case in a majority of instances.<br /><br />Now, Eric Worrall, the master coward who's suddenly disappeared now that he's being backed into the corner with respect to his bogus thinking in his WUWT piece, hasn't had the courage to address the logical fallacy on which his entire premise is based - he was affirming the consequent. That is, he was saying:<br /><br />"A results in B.<br /><br />B, therefore A."<br /><br />which completely ignores "B, therefore C, D, E... and/or X" in addition to A.<br /><br />Bad logic, bad Eric. He's completely ignoring the simplest, most parsimonious observation that there are alternative (and more likely...) causes for the consequence which so sticks in his craw - that the planet is warming.<br /><br />(Recaptcha has a sense of irony - "almitti competent"...)Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17586176432301992252014-03-25T17:45:34.857+11:002014-03-25T17:45:34.857+11:00Summing up then, EW has incorrectly summarized Occ...Summing up then, EW has incorrectly summarized Occam's Razor as "the simplest explanation is the correct one". As a result, EW has had a deeply flawed article published by WUWT. Deeply flawed because, contrary to the popular view of OR as described by EW, the simplest available theory is often less accurate. <br /><br />EW has, unconsciously, accepted that the simplest available theory is often less accurate with his comment: "Einstein's more complex theory was accepted because it explained well known phenomena which couldn't be explained by Newton's clockwork model of the Universe." Furthermore, if EW was to correctly apply Occam's Razor, the burden of proof is on him to provide grounds for his position that natural variability sufficiently explains 'recent' climate changes. EW has failed in that regard as his comments show that he is arguing from a position of ignorance. George Montgomeryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07042191140401441348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-14058837998364376112014-03-25T07:29:28.871+11:002014-03-25T07:29:28.871+11:00Well, warm periods might have been solar up, cool ...Well, warm periods might have been solar up, cool periods might have been solar down and/or volcanoes.<br /><br />Paleoclimate attribution problems are actually pretty interesting exercises in extracting signal from noise and bounding uncertainty of what's going on, perhaps akin to astronomy, where one has some data, but can't really do experiments, but has to get better observations and more clever ways of analyzing it.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-73095762528497653042014-03-25T04:48:17.894+11:002014-03-25T04:48:17.894+11:00Hi John,
Thanks. The "it" simply referre...Hi John,<br />Thanks. The "it" simply referred to the warming as measured by the instrumental record (say 1880 onwards) - I should have been clearer. I was just meaning that we largely understand what has caused past warmings and it's mostly forced. Hence there is no evidence to support that our current warming is some kind of unforced, natural variability. <br /><br />I was probably too glib when I said some of the past warm periods are associated with variations in solar forcing and volcanic influences :-)And Then There's Physicshttp://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-83443015454822544852014-03-24T21:15:19.432+11:002014-03-24T21:15:19.432+11:00"Marco, I don't know what caused those wa..."Marco, I don't know what caused those warmings. And neither does anyone else." and projection of ignorance.<br /><br />Also, Eric believes in magic (the meaningless meme of 'natural variation' which of course includes the cycle of Industrial Revolutions).<br />Then obviously there have been bushfires before humanity so man never causes bushfires in modern times. cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-3488583803124029862014-03-24T21:02:44.175+11:002014-03-24T21:02:44.175+11:00O dear, this Worrall can't even distinguish st...O dear, this Worrall can't even distinguish stratosphere from thermosphere...cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-59037516575111062312014-03-24T15:45:20.910+11:002014-03-24T15:45:20.910+11:00I'm not exactly sure what you meant by the fir...I'm not exactly sure what you meant by the first "it."<br /><br />I'll restate, for all:<br />1) As per <a href="http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html" rel="nofollow">CDIAC</a>,has recent (slightly old) concentrations:<br />CO2 392 ppm (now ~400)<br />CH4: ~1800 ppb (see details)<br /><br />2) <a href="http://www.whoi.edu/pclift/Ruddiman.pdf" rel="nofollow">Ruddiman, Kutzbach, Vavrus(2011)</a>., especially Fig 2B and Fig 6, which actually don't include much of post-I.R. time, among other things because they blow out the top of the scales. From those graphs (and can compute this different ways and get similar answers):<br /><br />CH4: 1CE ~570ppb,1000CE ~570ppb<br />CO2: 1CE ~~255ppm, 1000CE ~252ppm, 1950 ~250ppm <br /><br />3) For CH4 1CE-~1900CE, see <a href="http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html" rel="nofollow">Sapart, et al(2013).</a> Note the jiggles, but fact that instead of dropping as expected, CH4 was higher from 1000AD onward, but with sharp drop into 1600CE.<br />See also <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JG001441/abstract" rel="nofollow">Mitchell et al (2011) (paywall, sorry)</a>, which identifies certain CH4 drops as likely to have been caused by wars. or plagues. LPIUH = Late Preindustrial Holocene (1000-1800CE.)<br />"The two biggest wars in Asia during the LPIH were the Mongol invasion beginning in 1211 C.E. lasting for about three decades, and the overthrow of Ming dynasty and the establishment of the Qing dynasty in the mid‐17th century. These events were associated with large losses of population estimated at 35 million (∼30% or ∼15% of the total Chinese or Asian population, respectively) during the Mongol invasion and 25 million (∼15% or ∼7% of the total Chinese or Asian population, respectively) ...<br />After razing villages and cities, the Mongol army laboriously dismantled the irrigation systems and used their horses to churn up the soil"<br />In the Sapart graph, note the sharp ~1200CE and ~1600CD, and that could be coincidence, but they work through the math.<br /><br />4) Here's <a href="http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2hq8k1z&s=7#.Uy-v-YWearY" rel="nofollow">Law Dome CO2 since 1CE.</a>, being careful of scales.<br />CH4 (a flow) can jiggle faster than CO2 (~stock),, so they act as time filters of different durations, akin to the way glaciers of different sizes act.<br /><br />5) Bottom line, from La Dome CO2 graph:, but CH4 is mostly similar:<br />a) We've had higher CO2 and CH4 than natural for many 1000s of years.<br /><br />b) The Roman Warm Period should have been warmer than later (Milankovitch), but the higher human CO2/CH4 helped. Then plagues came, and both GHGs dropped a bit, and didn't really recover or get higher until ~1000CE, quite visible in the graphs.<br />The MWP, such as it was ... was human-caused, at least in part, from tree-cutting and agriculture.<br /><br />c) The drop into 1600AD is quite visible, a big chunk from massive die-off in Americas and maybe some from the Asian wars. If one works through the numbers (as Ruddiman & co have), it is almost certain that most of that drop was human. Add volcanoes and Maunder and it stayed a bit cooler, especially in places like Europe, for good reasons.<br /><br />d) Of course, the I.R. rise was human, especially as there is no such thing as a magic fantasy "rebound from the LIA."<br /><br />e) As for the various multi-decadal/century-scale jiggles that show up in GHG records:<br />a) Some are likely measurement errors, always.<br />b) Some must be volcanoes, solar changes, ocean oscillations, etc.<br />c) But some are likely to be human effects<br />d) And jury is still out on that,<br />e) But neither the MWP nor LIA were completely natural.<br />f) The 1750AD-onward rise was mostly human.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />John Masheyhttp://www.desmogblog.com/user/john-masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50992838182298571772014-03-24T13:25:56.273+11:002014-03-24T13:25:56.273+11:00Maybe Eric Worrall could take Occam's Razor to...Maybe Eric Worrall could take Occam's Razor to 97% of the world scientists and the total small lot of deniers he belongs to, that are just a cancerous pimple on human knowledge. <br />He and his ilk sound almost as absurd as the young man who had the delusion he was dead! Just google ' Vilayanur S. Ramachandran'. <br /><br />Bert from Eltham<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-26848424658578168772014-03-24T10:27:26.659+11:002014-03-24T10:27:26.659+11:00The Wikipedia entry for Hanlon's Razor seems t...The Wikipedia entry for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor" rel="nofollow">Hanlon's Razor</a> seems to be missing any mention of Napoleon Bonaparte, to whom is attributed:<br />'“Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence.” <br /><br />Of course, if he did say/write that, I'd guess it was originally in French.<br />Google: napoleon "N’attribuez jamais à la malveillance ce qui s’explique très bien par l’incompétence."John Masheyhttp://www.desmogblog.com/user/john-masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-13176664810003612902014-03-24T10:11:01.416+11:002014-03-24T10:11:01.416+11:00I must thank Eric Worrall for providing substantia...I must thank Eric Worrall for providing substantial data for my study of pseudoskepticism found in the 1900 comments from the <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/08/25/defamation-by-internet-part-1-murry-salbys-short-lived-blog-storm" rel="nofollow">SalbyStorm.</a><br /><br />he made 9 comments, 7 at <a href="http://www.webcitation.org/6ICCuUx5d" rel="nofollow">NOVA.1</a>, 1 each at <a href="http://www.webcitation.org/6ICEssQbO" rel="nofollow">WUWT.1</a> and <a href="http://www.webcitation.org/6I47weMpx%22" rel="nofollow">WUWT.3</a>.<br /><br />Readers may search those to see his comments in context, and evaluate whether the some might be defamatory towards Macquarie, including repeated invocations of Deutsche Physik.. <br /><br />Oddly, I didn't find any trace of an apology when it turned out that Salby had been debarred by NSF for financial chicanery, had a history of intense but frivolous lawsuits that kept getting dismissed, mis-use of credit card in Oz, etc,etc ... (and there is more to come)<br /><br />Anyway, thanks again to Eric, like the other ~390 dismissive commenters, he has volunteered useful data for the next report. His 9 comments in the top ~10% of commenters who were not also bloggers.<br />John Masheyhttp://www.desmogblog.com/user/john-masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-75969466023676318042014-03-24T06:54:45.028+11:002014-03-24T06:54:45.028+11:00Eric,
You say
There have been similar warmings w...Eric,<br /><br />You say<br /><br /><i>There have been similar warmings which lasted several centuries, long before humans emitted significant CO2, such as the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, and the Minoan Warm Period.</i> <br /><br />Well leaving aside the question of whether those really "similar warmings" and whether they actually were several centuries long, you are missing the point that one of the reasons climate has changed in the past has been due to changes in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Not necessarily during the periods you mention, but others such as the PETM for example. <br /><br />The fact that such changes were not anthropogenic in origin is neither here nor there, the radiative properties of CO2 do not change according to where it comes from. So as Sou points out above we are not proposing some new mechanism which has not occurred in the past. <br /><br />Your position is inherently contradictory - you want us to believe both that the climate is behaving as it has done in the past and that it is not.<br />andrew adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17196332706764660436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-55815063892750666322014-03-24T06:28:07.330+11:002014-03-24T06:28:07.330+11:00A related rule, which can be used to slice open co...A related rule, which can be used to slice open conspiracy theories, is Hanlon's Razor: ``Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity''.<br /><br />From http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.htmlCatmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-66999073909462060112014-03-24T04:59:01.801+11:002014-03-24T04:59:01.801+11:00If your daughter's temperature normally varied...If your daughter's temperature normally varied up and down a tenth of a degree in a day and one week it was 98.6F and the next week it was 102F you would not say that the variations were indistinguishable. You'd try to find out what was happening.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083190014669867976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-35724877105669228772014-03-24T04:51:11.538+11:002014-03-24T04:51:11.538+11:00Eric
1. The warming between 1860 and 1880 is clea...Eric<br /><br />1. The warming between 1860 and 1880 is clearly indistinguishable from the warming which occurred between 1975 and 1998. Between 1860 and 1880 the mean global temperature was -0.29C and between 1975 and 1998 it was +0.125C. Big difference that needs to be explained<br /><br />2. What is unusual about current global temperature is the rate of change. Yes there have been warm periods, some warmer than the present day, and there are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles" rel="nofollow">well understood reasons</a> why they were warm. But for the current rapid rise in temperature (about 0.8C) since there is no known natural cause. <br /><br />Perhaps nothing about current climatic conditions is unusual for you, but for scientists seeking to understand Earth’s climate in detail, there is lots to study. The effect of the dramatic increase in radiatively active gasses in the atmosphere in the last century is a key concern which your Occams’s theory does not address.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083190014669867976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-1601107164224531502014-03-24T04:48:33.290+11:002014-03-24T04:48:33.290+11:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083190014669867976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-71625863062398557742014-03-24T01:21:30.941+11:002014-03-24T01:21:30.941+11:00...to so engage...
(To preempt any distress that ......to <i><b>s</b></i>o engage...<br /><br />(To preempt any distress that typographic errors might impose upon the subject of this thread.)Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-83924899622224015822014-03-24T01:18:39.554+11:002014-03-24T01:18:39.554+11:00I know others have said pretty much the same thing...I know others have said pretty much the same things, but just for giggles...<br /><br />Eric Worrall engaged in a logical fallacy (quite apart from any other errors of fact) that immediately renders invalid his claim in the OP. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham" rel="nofollow">Ockham's</a> razor suggests that Worrall is therefore not sufficiently informed in the basics of scientific thinking, and/or is insufficiently mentally competent to do engage in the basics of scientific thinking, to be able to comment with any authority on the subject of something as complex as climate physics.<br /><br />Or, to say it more succinctly, an argument built on a false premise that substantively changes the conditions on which the argument is based, is wrong. As is the person who so argues.Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-14050593034782388892014-03-24T01:00:10.107+11:002014-03-24T01:00:10.107+11:00Eric writes
"Here is a link to the original g...Eric writes<br />"Here is a link to the original government document reference by the WUWT post on problems with the pilot project GRACE"<br /><br />Um, did you even read the document you linked. It did not state at all that there were problems with GRACE. The GRACE mission has in fact proved to be a great success, and has provided data 100 times more accurate than previous data.<br />https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/g/grace<br /><br />The link you provided was to the 'next-generation' of satellite to enable a sub-mm Terrestrial Reference Frame (TRF). Using the current range of technology, the current accuracy is about 1mm, which in itself, when you think about it, is an amazing feat of engineering and science. The GRACE satelites are already way past their designed lifespan, and so an update and replacement, with better technology and better accuracy is needed. But you and Watt's totally misrepresented it. You seem to have a petulant vendetta against DS, by continually bringing up old and tired retorts. <br /><br />Eric, you are a classic dilettante. Using the same tired memes and a long list of logical fallacies and misrepresentations. In the depths of the depravity that is WUWT, you can get away with that sort of foolish behaviour, but in real life, where there are many people who are far more knowledgeable than you, you come across as an highly arrogant and concieted silver-tounged fool who is obsessed with proselytising. <br /><br />Look, you are fighting against over 150 years of science, all of which says that you and your ilk are wrong. Instead of voicing your inner Morton's Daemon, and looking like a imbecile in the process, how about this. Actually do some reading about the science, instead of lambasting it. <br /><br />To be frank, there is no amount of misrepresentations or logical fallacies that will change my mind. I'm going to let you on in a little secret. If you actually want to be successful as a science communicator, you actually need to provide supporting evidence, in the form of published papers. I know you think that the ECS is about 1C, so provide a paper that shows that the ECS is around 1C, and you might actually make a dent. Instead you just 'assert', by closing your eyes and wishfully thinking. I mean just think about it for a moment. Our society has already increased CO2 by about 40% and for that, the temperature has increased by about 0.85C. What on earth makes you think that the warming will be only 1C, when we are almost already there. It just doesn't make sense. Also what makes you think that the earth's sensitivity has suddenly decreased, when dozens of studies shows that the ECS is very unlikely to be 1C or less.<br />http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/nature11574.html<br /><br />Ooh, do you see that. I linked to an actual published paper to support my argument. But I know what you are thinking. "Ahh, Nature magazine, another biased alarmist publication", but that is your Morton's daemon speaking. To most of the population, Nature and other similar publications are highly respected journals. It is only you and the Watties who live in some sort of Bizarro world, with conspiracy theories and alarmists at every turn.<br /><br />It's about time that you finally grew up and stop fighting against reality. Stop roaming the internet looking for blogs that you hate and then trolling them. It really is callow and indecorous. <br />Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-77764256652332326192014-03-24T00:46:56.765+11:002014-03-24T00:46:56.765+11:00John, indeed, I keep forgetting about Ruddiman'...John, indeed, I keep forgetting about Ruddiman's work. The evidence for it being some kind of unforced natural variability is, however, very weak (possibly, non-existent?).And Then There's Physicshttp://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30647145569989004592014-03-24T00:28:24.727+11:002014-03-24T00:28:24.727+11:00It wasn't just (natural) volcanoes and solar i...It wasn't just (natural) volcanoes and solar insulation changes, humans have been diddling climate via CO2 (CH4) changes for ~8,000 (~5,000) years ie land-use/tree-cut (rice paddies, animal husbandry). <br /><br />The MWP, whenever it was and such as it was, was not entirely natural, as CO2/CH4 were higher than they would have been, absent humans.<br /><br />A substantial contributor to the start if the LIA was the ~9ppm CO2 drop from 1525 to 1600AD, from human causes (50Mperson pandemic in Americas), followed by natural volcanoes and Maunder.<br /><br />Bill Ruddiman's book: Earth Transformed(2013), based on numerous Peer-reviewed papers in credible journals by him and/or other researchers. Bill gave the Tyndall Lecture on this at last big AGU meeting, an honor that is not casually given.<br />The Earth's climate has not been entirely natural since human civilization started, and "should" have been cooling slowly with jiggles from the usual Milankovich effects. Human additions to GHGs lessened that cooling for thousands of years, with our own jiggles from plagues and wars. Of course, we have now turned the thermostat to HIGH.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-72453343424500581342014-03-24T00:17:03.113+11:002014-03-24T00:17:03.113+11:00"Climate is warming at a similar rate to warm..."Climate is warming at a similar rate to warming episodes in the recent past"<br /><br /><a href="http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1860/to:1880.92/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910/to:1940.92/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1984/to:2004.92/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:2005.92/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:60" rel="nofollow">No it's not</a>. The 21 years to 1880 warmed at 0.10°C per decade, the 21 years to 2004, at 0.23°C was almost two and a half times that. The 31 years to 1940 warmed at 0.14°C per decade, the 31 years to 2005 was again significantly faster at 0.20°C per decade. Further the entire 39 period of current warming, at 0.17°C per decade is faster than either of these two earlier periods and significantly longer.<br /><br />There is no analogue in the instrumental record for the current warming.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11255466542968249065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-44075171964916726952014-03-24T00:14:47.758+11:002014-03-24T00:14:47.758+11:00I would also question Eric's claim that the ab...I would also question Eric's claim that the above warming events he mentions were "similar" to the current warming. See below:<br /><br />http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/<br /><br />We have easily exceeded the temperature values of those warming events recently, so in what context can he claim they are similar?<br /><br />I remember him making a "similar" claim that we have had "similar" ice loss (to 2012) in the arctic in the 1930's based on Norwegian ice maps. "Similar" to him does not mean the same as it does to us ordinary folk. The "similar" ice loss according to the maps turned out to be about around 10% to 15% less than the 20th century mean, as opposed to the 60% loss in ice extent observed in 2012 (and 80% by volume!), so not so "similar" then.<br /><br />Eric is great at rhetoric and handwaving, constantly asking for hard, undeniable proof, but then failing miserably to back up his own bone headed assertions. Debunkernoreply@blogger.com