tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post1512453571546414515..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Confessions of deniers at Judith Curry's blogSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger174125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-62921838202373898472015-04-12T05:30:16.754+10:002015-04-12T05:30:16.754+10:00Wow...a more precise exposition of motivated reaso...Wow...a more precise exposition of motivated reasoning and cognitive bias--clothed in what, at first, appears to be calm(ish) language--than Ellison's would be hard to find...except that Sou, in her unerring and saint-like patience, keeps documenting here on HW. Thanks, Sou, and I anxiously await to read Ellison's next obfuscation and avoidance of the 1000-kilo gorilla in the room---his own intransigence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-85359882736549339812015-02-19T13:01:07.704+11:002015-02-19T13:01:07.704+11:00Replies to Bill have been moved to another thread....Replies to Bill have been moved to another thread. Feel free to continue the discussion at <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/02/robs-gallop.html" rel="nofollow">Rob's Gallop</a><br /><br />Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-15606967550906878612015-02-19T12:43:18.347+11:002015-02-19T12:43:18.347+11:00This thread is now closed. You can continue the di...This thread is now closed. You can continue the discussion on the thread below.<br /><br /><a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/02/robs-gallop.html" rel="nofollow">http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/02/robs-gallop.html</a><br />Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-1927878684997351432015-02-19T11:46:29.930+11:002015-02-19T11:46:29.930+11:00cRR Kampen.
This helps to put human-caused global...cRR Kampen.<br /><br />This helps to put human-caused global warming into the context of the Earth's history:<br /><br /><a href="http://postimg.org/image/ft9m5se2h/full/" rel="nofollow">http://postimg.org/image/ft9m5se2h/full/</a><br />Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-59693020504632182322015-02-19T10:42:07.653+11:002015-02-19T10:42:07.653+11:00Lucifer.
You do realise that your efforts to clai...Lucifer.<br /><br />You do realise that your efforts to claim that there's no hotspot is an explicit denial of uncontroversial fundamental physics, and in particular of <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm" rel="nofollow">lapse rate physics</a>?<br /><br />Do you also deny evolution, or the efficacy of vaccines?Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-68460074853099633552015-02-19T10:26:42.165+11:002015-02-19T10:26:42.165+11:00If Lucifer could read, rather than simply cut-and-...If Lucifer could read, rather than simply cut-and-paste, I said no such thing, nor has Isaac Held, whose blog post I posted from in order to put Lucifer's quotemine in context.<br /><br />'Fess up, Lucifer, you've not read the full text of Isaac Held's two blog posts and the abstract from the paper he quotes. You've only read the snippet quotemined and posted on some denialist site.dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-53376143392967032182015-02-19T10:10:56.235+11:002015-02-19T10:10:56.235+11:00I really have little time for the so-called 'l...I really have little time for the so-called 'lukewarmers'. On a couple of visits to the Blackboard and Climate Etc. I was struck that they seemed to be nests of closet deniers and adherents of the golden mean fallacy, all puffed up in a way David Dunning would recognise because the true hallmark of genius is positioning yourself halfway between 'extremes', don'chaknow?<br /><br />Yep, if one side bloody-mindedly and inflexibly adheres to the notion that 2 + 2 = 4, but a small coterie of galileos effervescently insists on a thrilling new result of '5', well, it's <i>obvious</i> the smart money's on the One True Answer being 4.5, innit? (See 'Centrism: a history thereof')<br /><br />Except in this case it actually turns out these 'happy medians' almost always really think the answers more like 4.8, maybe .9. Or 5.1, when pressed. See above.<br /><br />And the level of pontifical self-congratulation is off the scale! When combined with the kind of content-free, high-falutin' jargonese waffling so well exemplified above, it's like being stuck in an eternal public meeting of mayoral candidates. Ugh.<br /><br />(I'll add that I rather like Eli's '<i>the proper description of this luckwarmers. They feel lucky and are betting the house on it. Unfortunately it is our house.</i>)<br />billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-89251144665286362012015-02-19T09:37:55.906+11:002015-02-19T09:37:55.906+11:00(I deleted the original comment to clarify certain...(I deleted the original comment to clarify certain things that I took out of context, and then saw Rob's response. The reference to EPA numbers:<br /><br />"The primary sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States are:<br /><br />Electricity production (32% of 2012 greenhouse gas emissions)<br />Transportation (28% of 2012 greenhouse gas emissions)<br />Industry (20% of 2012 greenhouse gas emissions)<br />Commercial and Residential (10% of 2012 greenhouse gas emissions)<br />Agriculture (10% of 2012 greenhouse gas emissions)<br />Land Use and Forestry (offset of 15% of 2012 greenhouse gas emissions) (In the United States, since 1990, managed forests and other lands have absorbed more CO2 from the atmosphere than they emit.)"<br /><br />http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.html)<br /><br />Rob, thanks for the reasoned reply. I maintain that you are skirting the ultimate issue of warming due to GHG emissions, but I appreciate the civility.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-9383459530221776592015-02-19T09:20:45.267+11:002015-02-19T09:20:45.267+11:00Think globally - from the US EPA.
http://www.epa....Think globally - from the US EPA.<br /><br />http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/GlobalGHGEmissionsBySource.png<br /><br />Add black carbon.<br /><br />‘The best estimate of industrial-era climate forcing of black carbon through all forcing mechanisms, including clouds and cryosphere forcing, is +1.1 W/m 2 with 90% uncertainty bounds of +0.17 to +2.1 W/m 2. Thus, there is a very high probability that black carbon emissions, independent of co-emitted species, have a positive forcing and warm the climate. We estimate that black carbon, with a total climate forcing of +1.1 W/m 2, is the second most important human emission in terms of its climate forcing in the present-day atmosphere; only carbon dioxide is estimated to have a greater forcing…’ Bond, T. C. et al, 2013, Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH: ATMOSPHERES, VOL. 118, 5380–5552, doi:10.1002/jgrd.50171<br /><br />What I actually said was that the 26% from electricity generation was the easy bit. The rest - plus black carbon - requires broader social and development policies. <br /><br />Climate shifts - which are fairly obvious in the modern and paleo record - result in changes in means and variance. Here it is conceptually from Michael Ghil. <br /><br />https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/ghil-sensitivity.png<br /><br />We can't know what the size or direction of the next shift will be - or the extent that recent shifts n 1976/1977 ans 1998/2001 influenced surface temps. The shifts can be more or less extreme. Superimposing some notion of warming - which should exist - onto this is problematic. <br /><br />One of the things that Kyle Swanson did at realclimate was to calculate a residual linear trend that they hypothesized was the 'true forced warming signal'. <br /><br />http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/<br /><br />It is some 0.07 degrees C/decade. Not all that significant in itself. But that's not really the point - these aren't cycles but abrupt shifts. Complexity theory suggests that the system is pushed by greenhouse gas changes and warming – as well as solar intensity and Earth orbital eccentricities – past a threshold at which stage the components start to interact chaotically in multiple and changing negative and positive feedbacks – as tremendous energies cascade through powerful subsystems. Some of these changes have a regularity within broad limits and the planet responds with a broad regularity in changes of ice, cloud, Atlantic thermohaline circulation and ocean and atmospheric circulation. <br /><br />Let me give you a fun quote from Kumaraswamy Velupillai : ECONOMICS AND THE COMPLEXITY VISION: CHIMERICAL PARTNERS OR<br />ELYSIAN ADVENTURERS? <br /><br />Emergence, order, self-organisation, turbulence, induction, evolution, criticality, adaptive, non-linear, non-equilibrium are some of the words that characterise the conceptual underpinnings of the ‘new’ sciences of complexity that seem to pervade some of the frontiers in the natural, social and even the human sciences. Not since the heyday of Cybernetics and the more recent brief-lived ebullience of chaos applied to a theory of everything and by all and sundry, has a concept become so prevalent and pervasive in almost all fields, from Physics to Economics, from Biology to Sociology, from Computer Science to Philosophy as Complexity seems to have become.'<br /><br />Quoting it doesn't make me smarter - but reading it makes me less dumb. Rob Ellisonhttp://watertechbyrie.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-28577967859726599772015-02-19T08:48:42.363+11:002015-02-19T08:48:42.363+11:00dhogaza,
so you are in denial of the MSU data and...dhogaza,<br /><br />so you are in denial of the MSU data and the RadioSonde data?<br /><br />They look like this compared to the not spot:<br />http://climatewatcher.webs.com/HotSpot.pngLucifernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-54034435569206737572015-02-19T08:46:55.517+11:002015-02-19T08:46:55.517+11:00dhogaza,
so you are in denial of the MSU data and...dhogaza,<br /><br />so you are in denial of the MSU data and the RadioSonde data?<br /><br />They look like this compared to the not spot:<br />http://climatewatcher.webs.com/HotSpot.png<br />Lucifernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-29155091051707398222015-02-19T08:44:46.001+11:002015-02-19T08:44:46.001+11:00guthrie,
"But as for tribes, yes, I am aware...guthrie,<br /><br />"But as for tribes, yes, I am aware of them, of the various sorts. And yet the earth warms due to increased CO2, a fact which you seem desperate to ignore."<br /><br />Which tribe do you belong to?<br /><br />And is it helping you focus on the fact that temperature trends are positive ( as I said above ) while denying the fact that these trends are at rates less the even the low end projections?<br />Lucifernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-59675794919251073742015-02-19T08:40:33.953+11:002015-02-19T08:40:33.953+11:00Lucifer:
"http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaa...Lucifer:<br /><br />"http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/2014/12/19/54-tropical-tropospheric-warming-revisited-part-1/"<br /><br />Read that blog post carefully ... it also says ...<br /><br />"I like this way of plotting the model profile and the MSU data together — it reminds us that the MSU weighting functions are too broad to catch the actual maximum in the model’s warming trend near 300mb, even though the maximum weight for TTT is near that level."<br /><br />Think about that ... and in the next blog post ...<br /><br />"The previous post summarizes the results from a recent paper, Flannaghan et al 2014, that uses atmosphere/land models running over observed sea surface temperatures (SSTs) to look at the consistency between these models and observations of tropical tropospheric temperature trends. The idea of using this kind of uncoupled model is to try to put aside the issue of SST trends in the tropics and focus more sharply on the vertical structure of the temperature trends. Because models are so consistent in producing a warming trend that is top-heavy in the tropical troposphere, due to the strong tendency to follow a moist adiabatic profile, and because this pattern of change has numerous ramifications for tropical climate more generally, any possibility that this warming profile is wrong takes precedence over other issues in tropical climate change, in my view. I interpret the results in Flannaghan et al to say that microwave sounding data, at least, does not require us to reject the hypothesis provided by climate models for the vertical profile of the tropical temperature trends."<br /><br />Read that last sentence carefully, keeping in mind that Isaac Held is a co-author of the paper being referenced. He is not declaring the model results to be wrong.<br /><br />The entire abstract of the referenced paper is worth reading:<br /><br />http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/2014JD022365/<br /><br />It concludes:<br /><br />"trends, and the degree of agreement with observations, not only depend on SST data set and the particular atmospheric temperature data set but also on the period chosen for comparison. Due to the large impact on atmospheric temperatures, these systematic uncertainties in SSTs need to be resolved before the fidelity of climate models' tropical temperature trend profiles can be assessed."<br /><br />Systematic uncertainties in observed SSTs in the tropics, that is ... between that and the relatively poor resolution of MSU recontructions, there's not enough to declare that modeled [vertical] profiles, including the so-called tropical hot spot, are significantly wrong.<br /><br />Now, that's a bit different than Lucifer has led us to believe, isn't it?<br /><br />That's the problem with the likes of Lucifer and Rob, they quote-mine snippets from papers (actually, they cut-and-paste snippets quote-mined by others, which are continuously passed around the denialsphere), and to put them in perspective one has to do actual work.<br /><br />Admission: I don't have access to the full paper, and I only skimmed the two blog posts. Much of it describes the methodology and how changing SST inputs impact the results of atmospheric models, and details in how they went about exploring the problem which are fascinating, worth more of my time, but not relevant to pointing out that Lucifer essentially quote-mined Isaac Held's blog post. Yes, Held points out that models generate a tropical hot spot. Lucifer says "if you believe there is a tropical hot spot, you might be a denier" without pointing out that Held's work defends the plausibility of model results.<br /><br /><br /><br />dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-5872716537184894792015-02-19T08:37:23.883+11:002015-02-19T08:37:23.883+11:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-11653537502002064842015-02-19T08:27:20.037+11:002015-02-19T08:27:20.037+11:00Do long copy and pastes make you feel smarter?Do long copy and pastes make you feel smarter?Joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-74933205131773028112015-02-19T08:14:07.955+11:002015-02-19T08:14:07.955+11:00Thanx to everyone!Thanx to everyone!Lucifernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30248961334347154492015-02-19T08:11:00.351+11:002015-02-19T08:11:00.351+11:00'“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the w...'“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.” —Jeremy Rifkin, environmentalist, Los Angeles Times, Apr. 19, 1989<br /><br />Abrupt shifts in Pacific Ocean circulation involve changes in the PDO in the north-eastern Pacific and coincident changes in the frequency and intensity of ENSO events. Increased frequency and intensity of La Niña occur with a cool mode PDO and vice versa (Verdon and Franks, 2006). The change in ocean circulation is associated with changes in wind, currents and cloud that change the energy dynamic of the planet. Cool decadal modes cool the planetary surface and warm modes add to the surface temperatures. <br /><br />It is seen in ENSO proxies for 1000 years - but the latest shifts in 1976/1977 and 1998/2001 are of course the best studied. <br /><br />Yes these shifts will keep coming - and yes climate shifts occur when the system is being forced to change. <br /><br />'Abrupt climate changes were especially common when the climate system was being forced to change most rapidly. Thus, greenhouse warming and other human alterations of the earth system may increase the possibility of large, abrupt, and unwelcome regional or global climatic events. The abrupt changes of the past are not fully explained yet, and climate models typically underestimate the size, speed, and extent of those changes. Hence, future abrupt changes cannot be predicted with confidence, and climate surprises are to be expected.' http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=1<br /><br />Let's just repeat that bit from the NAS. The science of complexity has significant implications for a new understanding of climate. But the implications include the likelihood of non-warming for a decade or so more and the unpredictability of future shifts. <br /><br />The responses for the 26% of greenhouse gases that come from electricity generation - and the 13% from transport - need technological solutions. Low cost - low carbon sources of energy. <br /><br />There are several fusion projects that are interesting - but next gen. fission reactors are likely to be commercialised first. The 4th gen. nuclear engines are technology that is 50 years old - with modern materials and fuel cycle twists. They solve all the conventional problems - including the waste stream. Existing waste can be burnt producing a hugely reduced volume and toxicity to power the US for 400 years. <br /><br />e.g. http://www.ga.com/energy-multiplier-module<br /><br />Liquid fuels can be manufactured from high temperature electrolysis - carbon dioxide and hydrogen stripped simultaneously from water and recombined in the presence of a catalyst. We have the technology - and the creative destruction of capitalism will yet again transform production. <br /><br />The bigger part of the forcing equation involves agriculture, land use and manufacturing that have population and development implications.<br /><br />Resilience, mitigation and conservation and restoration of agricultural soils and ecosystems require massive resources to achieve what we need to achieve this century. This requires continued economic growth primarily - although much can be done by leveraging $2.5 trillion in aid between now and 2030. The best strategies involve building societal resilience in ways that are not merely compatible with emissions mitigation – but absolutely essential in a broad strategy involving multiple gases, aerosols, population and conservation. <br /><br />Rob Ellisonhttp://watertechbyrie.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-16177324367404986302015-02-19T07:28:17.213+11:002015-02-19T07:28:17.213+11:00I am impressed at how this lucifer is living up to...I am impressed at how this lucifer is living up to the pages and pages of warnings about the biblical one. <br />But as for tribes, yes, I am aware of them, of the various sorts. And yet the earth warms due to increased CO2, a fact which you seem desperate to ignore. <br />guthrienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-81603483728723314712015-02-19T06:58:16.615+11:002015-02-19T06:58:16.615+11:00@ Lucifer
'But the preponderance of basic fac...@ Lucifer<br /><br />'But the preponderance of basic factor will not change significantly unless one moves the mountains or wobbles the earth.'<br /><br />And the time scales over which they operate are ................ and ..............-.............-........... respectively. You fill in the blanks, a little Cloze exercise for you on the path to enlightenment.<br /><br />But then izen has already provided one big hint. Lionel Ahttp://lionels.orpheusweb.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-36842048106288725952015-02-19T05:40:07.664+11:002015-02-19T05:40:07.664+11:00"You're not the Devil. You're the guy..."You're not the Devil. You're the guy who goes into a 7-11 to get the Devil a pack of cigarettes."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-66376538273043432802015-02-19T05:38:34.835+11:002015-02-19T05:38:34.835+11:00Rob believes in Salby, why am I not surprised. Ro...Rob believes in Salby, why am I not surprised. Rob, take a class on conservation of mass. When you're done with that, take a class to understand the difference in the different cycles, or at least understand the difference in the acronyms. When you're done with that...oh forget it, you're hopeless, lol.Joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-41763537556744676732015-02-19T05:33:04.531+11:002015-02-19T05:33:04.531+11:00I poked around a bit a few months ago and couldn&#...I poked around a bit a few months ago and couldn't find a corrected slide deck.<br /><br />The engineer/libertarian series was something I'd been thinking about even before I wrote my open letter to Rutan, but my interactions with him and other engineers certainly helped focus me on the topic.Brian Anglisshttp://scholarsandrogues.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-72409421369717840732015-02-19T05:28:20.432+11:002015-02-19T05:28:20.432+11:00@-Lucifer
"To be sure, greenhouse gasses ( hi...@-Lucifer<br />"To be sure, greenhouse gasses ( higher order molecules ) change the radiance properties of earth. But the preponderance of basic factor will not change significantly unless one moves the mountains or wobbles the earth."<br /><br />And yet the climate moves (changes)<br /><br />http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/climatechange/palaeo/PETM.html<br />"Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM)<br />The PETM occurred at the boundary between the Palaeocene and Eocene time periods (55.8 million years ago) where a rapid change in climate took place. It lasted around two million years and it is thought that there was a massive release of carbon to the ocean and atmosphere causing a significant global warming.izenhttps://izenmeme.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-63690956564505029142015-02-19T05:21:46.056+11:002015-02-19T05:21:46.056+11:00At a rate less than low end projections? Is that y...At a rate less than low end projections? Is that your prediction, Lazarus? I guess we'll find out in 2035.<br /><br />These are the IPCC projections for the near term:<br /><br />In the absence of major volcanic eruptions—which would cause significant but temporary cooling—and, assuming no significant future long term changes in solar irradiance, it is likely that the GMST anomaly for the period 2016–2035, relative to the reference period of 1986–2005 will be in the range 0.3°C to 0.7°C (medium confidence).<br /><br />TS.5.4.2 Projected Near-Term Changes in Temperature<br />http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10002388324686172452015-02-19T05:09:29.643+11:002015-02-19T05:09:29.643+11:00Slay them sky dragons, O Morning Star!Slay them sky dragons, O Morning Star!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com