tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post2306333743417150632..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Robert Balic at WUWT tries to downplay Australia's Angry Summer - but who's fooling who?Souhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger99125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-28907114148088957352014-12-05T00:06:46.319+11:002014-12-05T00:06:46.319+11:00Thanks. All good. The RSS website has a lot of tec...Thanks. All good. The RSS website has a lot of technical detail about how they derive a temperature from the oxygen microwave glow in an air column kilometres deep. I recall someone said the measurements are thrown off by cloud.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-45215699001311075112014-12-04T23:05:23.399+11:002014-12-04T23:05:23.399+11:00I'm sorry about that. I forgot to upload the f...I'm sorry about that. I forgot to upload the file. It's up now. They are quite different. Could be that the air in the layer in the troposphere moves up and down and sideways, so isn't the same temperature as the surface, while the surface stays still :) Or it could be that the UAH estimate is off. I wouldn't know. I think that BoM data would be fairly solid.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10902972806356592222014-12-04T22:06:50.730+11:002014-12-04T22:06:50.730+11:00The link on the HotWoppery post to the UAH summer ...The link on the HotWoppery post to the UAH summer temperature did not work. I am surprised that the UAH dataset includes Australia, I wonder how they deal with the edge problem and stuff like that - must research it when I have time.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-76870602580582178202014-12-04T18:47:45.395+11:002014-12-04T18:47:45.395+11:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-9254874581226413702014-10-12T16:57:44.727+11:002014-10-12T16:57:44.727+11:00Sheesh, more meaningless mutterings from Ragnaar. ...Sheesh, more meaningless mutterings from Ragnaar. You will end up in the HotWhoppery quick smart if you don't shape up. <br /><br />Honestly. Why do you keep regurgitating the same old denier talking points and take not a whit of notice of the science itself or of any of the people who've made the effort to reply to you, Ragnaar. HotWhopper is not your personal notice board. Give it a rest. Go read some climate science for a change. <br /><br />Or do something else - anything that's more productive than rejecting science - like go read a comic book or watch a soap opera.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-53827225058185234132014-10-12T16:41:25.965+11:002014-10-12T16:41:25.965+11:00Lotharsson:
The IPCC AR5:
"Equilibrium climat...Lotharsson:<br />The IPCC AR5:<br />"Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)"<br />The IPCC AR5:<br />"[T]he rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012) [is] 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade)which is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012) [of] 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade."<br />The above are banner statements. Such uncertainty. That warming could be 1X or 3X. Why tell policy makers what happened in the last 61 years? It's natural to give weight to them doing that. And seeing as how they are only policy makers, what do we think they'll do with this 0.11 C per decade?<br />Ragnaarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-74388614530872703152014-10-12T16:36:02.129+11:002014-10-12T16:36:02.129+11:00Ragnaar, as other people have pointed out, your ar...Ragnaar, as other people have pointed out, your argument from personal incredulity doesn't carry any weight. <br /><br />It's good that you are "trying to understand", but don't use the Royal "we" to imply that your level of ignorance is shared by the scientific community. Historically based projections (ie from paleo studies) indicate that the world is going to get much hotter very quickly if we don't cut CO2 emissions.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-32132844447474393102014-10-12T16:18:10.911+11:002014-10-12T16:18:10.911+11:00Sou:
I will try again. Assuming a 0.1 C per decade...Sou:<br />I will try again. Assuming a 0.1 C per decade increase for the past 100 years, I expect that to continue. Arguments can be made for how we are going to deviate from that. That 10 or 20 years from now something really big is going to happen if it doesn't happen sooner. We are trying to understand the system and cautious, historically based projections may have their place.Ragnaarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-25399938843947424882014-10-12T16:09:40.168+11:002014-10-12T16:09:40.168+11:00I dared to comment over on the WUWT page. They hea...I dared to comment over on the WUWT page. They head off into Conspiracy Theory pretty quickly so it is hard to have a sensible discussion.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50239018221736045582014-10-12T16:09:14.059+11:002014-10-12T16:09:14.059+11:00I don't get whatever point you are trying to m...I don't get whatever point you are trying to make (as usual), Ragnaar. I did notice the last para of your linked article is ominous, though not all true. Still, given we've chosen to rapidly shift into unchartered territory who's to say it won't happen:<br /><br />"We don’t really know much about how the global climate’s feedback systems could rearrange as temperatures rise. If they were to begin to harmonically align, some small tipping point–the next tenth of a degree rise or the next ppm reduction in ocean water salinity–could be the pin that pops the bubble. That Dragon King could make a financial crisis look like good times…."Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-53254289919378118032014-10-12T16:00:16.074+11:002014-10-12T16:00:16.074+11:00I corrected that to something like I expect the to...I corrected that to something like I expect the total area of the Arctic sea ice to increase in the future. I think you are reaching a bit with the ice age cometh remark. Doing a simple exponential growth curve is one way of looking at things. I prefer something like this: http://royalsocietypublishing.org/content/roypta/367/1890/871/F1.large.jpg<br />I would like to link to the Ghil post on Curry's website but I am unsure about doing that. The linked Z curve above can be used for a control parameter and temperature. If someone where to tell me that the Acme company is going to see continuing exponential I wouldn't believe them. Use exponential growth as a template and see how many things you can fit that to? Exponential growth is I think actually related to a positive feedback collapse: http://jbruhl.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/dragon-king.jpg<br />On Sornette: http://law2050.com/2014/02/10/beyond-black-swans-the-dragon-kings-of-climate-change/<br />Sornette illustrates ideas of factors possibly involved with regimes changes as mentioned in the PDO description by Sou.<br />Exponential growth would almost by definition require a collapse as it often does in nature. The ENSO region spends most of its time in a positive feedback condition and we assume that that has collapsed every time and afterwords tended to an El Nino. Ragnaarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-52329891119418644912014-10-11T22:04:54.185+11:002014-10-11T22:04:54.185+11:00"Looking forward, we have projections. The pr...<em>"Looking forward, we have projections. The prior is many times more certain than the future. "</em><br /><br />No, it's absolutely not "many times more certain" if what you mean (and you seem to!) is to simply <b>extrapolate</b> the prior without accounting for what is known about the system and what is changing about the system. Doing so is exceedingly stupid because it requires you to ignore all kinds of fairly well understood physics and all kinds of fairly well understood changes in factors (e.g. forcings) that <em>affect</em> the physics in favour of "how physics played out in the past given the factors of the past".<br /><br />If anything is "many times more certain" it is that taking into account as many factors and as much physics as possible is going to be a much better projection than extrapolating the past.Lotharssonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49311270449503914962014-10-11T16:07:18.891+11:002014-10-11T16:07:18.891+11:00Ragnaar wants to compare today to the past, which ...Ragnaar wants to compare today to the past, which is a great idea. A lot of scientists study past climates. There is an entire field of paleoclimatology. <br /><br />Here are a few articles about past climate. (Warning: some are classified "Adult Only" and not suitable viewing for science deniers.)<br /><br /><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/" rel="nofollow">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lee-commentary-on-Burgess-et-al-PNAS-Permian-Dating.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lee-commentary-on-Burgess-et-al-PNAS-Permian-Dating.html</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/3316.full" rel="nofollow">http://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/3316.full</a>Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69136061583372058422014-10-11T15:14:59.861+11:002014-10-11T15:14:59.861+11:00Ragnaar, you are still playing that silly game, li...Ragnaar, you are still playing that silly game, like when you where going all ice-age cometh and claiming, despite all available evidence to the contrary, that the Arctic sea ice will recover. Your ignorance knows no bounds. For a start, you can't project that the temperature rise over the next century will be around 1C based on recent temperature trends. WHY? Because the forcings that induced the temperature change were quite low compared to today and will be considerably higher in the forceable future. With your accounting background you should understand this more than most. If you have a rapidly growing successful company, and it made a profit of 1 million dollars, in 10 years time will the profit still be 1 million dollars? <br /><br />The same thing is occurring with our climate. For your assertion to be valid, the levels of greenhouse gases would not only need to stabilise now, but actually go in reverse. This is not happening, so your assumption that the temperature trends will be the same in the future as has been in the past is totally invalid.<br /><br />Think of it another way. If I put on a pot of water on the stove with the heat level set to 1, and measure the rate of increase in temperature, what will the rate of increase be when I slowing crank up the heat level up to 5? It certainly won't be the same as when it was at 1. Yet you are trying o argue that it will be the same as when it was at 1, totally throwing out the law's of physics. <br /><br />Look, it is patently obvious that you are a complete fool when it comes to understanding the climate and the underlying physical constraints and processes. You will make a ludicrous claim without regard to basic physical laws, and then when you are shown to be wrong, you will not concede and admit your error, but will bluster you way forward with even more ludicrous claims. This sheer arrogance and ignorance on your part is not a unique feature, but seems inherent in the denier psychology. The way you can just blissfully carry on without the acknowledgement of your bountiful ignorance and misunderstanding is absurd.<br /><br />What I would really like to know is why are you even here? You seem intend on a flagrant display of your complete incomprehension of climate science and your inability to learn even the most simplest of concepts. These sorts of attributes are more than welcome on sites like WUWT, in fact they are encouraged and supported, but on this site they are abhorred and loathed. So I will ask again. What is your motivation for this type of behaviour?DJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-83016843282035875392014-10-11T10:39:01.881+11:002014-10-11T10:39:01.881+11:00Lotharsson remarks on Kyle Swanson. Real Climate h...Lotharsson remarks on Kyle Swanson. Real Climate has decided Swanson's 'much ado' post along with its graphs is Okay on that website. As I understand that, the key graph shows what he considers to be the underlying trend. Some commenters have suggested he cherry picked to get such a low rate of warming, about 1.0 C per century.<br /><br />Looking backwards has its advantages. We can call that historical accounting. What happened in numbers. Looking forward, we have projections. The prior is many times more certain than the future. The 1.0 C per century would have a lot of weight as it is what happened. The projections may happen.<br /><br />“...and that there are no guarantees to how the climate may respond." <br /><br />So we turn to our strongest pieces of information, the past. When we want to say something we can predict the future with suitable caution of 'no guarantees' or we can say we've seen 1.0 C per century and expect that to continue in the long term. Ragnaarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-47892344521333518182014-10-10T19:48:43.061+11:002014-10-10T19:48:43.061+11:00"No credible scientist would interpret that g...<em>"No credible scientist would interpret that graph saying we are expecting 4C of warming, let alone ignore the uncertainty in the projection and future emissions rates."</em><br /><br />No credible scientist would say that expecting a mere 1C of warming is reasonable in the next century or so. The credible ones would generally say that 4C is a <b>lot</b> more likely based on current expectations than 1C. Your own line of argument strongly rebuts your own claim.<br /><br />Also, since you're citing Swanson to try and argue something about century-scale global warming you might want to take note of his comments at that article:<br /><br /><em>"What do our results have to do with Global Warming, i.e., the century-scale response to greenhouse gas emissions? VERY LITTLE, contrary to claims that others have made on our behalf. Nature (with hopefully some constructive input from humans) will decide the global warming question based upon climate sensitivity, net radiative forcing, and oceanic storage of heat, not on the type of multi-decadal time scale variability we are discussing here. However, this apparent impulsive behavior explicitly highlights the fact that humanity is poking a complex, nonlinear system with GHG forcing – and that there are no guarantees to how the climate may respond."</em><br /><br />This does not display that "aw, shucks, it's probably only 1C per century which won't be so bad" sanguinity you're offering here. That's a good thing, because "1C per century doesn't sound that hard to adapt to" is awfully ignorant of both the human cost and the limits of adaptability of the ecosystem and the impacts to it of adapting, which Sou already alluded to in the comment you were replying to. Your argument to that effect appears to rely on the Fallacy of Personal Ignorance.<br />Lotharssonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-44120349382997310202014-10-10T19:33:39.400+11:002014-10-10T19:33:39.400+11:00Ragnar said:
"Both organizations are exercisi...Ragnar said:<br />"Both organizations are exercising theirs"<br /><br /> Your post seems a bit confused. The Koch bros. are not an organisation. They are just two individuals which makes your comparison a bit silly. I see that Sou and Bill have pointed out the other problems with that comparison.<br />Anyway I doubt that $67 is a true figure. The Koch's spend hundreds of millions of dollars on American elections. How much of that money filters down to candidates who are for taking action to protect future generations from AGW.<br /><br />JG Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-91248739559308498822014-10-10T18:29:48.590+11:002014-10-10T18:29:48.590+11:00And some people try to pass off peddling deceptive...And some people try to pass off peddling deceptive information as 'Free Speech™', and look the other way when anyone points out that people with rather a lot of money and rather heavy connections tend to get rather more in the way of 'free speech', some animals being rather more equal than others, after all...<br /><br />Anyone who'd deny that is so lost to rationality that 'debating' them is a waste of time.billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-40659747340628768922014-10-10T16:05:18.080+11:002014-10-10T16:05:18.080+11:00Yeah, well I can see that different people place t...Yeah, well I can see that different people place themselves on different points on a spectrum when it comes to morality and ethics. Some people condone deliberate campaigns to deceive the general public, some of us don't. (Just as some people defend defamation, hate speech, inciting racial riots and similar - and some of us don't.)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69491377156898754082014-10-10T15:30:43.093+11:002014-10-10T15:30:43.093+11:00Carter slams the Koch brothers for spending $67 mi...Carter slams the Koch brothers for spending $67 million over 14 years on organizations working on anti-climate agendas with this information provided by Greenpeace. Guidestar shows Greenpeace's latest form 990 reporting $33 million of revenues for the year. <br /><br />$67 / 14 = $5 million/year for Koch<br /><br />I'd look at the linked Koch brothers slam as an issue of free speech. Both organizations are exercising theirs. I am hearing somehow the Koch's speech is suspect. That they shouldn't even be doing it. It's unfair.<br /><br />I think the Koch brothers are playing the role of, the reason why things are not as we want them to be. They explain our shortcomings and failures.Ragnaarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-91556163443936494322014-10-10T14:16:42.868+11:002014-10-10T14:16:42.868+11:00Sou we male undergrads used to joke about div grad...Sou we male undergrads used to joke about div grad and curl as a plot to describe fundamental differential evaluations of a function that we barely understood, We thought it had more to do hair. We were idiots! Forgive me!<br /><br />BertBert from Elthamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-84351418262520072042014-10-10T14:07:31.871+11:002014-10-10T14:07:31.871+11:00Just one example. A recent profile of Koch bagman ...Just one example. A recent profile of Koch bagman Richard Fink explains a Koch Industries intervention from the Clinton era.<br /><br />It is interesting to speculate how different the US energy mix might be today with policy made in the interests of society rather than who has the biggest bag of cash.<br /><br />"Clinton had pushed to tax fuels based on their heat content, giving a leg up to sustainable energy sources such as wind and solar power. Koch Industries considered killing the energy tax a matter of vital importance. (“Our belief is that the tax, over time, may have destroyed our business,” Fink later said.) According to a consultant who worked for Citizens for a Sound Economy in the 1990s, Fink approached the leading oil industry lobby and trade group with a plan to deep-six the BTU tax. “Rich walked into the American Petroleum Institute with a lump sum and said, ‘Will you match it?’” he recalls. “API and the oil companies matched it with a very specific targeted campaign aimed just at knocking out the BTU tax from that budget bill.”<br /><br />Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/politico50/2014/charles-kochs-brain.html#.VDdMCGdxns0#ixzz3FhvJEppr<br />MikeHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-3791823207070177912014-10-10T14:04:35.528+11:002014-10-10T14:04:35.528+11:00Some fossil fuel players have been funding disinfo...Some fossil fuel players have been funding disinformation campaigns. <br /><br />http://www.rtcc.org/2014/04/23/carter-slams-koch-brothers-for-funding-climate-denial/<br /><br />It is on the record and some companies have publicly admitted it.<br /><br />http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html#.VDdL4fmSxB0<br /><br />The fact you refuse to believe it is all about you playing the proverbial ostrich. It's nothing to do with Bill or I.<br /><br />If you think your making up stuff out of thin air to try to discredit another guest here, is what passes for "constructive criticism", then we definitely don't agree. I am not happy with your bad behaviour. <br /><br />You've said more than enough on the topic.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-71248406129655638782014-10-10T13:53:48.925+11:002014-10-10T13:53:48.925+11:00Remember, the comment of mine that you are critici...Remember, the comment of mine that you are criticising was:<br /><br />"How does a rise of 4C sound to you? That's what we are probably headed for by the end of this century."<br /><br />I showed you the IPCC chart. How about Professor Steve Sherwood:<br /><br />http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-planet-to-warm-by-4-degrees-by-2100-20131231-304nw.html<br /><br />If you prefer "we're heading for somewhere between 3.5C and 6C by 2100" (using the outer boundaries of the IPCC chart on our current trajectory), that's fine by me. I'd call it nitpicking.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-75500036522254996952014-10-10T13:35:49.269+11:002014-10-10T13:35:49.269+11:00Sou, your linked graph shows a range of outcomes. ...Sou, your linked graph shows a range of outcomes. No credible scientist would interpret that graph saying we are expecting 4C of warming, let alone ignore the uncertainty in the projection and future emissions rates.<br /> <br />It should also be pointed out that the solid line in the linked graph does not match observations, but that’s another topic.<br /> <br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com