tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post2538337179893489451..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Energy accumulation - plus testing Tisdale pseudo-science null hypothesis at WUWTSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-13591589229558451092013-11-30T10:01:28.554+11:002013-11-30T10:01:28.554+11:00Sou further to my last post (Bert) I have been fol...Sou further to my last post (Bert) I have been following your blog for some time and found it enlightening as to what passes for comment at wuwt. I can no longer stomach the place as it only adds to Anthony's hit count. <br /><br />What I find even more remarkable is your meticulously accurate dissection of the carcase that passes for a live discussion at wuwt. <br /><br />I am still learning. Bert from Eltham (Aus)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30252677014824621692013-11-30T09:42:57.814+11:002013-11-30T09:42:57.814+11:00I notice on your site Sou that to put up a post on...I notice on your site Sou that to put up a post one needs to decipher a few wobbly characters. If a random mathematical or scientific question was used e.g. solve a simple differential equation or integrate a simple function. If wuwt used this they would never get a post from the peanut gallery. My background is in Physics and Molecular Biology (retired) and I still do not fully understand all the current knowledge on climate science even after reading all I could access. The nuances like most of science are counter intuitive. Bert from ElthamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-83375676252195141392013-11-29T18:01:09.689+11:002013-11-29T18:01:09.689+11:00Yes, my understanding of the TOA was that it was m...Yes, my understanding of the TOA was that it was mostly instrumental. In fact, I believe that they only get an error 0.4 W/m^2 by constraining it using the ocean heat content data. I had assumed that the uncertainty in the surface flux was related to the surface warming at different rates at different times. Hence, it's not instrumental but reflects real variability. Someone once indicated that that wasn't correct, but I haven't yet had a good explanation for where this uncertainty comes from.Wotts Up With That Bloghttp://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-6645308357600153662013-11-29T11:48:56.449+11:002013-11-29T11:48:56.449+11:00I know you were not discussing Hiros. But Bob was,...I know you were not discussing Hiros. But Bob was, and that was the reason I tried to highlight his glaring error on WUWT.<br /><br />Anyway, you provide a fine example why I trust one side of the 'debate' more than the other. You are willing to acknowledge that you may have been wrong. If only Bob would be that gracious...<br /><br />SisiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-88548033415224270122013-11-29T11:29:37.161+11:002013-11-29T11:29:37.161+11:00Hmm..I've thought it through using diet and di...Hmm..I've thought it through using diet and digestion as an analogy and now accept that you are correct, Sisi :) Thanks. I've updated the post accordingly.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50927745568928113412013-11-29T11:08:36.310+11:002013-11-29T11:08:36.310+11:00I think there's an argument for both approache...I think there's an argument for both approaches. (I wasn't discussing the Hiros, which unlike my analogy, only rely on the difference not the amounts of ins and outs in any case.)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-88156538385860723162013-11-29T10:54:10.527+11:002013-11-29T10:54:10.527+11:00At the top of the atmosphere 340.2 is coming in, 3...At the top of the atmosphere 340.2 is coming in, 339.7 is going out. That means energy imbalance of 0.6 (probably some rounding issue somewhere). This is the basic calculation of the earth energy budget. When considering Hiroshima numbers, one should compare with those numbers to find out if the 4 Hiros per second make sense (whatever one's opinion on using Hiro's). I don't think it has anything to do with radiation being LW or SW or greenhouse gasses, ice melts, cloud changes or whatever basically.<br /><br />SisiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-18147359866126919082013-11-29T10:51:31.089+11:002013-11-29T10:51:31.089+11:00Yours was a terrific article, Collin. I'd not...Yours was a terrific article, Collin. I'd not noticed before that Anthony has used Hiroshima himself in his articles - without blinking.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-90688609560253165822013-11-29T10:50:15.589+11:002013-11-29T10:50:15.589+11:00I can't help you out much, Wotts. Or no more t...I can't help you out much, Wotts. Or no more than the paper itself.<br /><br />The paper discusses a number of factors, including precipitation, aerosols and many others. I expect it's because there are so many things that need to be taken into account at the surface and between the surface and atmosphere and lots of different surfaces, too :) (Land, ocean, vegetation, ice and snow plus the variation within and under etc).<br /><br />The top of atmosphere is a much cleaner "surface". The paper says that most of the uncertainty at the TOA is instrumentation. On the surface I expect it's all sorts of things.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-88147771657621627242013-11-29T10:34:32.174+11:002013-11-29T10:34:32.174+11:00I wondered about that myself, Sisi. The reason I ...I wondered about that myself, Sisi. The reason I settled on 240 was because greenhouse gases are what's causing the imbalance and that's the LW radiation. So I netted the SW.<br /><br />I took it that the reflected SW radiation is from albedo and, although that will change as the ice melts and clouds change, it's not the same as the inhibition of LW leaving the surface caused by the extra GHGs. Which is why things are out of kilter now.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-28459594502333355082013-11-29T10:32:12.483+11:002013-11-29T10:32:12.483+11:00Tisdale is an amateur with no apparent scientific ...Tisdale is an amateur with no apparent scientific knowledge base or aptitude for quantitative thought. As such, he doesn't bother me all that greatly (ref. Hanlon's Razor). <br /><br />Note the contrast with Curry and Lindzen. Not knowing what you're talking about isn't culpable. Deliberately and knowingly attempting to deceive is.Don Brookshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379725341973886243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-63502268779808948642013-11-29T08:43:51.833+11:002013-11-29T08:43:51.833+11:00I've just watched Bob's video. Firstly, I...I've just watched Bob's video. Firstly, I've no idea why he thinks the atmosphere is not part of our climate system. What's of interest is the TOA imbalance, not the surface one. However, what's always confused me (and I'm hoping someone here can help) is why the uncertainty in the surface imbalance is so large. Is that because of variability (i.e., the surface clearly warms faster than expected at times and slower than expected at times - as now) or is it something else?Wotts Up With That Bloghttp://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-74129016847784821862013-11-29T08:42:31.351+11:002013-11-29T08:42:31.351+11:00Sou,
I think you have to compare 0.6 watts with 3...Sou,<br /><br />I think you have to compare 0.6 watts with 340 watts, not 240 watts. Otherwise great write-up!<br /><br />SisiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-16656518288596829132013-11-29T06:20:41.293+11:002013-11-29T06:20:41.293+11:00"I don't think he knows what he is asking..."I don't think he knows what he is asking. MinutePhysics would demolish Bob Tisdale's disinformation"<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikGLNs3nYlc" rel="nofollow">empirical evidence</a> suggests that Sensorman probably <i>wouldn't</i> like MinutePhysics' take on the subject...lignenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-39361806377596121992013-11-29T06:08:16.717+11:002013-11-29T06:08:16.717+11:00Thanks for the mention. :)
It was indeed a surpri...Thanks for the mention. :)<br /><br />It was indeed a surprise that the Hiroshima bomb comparison is used on his website. And without any indication from Watts that he disapproves of the usage of the comparison.<br /><br />I have to admit that I didn't notice the error that Tisdale was using the wrong uncertainty range. I did notice he was making a few statements that aren't that easy to defend about uncertainty ranges, but the incorrect usage slipped past me during the first quick reading that I did.Collin Maessenhttp://www.realsceptic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-84450172406132345862013-11-29T05:28:59.190+11:002013-11-29T05:28:59.190+11:00Thanks for that rigorous analysis, Sou!
:-)Thanks for that <i>rigorous</i> analysis, Sou!<br /><br />:-)BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-3848885455104031162013-11-29T04:40:14.391+11:002013-11-29T04:40:14.391+11:00and of course the youtube video doesn't allow ...and of course the youtube video doesn't allow comments<br /><br />why are these deniers such cowards?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com