tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post3275421670518373834..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Attacks on science are getting weaker but there is no room for complacencySouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17946319954899252182013-09-21T23:35:16.003+10:002013-09-21T23:35:16.003+10:00Thomas Murphy.
Are you going to explain your stat...Thomas Murphy.<br /><br />Are you going to explain <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/09/attacks-on-science-are-getting-weaker.html?showComment=1379649646926#c8137914524093472216" rel="nofollow">your statement</a> <br /> that "...each Argo unit provides one reading at a specific location and time"?<br /><br />Further, can you explain what you meant by "...X Argo units do not report X independent readings at X time. The readings are NOT collected from the same one quantity or ocean..."?<br /><br /><br />Bernard J.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-28355632669077165942013-09-20T17:33:33.918+10:002013-09-20T17:33:33.918+10:00Thomas, the comparison is incorrect for the simple...Thomas, the comparison is incorrect for the simple reason that "attributable" means "sole cause" (or "main cause" - I'll give you some leeway), while "human contribution" may be, but not necessarily isn't.<br /><br />A heatwave is attributed to a number of factors coming together, and one of those factors is human greenhouse gas emissions. In the case of the European heatwave of 2003 this human contribution was significant. Without it, the heatwave would have been much less severe.<br /><br />MarcoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30327210787961413132013-09-20T17:14:34.968+10:002013-09-20T17:14:34.968+10:00Argument from assertion is another logical fallacy...Argument from assertion is another logical fallacy committed above. We can also add evasiveness, dishonesty and misrepresentation.<br /><br />How much more of this tripe are you going to inflict on us?BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-31513687084190275582013-09-20T17:12:10.028+10:002013-09-20T17:12:10.028+10:00I believe the conclusions of the reports are suspe...<i>I believe the conclusions of the reports are suspect at best</i><br /><br />Then please state *why*. Your childish evasiveness on this point heavily underscores the fact that you are arguing from assertion and that you know it.<br /><br />This is yet more denier dishonesty. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19747076052915782412013-09-20T17:09:18.143+10:002013-09-20T17:09:18.143+10:00@ TM
My reference to sides was a play on past com...@ TM<br /><br /><i>My reference to sides was a play on past comments between BBD and I, as well as others, where I assert science has no sides, while BBD disagrees wholeheartedly. </i><br /><br />I see others have debunked your Tisdalian rubbish above. Data denial, Thomas, and on false premises at that. <br /><br />Now, about your lie. I have never said any such thing, so you are guilty of gross misrepresentation. What I have said is that there are two sides here: the scientific and the denier. You are a denier, and true to form, you deny your denial despite it's being pointed out to you over and over again.<br /><br />You start - and end - with physics denial. This was demonstrated above when you denied the efficacy of CO2 forcing, denied the forced change from anthropogenic emissions to date and grotesquely misrepresented the way the climate system responds to a change in forcing. <br /><br />I have grown increasingly frustrated with your lies and your refusal to accept valid correction. You now stand revealed as ignorant, wrong, dishonest and frankly rather stupid. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-9145480511137705482013-09-20T16:27:20.595+10:002013-09-20T16:27:20.595+10:00Bernard J.
Ignore the clown and post anyway. I re...Bernard J. <br />Ignore the clown and post anyway. I read a paper a while ago on the Argo measurement methodology. From memory it was similar to gridded surface temp analysis. But I should have linked it as I cannot find it again.MikeHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10024834683475415192013-09-20T16:22:36.794+10:002013-09-20T16:22:36.794+10:00There are hundreds of scientific papers addressing...There are hundreds of scientific papers addressing the issue of measurement error with the Argo floats.<br /><br />http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?start=40&q=argo+float+measurement+error&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5<br /><br />I can guarantee that this clown has not read one of them. His nonsense comes from his usual feeding ground, climate crank blogs.<br /><br />I am with you Sou. Thomas the DuKe is all piss and wind.MikeHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19560961918757466142013-09-20T16:20:20.660+10:002013-09-20T16:20:20.660+10:00Thomas Murphy, you say:
"ARGO errors are NOT...<a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/09/attacks-on-science-are-getting-weaker.html?showComment=1379649646926#c8137914524093472216" rel="nofollow">Thomas Murphy, you say</a>:<br /><br />"<i>ARGO errors are NOT reduced because of the many temperature readings. Such an assertion MIGHT be true if the ARGO units comprising the system were truly independent readings obtained from the same, discrete ocean, but each ARGO unit measures (all by its lonesome) a different patch of ocean in which conditions vary greatly. Said otherwise, X Argo units do not report X independent readings at X time. The readings are NOT collected from the same one quantity or ocean, although many are tempted to assert that (like you, Sou) solely because each Argo unit reports temperature as a reading and floats in water."</i><br /><br />Really? <i><b>Seriously</b></i>?! Do you stand by this? Especially "...each Argo unit provides one reading at a specific location and time"?<br /><br />This is worth unpacking, because it takes the cake for one of the most egregious pieces of ignorance I've had the misfortune to read this week. I'll warn you in advance though - I've just had an <i>extremely</i> interesting ten minute conversation with a CSIRO oceanographer who works on the ARGO project, so I have a bit of a clue...<br /><br />Do expand on your claim though. I'm very interested to hear just what you think about this subject before I correct your ignorance.<br /><br /><br />Bernard J.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-77401944432576490252013-09-20T14:27:24.170+10:002013-09-20T14:27:24.170+10:00Thomas, you fail arithmetic as well as logic and a...Thomas, you fail arithmetic as well as logic and are a good example of the Dunning Kruger Effect. You claim to know better than all the world's top experts but you're just another armchair nutter. <br /><br />As for labels - you have repeatedly denied science on this website therefore the label "denier" fits. Suck it up.<br /><br />Thanks for explaining what you meant by "sides" and pointing out that you are anti-science. As if you needed to. We know that already.<br /><br />Within science there are no "sides" but, as your posts here illustrate, you aren't interested in science and are in the disinformation game - anti-world not just anti-science. <br /><br />While you can comfort yourself that you "matter" to someone somewhere, your stupid uninformed and worse than wilfully ignorant "opinions" on the topic of climate do *not* matter. You're just another empty vessel making too much noise.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-5054055293752703372013-09-20T10:22:53.752+10:002013-09-20T10:22:53.752+10:00So, if you think we can measure accurately sea tem...<i>So, if you think we can measure accurately sea temperature changes in thousands of a degree, I have an orgone bucket blaster I want to sell you.</i><br /><br />But they do, Thomas. From the <a href="http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/How_Argo_floats.html" rel="nofollow">Argo website</a>:<br /><i>Two temperature/salinity sensor suites are used - SBE, and FSI. <b>The temperature data are accurate to a few millidegrees</b> over the float lifetime. For discussion of salinity data accuracy please see the section on the Argo data system.</i><br /><br />And that's for individual floats. So when the readings are combined, the error is reduced much further than thousandths of a degree - more like of the order of 100 thousandths of a degree.<br /><br />If you'd ever bothered to investigate the nonsense that comes off your keyboard before you typed it, you'd know such things. But then I'm realising you probably do know better. You aren't just a science denier, you're using my website to try to peddle disinformation and doubt. <br /><br />Your talk of "sides" is a big givewaway.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-66990723197716251442013-09-20T10:12:14.519+10:002013-09-20T10:12:14.519+10:00denier "SST is not warming"
so what we ...denier "SST is not warming"<br /><br />so what we measure OHC<br /><br />denier " zero to 700M is cooling"<br /><br />so what zero to 2000M is warming<br /><br />denier " we cannot measure OHC" <br /><br />we have heard it all before tom <br /><br />.<br /><br />john byattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-68842528703269855292013-09-20T00:41:44.577+10:002013-09-20T00:41:44.577+10:00But do they display multi-decadal "pauses&quo...<i>But do they display multi-decadal "pauses" as we are experiencing now, gong on 15-17 years?</i><br /><br />Your "argument" is based on denier memes, not data. <a href="http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1996/offset:-0.29/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1996/offset:-0.4/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1996/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1996/offset:-0.29/mean:12/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1996/offset:-0.4/mean:12/trend/plot/uah/from:1996/mean:12/trend" rel="nofollow">Look at the data.</a> There *is* no 17yr (or 15 yr) pause. You have no argument.<br /><br /><i>GAT should be increasing and not flat - unless you whimsically allege the missing heat is buried deep in the oceans as some have done.</i><br /><br />More denier rubbish. There is nothing "whimsical" about what the data show. The rate of vertical transport of warm water to below ~700m <a href="http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content700m2000myr.png" rel="nofollow">increased over the last decade</a> as equatorial windspeeds increased slightly, "spinning up" the subtropical gyres. Enhanced Ekman pumping at the centres of the gyres provided the physical mechanism for vertical transport of warm surface waters to depth. This is exactly the kind of transient variability that causes the rate of tropospheric warming to fluctuate for a decade or so in the models. It passes. The forced tropospheric trend resumes its long-term upward slope.<br /><br />Once again, you have no argument, just empty denier memes. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-54691333084172285252013-09-20T00:13:00.938+10:002013-09-20T00:13:00.938+10:00Thomas Murphy, you do not even answer the question...Thomas Murphy, you do not even answer the question. You do not agree with the European 2003 heatwave to be *attributable*, but this is not what John Byatt is asking you.<br /><br />Oh, and "biased methodology"? Surely we will now get an exposé of how the research was biased, yes? If not, summarily dismissing scientific results because you don't like the outcome, yes, that makes you a denier.<br /><br />MarcoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-73774139344554010642013-09-18T18:15:58.447+10:002013-09-18T18:15:58.447+10:00@ TM
You said this:
However, nudging an already ...@ TM<br /><br />You said this:<br /><br /><i>However, nudging an already trace atmospheric gas up a couple hundred parts per million – even with the known and as yet unknown forcings included - will have a negligible impact on the Earth because it will seek its own balance, regardless of what we do or not do.</i><br /><br />Here you combine physics denial (gross misrepresentation of the efficacy of CO2 forcing) with further nonsense.<br /><br />As I stated upthread, the climate system will tend towards quasi-equilibrium as CO2 forcing increases. GAT will increase until quasi-equilibrium with the elevated forcing is reached.<br /><br />As I stated upthread, you are either absolutely clueless or you are deliberately misrepresenting the way the climate system responds to changes in forcing. <br /><br />You dodged the original comment. Please indicate whether you are clueless or if you are deliberately misrepresenting the basics of physical climatology. <br />BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-46862996979786452262013-09-18T18:08:41.114+10:002013-09-18T18:08:41.114+10:00@TM
As stated, I was speaking more metaphysically...@TM<br /><br /><i>As stated, I was speaking more metaphysically and not scientifically via quantified processes, but you can ignore that, as you so artfully demonstrated.</i><br /><br />Now you are lying. You said this, on several occasions:<br /><br /><i>Believing that the “extremeness” of recent, natural disasters is due to humanity’s minuscule contribution to a trace atmospheric gas</i><br /><br />That is a gross misrepresentation of the efficacy of CO2 forcing, and as such, it is clear-cut physics denial. <br /><br />* * *<br /><br />The models aren't designed to predict decadal variability exactly as it happens in the real climate system. Like most deniers, you don't understand what they are for and what they actually do. They are not weather models with multi-decadal predictive skill! They are <i>climate</i> models designed to provide insight into long-term change over the course of this century. Note that they *do* demonstrate decadal pauses. The issue here is not if, but when. Deniers have over-played this hand from the outset.<br /><br />As for a slight reduction in the lower bound for ECS - so what? It has not bearing <i>whatsoever</i> on your physics denial ("trace gas... minuscule contribution... very small carbon emissions input" etc). Further desperate evasion on your part. Own your physics denial - don't deny it! <br /><br />Finally, the fact that a lower bound of 1.5C is actually inconsistent with paleoclimate behaviour should give you pause. Is this really what is going to be in AR5? ~1.8C is about as low as you can plausibly go (and that's pushing it, but hey, it's a lower bound). I suspect you are overplaying your hand again.<br />BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-8274119632177593612013-09-18T13:29:57.468+10:002013-09-18T13:29:57.468+10:00Not just anecdotal, Thomas. Measured officially b...Not just anecdotal, Thomas. Measured officially by BoM and with the human influence shown scientifically.<br /><br />For example:<br />http://theconversation.com/the-human-role-in-our-angry-hot-summer-15596<br /><br />If I get time later and if you still haven't learned how to use google, I'll help you out with more when I get time later.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-27448923031489301132013-09-18T11:38:44.016+10:002013-09-18T11:38:44.016+10:00Here are 82 citations for Rahmstorf et al on attri...Here are 82 citations for Rahmstorf et al on attribution of european heat wave 2003 <br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/lcyxlcl<br /><br />again, accept human contribution to 2003 heatwave or deny?<br /><br />john byattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-8928109154796294282013-09-18T11:29:11.579+10:002013-09-18T11:29:11.579+10:00let us start with the european heatwave 2003
http...let us start with the european heatwave 2003<br /><br />http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7017/abs/nature03089.html<br /><br />90% likely that humans have doubled the likelyhood of this event occuring<br /><br />accepted or denied ?<br /><br /><br /><br />john byattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-47816895279831890252013-09-18T03:08:34.680+10:002013-09-18T03:08:34.680+10:00"please identify a locality that has higher s..."please identify a locality that has higher surface temperatures with respect to its surroundings due to increased atmospheric CO2 (Hint: you cannot)."?<br /><br />"with respect to its surroundings" constraint is really really dumb, Thomas. You hint "you cannot" but why would one want to? It's meaningless.<br /><br />At least two thirds of earth has higher temperatures now because of the excess CO2 from global warming - dot points on the globe and their surroundings. Even if you live in one of the places where the temperature isn't going up by much, you must have seen the charts of global surface temperature. <br /><br />Where I live heat records of various sorts are being broken constantly. To wit: Australia's Angry Summer 2013; the fortnight record heat wave (and record heat) that caused the catastrophic Black Saturday fires in 2009. There is an increase in warmer nights, fewer cold nights, warmer winters, heat waves in spring - even dangerous bush fires in early spring this year.<br /><br />You really are a goose, Thomas. <br /><br />As for the rest of your comment - that's not worth a response. (Nor was the response I did supply, come to think of it. Too obvious. And only a hard core science denier would deny the way you do. And hard core deniers aren't worthy of a response.)<br /><br />BBD - clueless it is.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-22756969830170884072013-09-18T02:02:51.606+10:002013-09-18T02:02:51.606+10:00yet I'm still confident to admit that I... mat...<i>yet I'm still confident to admit that I... matter</i><br /><br />Thomas, arguments from ignorance and from incredulity such as yours upthread <i>never matter</i> because these are <i>logical fallacies</i>. You are saying *nothing*. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-8658317015231025822013-09-18T01:57:19.457+10:002013-09-18T01:57:19.457+10:00the Earth because it will seek its own balance, re...<i>the Earth because it will seek its own balance, regardless of what we do or not do.</i><br /><br />The climate system will tend towards quasi-equilibrium as CO2 forcing increases. GAT will increase until quasi-equilibrium with the elevated forcing is reached.<br /><br />You are either absolutely clueless or you are deliberately misrepresenting the way the climate system responds to changes in forcing. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-61883026664665498812013-09-18T01:53:48.802+10:002013-09-18T01:53:48.802+10:00Believing that the “extremeness” of recent, natura...<i>Believing that the “extremeness” of recent, natural disasters is due to humanity’s minuscule contribution to a trace atmospheric gas</i><br /><br />**Physics denial**. You might as well deny the existence of gravity. You have just exiled yourself from rational discussion. <br /><br /><br /><br />BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-7593970025148700262013-09-17T14:02:48.175+10:002013-09-17T14:02:48.175+10:00Thomas, you really think that building dams hasn&#...Thomas, you really think that building dams hasn't caused earthquakes? Or that humans have never altered the landscape or affected hydrological cycles by changing waterways and by deforestation, or that polluting the air with chemicals hasn't caused cooling, or that aeroplanes don't create contrails, or that bad farming practices haven't destroyed vast areas of land by making it saline or removing topsoil, or that Chernobyl and Fukishima have had no effect on nature, or that polluting the air with CO2 can't cause warming?Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12108274865111499222013-09-17T13:52:34.292+10:002013-09-17T13:52:34.292+10:00Thomas is our resident nutty "skeptic" w...Thomas is our resident nutty "skeptic" who rejects science in favour of denialist memes. He gets caught up in knots a bit and likes words like "hubris" (like the creationists, except I think he's an atheist). <br /><br />Apart from longish comments and likening progressive thinkers to "Neanderthals" (with no sense of the irony) he's fairly harmless.<br /><br />He is absolutely certain he is right and all the tens of thousands of climate scientists in the world are wrong. He's also a bit of a fan of an ex-tv-weather announcer from somewhere in California, who rejects all the world's accumulated scientific knowledge because he doesn't like paying tax.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-25374758286128778042013-09-17T12:50:05.448+10:002013-09-17T12:50:05.448+10:00Your first paragraph contains a strawman: no one a...Your first paragraph contains a strawman: no one argues that humans 'control' continental weather. The clear finding is that we are providing an input into the frequency of some extremes, and that AGW is proceeding as predicted,which then has influence on continental weather. Your second paragraph makes a simply wrong claim. Papers on the European heatwave of 2003 and Russian ditto of 2010 identify that internal natural variability cannot entirely suffice as exlanation, likewise other events have been identified as potentiated by atmospheric blocking events that are becoming more pronounced due to changes to Arctic albedo.<br /><br />Your third paragraph is a typical and tired argument from incredulity,with lashing of the absurd. There is no analogy between lightning god believers of pre-history and those who acknowledge attribution studies and their cautious conclusions.<br /><br />Carbon pricing,and renewable energy policy, in this country saw 'resource wasting' [i.e. burning coal] fall in this country. You're calling the world's scientific community fools? Wow! What was that about hubris?Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09537772941984056434noreply@blogger.com