tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post4460303916936505034..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Bob Tisdale gets into a spot of hot waterSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49605913407166561272014-11-29T03:51:41.017+11:002014-11-29T03:51:41.017+11:00KR: The smilie after my posts was intended to con...KR: The smilie after my posts was intended to convey that I was being a goof. If you read my first post;<br /><i>"It would be fun to argue for hours about bathtubs to demonstrate the pointless circular numpty arguments that seem to occur in Global Warming arguments."</i><br /><br />I figured that only the truly inept vacuous or incompetent would engage me on the basis of that post. Low and behold a truly stupid person did exactly that. :-)<br /><br />But I have to say it was freeing to just act like they do. Ignore what was posted and restate something stupid. (That was my last 6 years dealing with the denial crew.)AnOilMannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-26660574918890182142014-11-28T23:09:57.729+11:002014-11-28T23:09:57.729+11:00Perennially pseudonymous 'Bob Tisdale'.Perennially pseudonymous 'Bob Tisdale'.rubiginosahttp://www.twitter.com/rubiginosanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-31248929353254674702014-11-28T13:29:18.140+11:002014-11-28T13:29:18.140+11:00It's odd isn't it. BT seems to thinks that...It's odd isn't it. BT seems to thinks that just because he responds to a comment he has addressed it somehow. He also tried to twist and misrepresent.<br /><br />Sou did not cut him off as he claims. I guess he will now go somewhere else and claim to anyone who can be bother to listen that he was cut off from HotWopper.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-84341808438606131472014-11-28T13:12:22.522+11:002014-11-28T13:12:22.522+11:00Ha! You guys all owe me a beer!Ha! You guys all owe me a beer!Captain Flashheartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-9145537661695883422014-11-28T09:55:40.948+11:002014-11-28T09:55:40.948+11:00Stated on Bob Tisdale's anti-HotWhopper blog:
...Stated on Bob Tisdale's anti-HotWhopper blog:<br /><br /><i><b>"The comments are open…there’s no moderation, except for comments with 3 or more links. Please refrain from ad hominem comments."</b></i><br /><br />Blocked after 3 or so comments with only 1 link, no ad-hominems and on-topic. <br />sauerkrautnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-55772000987906336652014-11-28T09:53:57.237+11:002014-11-28T09:53:57.237+11:00Sou if it helps a bit Paul Keating when asked abou...Sou if it helps a bit Paul Keating when asked about his enemies and detractors, said he saw them all as a badges of honour he wore proudly. It is not a popularity contest but a contest of ideas. BertBert from Elthamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-74432034468584049932014-11-28T03:00:01.865+11:002014-11-28T03:00:01.865+11:00There has only ever been one comment made directly...There has only ever been one comment made directly by someone claiming the name "Bob Tisdale". <br /><br />I did not post it. <br /><br />It not only contravened the <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/p/comment-policy.html" rel="nofollow">comment policy</a> by linking to a denier blog, the person who made it had the cheek to invite me to his new blog on which he'd used images and artwork he'd only just stolen from me, as well as my name. Ignoring etiquette. For obvious nasty motives. This from a person who hides because he <a href="https://archive.today/yFtUi#selection-1143.0-1167.7" rel="nofollow">wants to maintain his own privacy</a>. It also hosted one of the <a href="https://twitter.com/holy_kau/status/536532561531371520" rel="nofollow">most disgusting comments</a> I've ever read and I expect there was a lot more of that sort of thing, which is what "Bob" would have expected and probably wanted, given that's what happened at WUWT, too, though not quite as obscene. (I don't go to that blog of his. I don't choose to read that sort of thing.)<br /><br />That is the sum total of his "have always". Once. That's it. He has only ever commented one other time with that name, when he was posting using his (other?) sockpuppet account and admitting he was also known as "Bob Tisdale" and <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/11/bob-tisdale-gets-into-spot-of-hot-water.html?showComment=1417051940583#c3584295278592734269" rel="nofollow">that comment is on this blog</a>.<br /><br />I do recall seeing a comment from him at WUWT, where he said he wasn't game to comment here. And that wasn't all that long ago. It probably explains why he used a sock-puppet to post a series of comments here over the past couple of days. <br /><br />I'll leave it to you to decide which is worse - his lying or his cowardice or his other rather disgusting qualities.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-28921763667776468282014-11-28T02:14:34.173+11:002014-11-28T02:14:34.173+11:00Bob Tisdale makes the following claim in the comme...Bob Tisdale makes the following claim in the comments of his new ad hominem blog:<br /><br />"... I’ve tried to leave comments at HotWhopper using my real name Bob Tisdale, but they have always been deleted in moderation. In fact, I tried once again within the past week. It never made it past moderation. "<br /><br />Does he get instantly deleted if he posts at HotWhopper? Or has he been permanently blocked?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-20997194242617158882014-11-27T15:10:26.326+11:002014-11-27T15:10:26.326+11:00After lying, and contradicting himself, tripping o...After <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/11/bob-tisdale-gets-into-spot-of-hot-water.html?showComment=1416994394309#c8732466660761487261" rel="nofollow">lying</a>, and <a href="http://hotwhopper.com/HotWhoppery.html#wuwt2011" rel="nofollow">contradicting himself</a>, tripping <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/11/bob-tisdale-gets-into-spot-of-hot-water.html?showComment=1417051940583#c3584295278592734269" rel="nofollow">over his own feet</a>, and evading <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/11/bob-tisdale-gets-into-spot-of-hot-water.html?showComment=1417025663951#c3239977072351548175" rel="nofollow">questions</a> that <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/11/bob-tisdale-gets-into-spot-of-hot-water.html?showComment=1417019914807#c4449963744733677529" rel="nofollow">showed up</a> his ignorance, wuwt.fan.4.6.years reveals himself as the sockpuppet <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/11/bob-tisdale-gets-into-spot-of-hot-water.html?showComment=1416888704421#c7408068098837071895" rel="nofollow">some of us suspected</a>, as the <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/11/anthony-watts-tries-for-one-foot-in.html?showComment=1417026833537#c1965261046863307578" rel="nofollow">thief and porn merchant</a> "Bob Tisdale". Doing what his nemesis Wondering Willis does, smarmily and hypocritically ending with "Y'all have a nice day." A small time coward and sleazy character is all. <br /><br />Joe - Bob doesn't accept the greenhouse effect. He's a greenhouse effect denier. (See <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/10/bob-tisdale-rejects-greenhouse-effect.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.) He's a double denier. He even denies his denial.<br /><br />He is probably feeling smug, not realising that a) no-one gives a damn about his antics and b) he's demonstrated (again) he's a pseudo-science crackpot of little brain with a nasty disposition and not a moral fibre in his body. He's probably proud of that. It gives him status with the lowlife creepy misogynistic <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/11/anthony-watts-tries-for-one-foot-in.html?showComment=1417004345101#c4477529924090575043" rel="nofollow">bigoted </a>types he hangs out with.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-73184672372507870272014-11-27T14:32:01.290+11:002014-11-27T14:32:01.290+11:00Bob, you contradicted yourself. That's what wa...Bob, you contradicted yourself. That's what was confusing. You can't accept the GHG effect but not believe that it's actually warming the globe.<br /><br />Oh, and for that "wall" you were talking about? Look in the mirror. Try listening to why your stuff violates energy conservation when everybody points to it. Try reading ALL of Trenberth's work because if you do, you'll realize that your misinterpreting the paragraphs you quoted about internal variability and applying them to create a global trend. Otherwise, you'll continue to make simple physics mistakes. <br /><br />Energy conservation is a pretty important law.Joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-61991123335012674312014-11-27T13:29:54.634+11:002014-11-27T13:29:54.634+11:00Wow, talk about self-delusional and dishonest. I ...Wow, talk about self-delusional and dishonest. I went to the HotWhoppery hoping for the best. Instead, he lied about my answer to his house question. The answer was much later in my post, which makes me think he didn't read much. This is unfortunate because as you've been telling him, Sou, he has the opportunity to learn if he just reads from the scientific literature. Next, the rest of his comment was "it's all so complicated you can't understand it but Bob and I can." Talk about D-K. So the 1000's of scientists from countries all over the world are publishing about an "antiquated and erroneous" understanding of the greenhouse effect, but Bob and his Fan are right. Got it. (/sarcasm)<br /><br />For any readers, follow the link in the 7:06 AM post to the science as to why clouds provide a net neutral to probably positive effect on warming and thus Bob's "sun-fueled charge-discharge ENSO oscillator" as a source of energy to warm the globe must be false (as described by Bob where reduced cloud cover during La Nina supposedly increases the energy of the overall system). For more proof, follow the (large) link in the 3:38 AM post (or any other graph of OHC) to see why the "discharge" part of the Bob's magical oscillator must be false (IOW, OHC can't be going up if the "extra" energy being "created" is discharged). Oh, and check solar TSI to see that the trend has been declining while temperatures are going up so the "sun-fueled" part is false.<br /><br />None of the above isn't to say that ENSO has no effect on global temps. Energy does flow in and out during the cycle between different parts of the system. The key thing, though, is no energy is added to the overall global system because of an ENSO cycle. The ENSO cycles just contribute to the up and down of temps not to the overall trend, which comes from GHGs according to pretty much every real scientist. Also, only GHGs have been shown to explain the increasing OHC.<br />Joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-35842952785927342692014-11-27T12:32:20.583+11:002014-11-27T12:32:20.583+11:00Sorry to see you've cut me off, Sou. I was so...Sorry to see you've cut me off, Sou. I was so enjoying our little exchanges. But it's time to tell the truth, as I always do. Captain Flashheart was very observant. <br /><br />wuwt.fan.4.6.years is, in fact, me, Bob Tisdale. Odd that you and Joe thought I was contradicting myself, when, in reality, I wasn't.<br /><br />Y'all have a nice day.<br /><br />Bob Tisdalewuwt.fan.4.6.yearsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-77273530620948557192014-11-27T11:21:09.459+11:002014-11-27T11:21:09.459+11:00The comment is not deleted completely, just moved ...The comment is not deleted completely, just moved to a more appropriate location: <a href="http://hotwhopper.com/HotWhoppery.html#wuwt2011" rel="nofollow">the HotWhoppery</a>.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30372534385204422822014-11-27T10:44:44.587+11:002014-11-27T10:44:44.587+11:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.wuwt.fan.4.6.yearsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-51952149470734114552014-11-27T07:06:54.739+11:002014-11-27T07:06:54.739+11:00Here's a great read for Fan on clouds: http://...Here's a great read for Fan on clouds: http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm<br />In fact, scientific studies from the peer reviewed literature say that clouds appear to be a net warmer (not neutral as I said above), although there are uncertainties. This is a stronger counter-point than what I wrote.<br /><br />And Sou, you're right, Fan is misrepresenting Bob as you can see from my direct quote of BT. BT does not accept AGW, specifically GHG effects on energy buildup over the oceans. So who do we believe at this point? Fan - explain yourself as Sou asks? Do you accept science or pseudo science? And, since you're more than a BT fan, you're a WUWT fan, what do you think of Tim Ball's recent "work" at WUWT?Joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-32399770723515481752014-11-27T05:14:23.951+11:002014-11-27T05:14:23.951+11:00Yes, he's playing fudgery and avoidance. He st...Yes, he's playing fudgery and avoidance. He starts off repeating his behaviour I criticised, acting as if by quoting some of real scientist's work he can be excused for also accepting "Bob Tisdale's" pseudo-science crap. Well, no - like I said, he can't get away with that. He can't pick and choose the bits he likes from science and mix it up with pseudo-science and hope he makes sense to a third party. It doesn't. It looks as bad as "Bob Tisdale's" mix of science/crap/disinformation.<br /><br />As wuwtfan's next nonsense shows - where he tries to explain why he rejects the fact that most of the water that's piled up in the west Pacific came from the east Pacific.<br /><br />The fan claimed that he worked out (ie calculated) that the volume of water rise in the west Pacific didn't come from water east of it, then when I asked for him sums, he basically tells me to work it out for myself, in typical denier fashion. Which makes me doubt he did any sums in the first place, let alone whether he got the answer right.<br /><br />Then when I asked him where the water that's piled up in the west Pacific did come from, he claims it all came from melting ice and groundwater, and wasn't blown from the east. I wonder how the west Antarctic ice melt and depleted groundwater from the USA (in particular) made its way to the Philippines? That's quite a journey, especially since it didn't get there via east of the Philippines. And what happened to the water that used to be in the eastern part of the Pacific. They are the next questions wuwtfan will need to think about.<br /><br />Now he's claiming that "Bob Tisdale" doesn't deny the greenhouse effect, he just denies that it causes warming! I think that's called going to extremes to try to defend you're idol. Bob's often claimed that it's not the greenhouse effect, it's ENSO.<br /><br />I've written about it here: <br /><br />http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/05/bob-tisdale-is-perennially-puzzled.html<br /><br />Which was about this that "Bob" wrote here: https://archive.today/sQJho<br /><br />Particularly where he rejects this statement:<br /><br />If we remove the long-term warming trends, we can see once again that the short-term wiggles in the temperature data are strongly influenced by changes in ENSO. However, the long-term global warming trends are not – they are due to the human-caused greenhouse effect.<br /><br /><br />Like I say, "Bob" rejects the greenhouse effect. Maybe wuwtfan is rejecting "Bob's" pseudo-science but wanting to deny that he is rejecting it. Which brings me back to getting him to explain himself.<br /><br />wuwtfan, going by your name I take it you prefer pseudo-science and science denial to actual science. Can you confirm one way or another. And don't go quoting Kevin Trenberth while posting nonsense afterwards, as if that's meant to prove something. It doesn't.<br /><br />You've demonstrated you opt for a mix of pseudo and real science, which don't mix by the way. You've shown us that's what you do. I'm just hoping you'll admit it.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-43508524934992350852014-11-27T03:39:21.963+11:002014-11-27T03:39:21.963+11:00Let me go on for one more poste. I'll quote AT...Let me go on for one more poste. I'll quote ATTP when you showed up there (and ran off like your hero did). He sums it up much more eloquently (and politely) than me:<br /><br />Now, it is clear that internal variability (ENSO events) can indeed produce changes in the radiative properties of our atmosphere (for example, cloud feedbacks due to the change in temperature). The problem is, that we’d expect this to average to zero. We don’t expect internal variability to, for example, only produce warming.<br /><br />So, if Bob wants to push his ENSO idea, he has to consider a number of fundamental things<br /><br />What physical process associated with ENSO events is producing a change in the equilibrium surface temperature.<br />Why does this internal process produce warming only. In other words, why doesn’t the effect average to zero over sufficiently long timescales (decades).<br />Why now? Why is this process – which according to Bob is not influenced by anthropogenic forcings – producing long term warming now, but hasn’t (according to paleo evidence) done so in the past?<br />What’s happened to the anthropogenic forcings and the resulting feedbacks?<br />Basic physics tells us that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations should produce a radiative forcing and any resulting warming should produce a feedback that is almost certainly positive. Why, is this negligible (according to Bob)?Joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-44499637447336775292014-11-27T03:38:34.807+11:002014-11-27T03:38:34.807+11:00Fan is hilarious. He ran away from ATTP after pos...Fan is hilarious. He ran away from ATTP after posting the same contradictory repeat of Tisdale's nonsense. His idol, BT, also ran away from this thread where all the contradictions were pointed out in full:<br />http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=1&t=190&&a=57 In short, there's a reason why BT's nonsense never has and never will be published in peer reviewed science. It's chart cherry picking, energy conservation-violating, GHG denying, pseudo science. Here's Bob's reason for denying that GHGs warm:<br />“Downward longwave radiation appears to do nothing more cause a little more evaporation from the ocean surface, which makes perfect sense since it only penetrates the top few millimeters.”<br />What?!?<br /><br />I love this answer to Fan when I asked why doesn't the oscillator return to it's original state:<br />"Data do not support your assumption."<br />Ha! That's close - the data do not support BT's assumption! It's an escalator/staircase not an oscillator because GHGs are warming the atmosphere. You can't charge and discharge your way up an escalator unless you cherry pick chart crops as Bob does. You need a forcing to do that. BT doesn't have one and that's why everybody with any scientific understanding points out that he's violating the conservation of energy. <br /><br />Oh, and the whole last paragraph about the house...I'll answer your silly question with a question - if there were a warm blanket covering my house causing it to heat up, how would I know that if I only looked at a crack in my back door? Bob can't (and won't) try to understand the global effect of increasing CO2 so he looks at cracks in the back door of a house. BBD even sent a link when BT showed up to ATTP, but BT and you never looked at it did you. Here's the correlation of the house heating up with real (not pseudo-scientific) forcings:<br />https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/Hx/plotterv2.htm#HxB1?HxG=[[1900,2012,'Total net forcing; OHC 0 - 700m',[114,94],0,[]],[[[-5.841,4.208],1,0,[1979,2000]],[[-11.106,57.97],20,1,[1979,2000]]],[[[6,0],23,0,0,0],[[5,6],21,0,0,0]]]<br /><br />Look at it. It maps well. While, OTOH, your "discharges" of heat shouldn't allow OHC to go up, right? So your oscillator was proven wrong in one graph. Fan, we're talking 10^21 joules of energy per year of increased energy while the solar TSI has been on decline for decades.<br /> <br />Fan's long post is contradicted by two simple points - one is that cloud cover has a neutral on warming because water is a greenhouse gas (and Bob denies the existence of GHG warming) and that counters the albedo effects. Second, solar TSI has been on the decline for over 3 decades, so why has it started to increase warming?<br /><br />Joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-59719102297790388802014-11-27T03:24:48.928+11:002014-11-27T03:24:48.928+11:00Nope fanboy. You read it wrong, it clearly says t...Nope fanboy. You read it wrong, it clearly says the exact opposite. :-)<br /><br />I suggest you read it again. Only do it carefully this time. You need to provide actual evidence, OK?AnOilMannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-20138712860937901552014-11-27T02:15:30.718+11:002014-11-27T02:15:30.718+11:00Actually, Tisdale (to my knowledge) has _not_ used...Actually, Tisdale (to my knowledge) has _not_ used a bathtub analogy. That comes from Sou's comment above, <i>"...what Bob Tisdale was testing was similar to this. There's a bathtub full of water..."</i>. This is naught but a side-track. <br /><br /><br />What BT was doing was (once more) focusing on a small subset of overall data, in this case wind-driven water redistribution, and trying to dissect it in the context of global sea level rise. Something of a red herring, in other words - he should know full well that redistribution doesn't change total water volume.<br /><br />But then again, he's shown a remarkable lack of understanding of conservation of energy, so I suppose a lack of understanding of conservation of mass isn't terribly surprising.KRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-18283866682552643112014-11-27T01:53:48.198+11:002014-11-27T01:53:48.198+11:00Sou, my apologies for the length of my reply, but’...Sou, my apologies for the length of my reply, but’s caused by the quotes. <br /><br />Sou says on November 26, 2014 at 10:19 PM: “Don't be shy "BT" fan. Tell us that the sunlight fueled magical leprecauns in the ocean feeding ENSO is causing global warming.”<br /><br />Are you now disparaging Trenberth’s work, Sou? I quoted two Trenberth papers in my earlier comment. It’s Trenberth calling ENSO a recharge-discharge oscillator. Tisdale is simply restating it. <br /><br />Another Trenberth quote. This time a YouTube interview with Peter Sinclair:<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgCgsxPbAvk<br />Peter Sinclair’s post:<br />http://climatecrocks.com/2014/05/23/el-nino-may-blast-climate-into-2016-campaign/<br /><br />At 9 minutes, Trenberth says during a discussion of a strong El Niño (my caps):<br />“One of the real prospects to look out for is whether we go back into a different phase of this Pacific Decadal Oscillation. And one of the potential prospects we can watch out for is whether the next whole decade will be distinctly warmer…uh, uh…and so, IN TERMS OF GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE, INSTEAD OF HAVING A GRADUAL TREND GOING UP, MAYBE THE WAY TO THINK OF IT IS WE HAVE A SERIES OF STEPS, LIKE A STAIRCASE. And, and, it’s possible, that we’re approaching one of those steps. And WE WILL GO UP, YOU KNOW, TWO- OR THREE-Tenths OF A DEGREE CELSIUS TO A NEXT LEVEL, AND MAYBE WE WON’T COME DOWN AGAIN. I think that’s one of the things we could possibly look out for.”<br /><br />Isn’t that what Tisdale has been showing for 6 years? Why is it okay for Trenberth to say it, but wrong for Tisdale to say it and show it?<br /><br />Sou says, “Tell us that you don't "believe" "Bob Tisdale" when he claims it's ENSO causing global warming and not the greenhouse effect.”<br /><br />Tisdale has never said the greenhouse effect doesn’t cause global warming. He has said that he can’t find evidence of it in the Reynolds SST data and the NODC OHC data, but that is not the same as saying the greenhouse effect does not exist.<br /><br />Sou says on November 26, 2014 at 8:44 PM: “Oh goodie gumdrops. How exciting is this. Now all you have to do is respond to the bit where I wrote: "And what about other sea level changes around the world?", share with everyone your data and code, and tell us where the water did come from…”<br /><br />Sou, the data I used to verify Tisdale’s graph of equatorial sea level variations in response to ENSO is available here:<br />http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/interactive-sea-level-time-series-wizard<br />No special code is required. Simply download the data. Or there is an older version of sea level data at Climate Explorer from KNMI:<br />http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere<br /><br />Global sea level? That data are available here:<br />http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2014_rel5/sl_ns_global.txt<br /><br />“tell us where the water did come from…” you asked. <br /><br />The additional mass contribution came from melting glaciers and ice sheets primarily, with a minor contribution from ground water pumping. Surface temperatures have been above the threshold at which glaciers and ice sheets melt since the end of last ice age and will continue to be above that threshold until we head back into another ice age. Are you expecting global sea levels to stop rising before then? If so, how?<br />wuwt.fan.4.6.yearsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-60853044273103872552014-11-26T22:19:47.496+11:002014-11-26T22:19:47.496+11:00Don't be shy "BT" fan. Tell us that ...Don't be shy "BT" fan. Tell us that the sunlight fueled magical leprecauns in the ocean feeding ENSO is causing global warming. That it's not the greenhouse effect. Feed us the gunk that your hero believes. Stop being such a wuss.<br /><br />Either that or convince me that you have earned some right to keep posting your long posts as if you've got something to offer people who understand the science. Tell us that you don't "believe" "Bob Tisdale" when he claims it's ENSO causing global warming and not the greenhouse effect.<br /><br />In other words, stop fluffing about pretending to support both science and "Bob Tisdale's" pseudo-science. You can't have it both ways. Come out on one side or the other.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-68131152283498186572014-11-26T21:44:29.120+11:002014-11-26T21:44:29.120+11:00AnOilMan: Maybe you need to reread Sou's artic...AnOilMan: Maybe you need to reread Sou's article. It includes:<br /><br />"For example, last January Kevin Trenberth pointed out that:<br /><br />"...the negative PDO might itself be setting the stage for a major compensation. The trade winds are a key player here, as changes in atmospheric pressure create the "sloshing water in a bathtub" effect that is a hallmark of both ENSO and the PDO."<br /><br />Again, it was Trenberth who used bathtub. Would you like to amend your comment? We can all see that you wrote:<br /><br />"Who would really compare bathtubs to oceans. Certainly not an expert like an oceanographer. I guess that's why Bob isn't considered an expert."<br /><br />Are you saying that Trenberth "isn't considered an expert" because it was Trenberth not Tisdale who used the bathtub analogy. wuwt.fan.4.6.yearsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-36716421898341111932014-11-26T21:37:21.453+11:002014-11-26T21:37:21.453+11:00Joe says, “Don't oscillators return to previou...Joe says, “Don't oscillators return to previous states?”<br /><br />Data do not support your assumption. Also, why would you think that with a recharge-discharge oscillator that’s weather dependent? <br /><br />Joe says, “Does the word "chaotic" give it magical powers?” <br /><br />No, the use of the word chaotic is supported by data. The 1995/96 La Niña was a weak La Niña according to ENSO indices (NINO3.4 SSTa and SOI). But the tropical Pacific ocean heat content data (NODC) indicates all of the heat released by the 1997/98 Super El Niño was created during the 1995/96 La Niña. The NODC data also confirm the findings of McPhaden (1999) “The Evolution of the 1997/98 El Niño”. <br />http://lightning.sbs.ohio-state.edu/geo622/paper_enso_McPhaden1999.pdf<br />Quote from McPhaden:<br />“For at least a year before the onset of the 1997–98 El Niño, there was a buildup of heat content in the western equatorial Pacific due to stronger than normal trade winds associated with a weak La Niña in 1995–96.”<br /><br />The word chaotic is also applicable because an ENSO event is a weather event (a very large weather event) and no two ENSO events are exactly the same.<br /><br />Joe says, “You (and Bob) are claiming ENSO is a forcing and therefore a source of energy.”<br /><br />No, ENSO is not a forcing but ENSO processes include a source of energy, a forcing. That source of energy is sunlight (downward shortwave radiation) that reaches into the depths of the tropical Pacific. The amount of sunlight reaching the surface and entering into the tropical Pacific is dependent on cloud cover, which is also a component of ENSO. Two Trenberth quotes support that. First comes from Trenberth et al. (2002)<br />http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/2000JD000298.pdf<br />Quote (my caps and brackets):<br />“The negative feedback between SST and surface fluxes can be interpreted as showing the importance of the DISCHARGE of heat during El Niño events and of the RECHARGE of heat during La Niña events. Relatively clear skies in the central and eastern tropical Pacific [during La Niña events] allow SOLAR RADIATION TO ENTER THE OCEAN, apparently offsetting the below normal SSTs, but the heat is carried away by Ekman drift, ocean currents, and adjustments through ocean Rossby and Kelvin waves, and the heat is stored in the western Pacific tropics. This is not simply a rearrangement of the ocean heat, but also a restoration of heat in the ocean.”<br /><br />Thus Tisdale’s “sunlight-fueled recharge-discharge oscillator”.<br /><br />Second is from Trenberth and Fasullo (2011). <br />http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/ISSI_fulltext.pdf<br />Quote (my caps):<br />“Typically prior to an El Niño, in La Niña conditions, the cold sea waters in the central and eastern tropical Pacific create high atmospheric pressure and clear skies, WITH PLENTIFUL SUNSHINE HEATING THE OCEAN WATERS. The ocean currents redistribute the ocean heat which builds up in the tropical western Pacific Warm Pool until an El Niño provides relief (Trenberth et al. 2002).”<br /> <br />Tisdale has also presented graphs of downward shortwave radiation (sunlight which increases during La Niñas) and downwelling longwave radiation (infrared radiation which decreases during La Niñas) at the surface of the equatorial Pacific which confirm the findings of two Pavlakis et al papers on this subject. <br /><br />In a later comment, Joe says, “You see Bob loves to dissect the world and look at trees instead of forest. He really said that quote, I'm not making it up.”<br /><br />Let me ask you, Joe. Suppose you drove past a house and decided you wanted one that looked just like it. You could easily replicate the exterior of the house: the siding, the window and door placement, the shingles that make up the roof, location of the chimney, etc. But without understanding the foundation and framework that supports the house, the exterior of your house would fall to the ground with the first strong wind. So my question to you is, would you only look at the exterior or would you also study the components that make up the whole house? <br />wuwt.fan.4.6.yearsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-16832006091995092352014-11-26T20:44:17.945+11:002014-11-26T20:44:17.945+11:00Oh goodie gumdrops. How exciting is this. Now all ...Oh goodie gumdrops. How exciting is this. Now all you have to do is respond to the bit where I wrote: "And what about other sea level changes around the world?", share with everyone your data and code, and tell us where the water did come from. I can tell you're dying to spit it out. Don't hang back. Put it up on the web somewhere and tell us where you post it - or better yet publish it. You'll have one up on your hero. That would surely be tantalising for you.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.com