tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post4978320299046648542..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Wondering Willis, Volcanoes and the Dunning-Kruger EffectSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-5116984735142800842013-05-28T03:56:06.350+10:002013-05-28T03:56:06.350+10:00Ashby, if you are postulating that thunderstorms d...Ashby, if you are postulating that thunderstorms don't happen all by themselves and are a result of changes in temperature and pressure then yes, of course. It's called colloquially weather and has been studied for a long time. <br /><br />If you are asking if energy shifts are involved, then yes, of course. That's how 'weather' works. <br /><br />If you are asking if they've got any part to play in climate change then a resounding yes. That's a truism. For one thing, there is more very heavy rain because there's more evaporation. For another thing, patterns of where and when it rains and snows and sleets is changing as climates are changing. <br /><br />If you are asking if thunderstorms are causing the world to warm or stopping the world from warming, then no. Global warming is primarily caused by the extra CO2 in the air this time around. <br /><br />Are thunderstorms, trade winds, ocean currents, etc changing as the world warms, in response to the extra energy in the earth system? Another truism. They are the expression of that energy. It's what climate scientists study. There are heaps of research papers and articles available discussing such changes and what they will mean in our day to day lives, for nations and the entire world - and especially for the future of humankind.<br /><br />Has Willis added anything to the world's knowledge of climate? Highly unlikely. He has half-baked ideas that defy the laws of physics, aka pseudo-science, and a folksy surface charm that appeals to some (but not all from what I've read) people who for some weird reason have an aversion to accepting or learning about basic physics, chemistry, biology, geology, oceanography and any and all earth system sciences. He's to climate science as a homeopath is to medical science - but maybe with even less science to back him up.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-58102568583347416722013-05-28T02:05:03.485+10:002013-05-28T02:05:03.485+10:00I'll have a go at this, because I think this i...I'll have a go at this, because I think this is fairly straightforward issue. If I understand the basic idea, when water condenses, energy is released. The latent heat of vaporization of water is 2270 J/kg. A quick internet search tells me that rainfall per year is about 1 metre across the entire globe. This is a total mass of 5 x 10^17 kg. The total amount of energy released - in condensing this water - is therefore 1.1 x 10^21 J. If we consider the rise in ocean heat content it's about 2.5 x 10^23 since the mid 1960s and so about 5 x 10^21 J per year. Interesting, not far off the the amount of energy released in condensing water out of the atmosphere, but more by about a factor of 5 (it doesn't seem as though condensing water in the atmosphere can explain all the observed warming).<br /><br />However, there's another problem. When water evaporates again it requires 2270 J/kg. So, all the energy released when water condenses is reabsorbed when it evaporates again - unless what's being suggesting is that there is this massive reservoir of evaporated water in the atmosphere and its been condensing over the last 40 - 50 years, releasing energy which has been heating the ocean. <br /><br />Okay, I've written this quickly just before leaving the office, so maybe I've misunderstood something or got something wrong. Happy to be corrected, but it is hard to see how this can explain the warming observed over the last 40 - 50 years.<br /><br />Wotts Up With That Bloghttp://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-88927392672847447732013-05-28T00:57:30.510+10:002013-05-28T00:57:30.510+10:00I wasn't going to respond further to this beca...I wasn't going to respond further to this because I figure the data will shake out in the end, but then I ran across a link that I think is interesting: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Simpson/simpson4.php, <br /><br /><br />Reading through the whole piece on Simpson, the basic idea behind Willis's post seems fairly uncontroversial. Hurricanes, thunderstorms and even clouds are giant heat engines. <br /><br /><br />Specifically interesting is the image at the bottom of this page: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Simpson/simpson6.php<br /><br />This grand characterization of the latent heat generated by tropical cloud systems occurred in 2002. Here we are 11 years later. Is it so hard to imagine that the magnitude of the influence of the tropical cloud heat pump may still be underestimated? Tropical cloud systems as heat pumps seem obvious. That these heat pumps may be regulating global climate by acting as feedback to various forcings (including volcanoes) doesn't seem all that outrageous. Ashbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12350704679808047431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-80970708867305945522013-05-27T23:33:14.458+10:002013-05-27T23:33:14.458+10:00Sou
Your graph with the volcanic eruptions indica...Sou<br /><br />Your graph with the volcanic eruptions indicated also hints that some of the eruptions Willis left off (eg Cerro Azulejo 1932, Bezymianny 1955) also show a temperature decline. Perhaps they didn't fit the so called model, another sign of the pretend scientist in action.Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-55691718841555869522013-05-27T17:56:56.767+10:002013-05-27T17:56:56.767+10:00Ashby, I do find it a little odd that you find So...Ashby, I do find it a little odd that you find Sou's analysis "heavy on the mockery". It seems mild compared to what is fairly normal on WUWT.<br /><br />Also, you say<br /><i>As a trained scientist with a good publishing record, why not try to see if you can help frame the idea in a way that can be tested?</i><br />In a sense I am because I'm writing my own blog. You're welcome to read what I write and decide whether or not it is addressing the science in a valuable way.<br /><br />I assume you mean that I should help "frame the idea in way that can be tested" by commenting on WUWT posts. There are two main reasons why I don't. One is that - as I've said before - I'm not willing to expose myself to the online abuse that is most likely to follow any comment I might make. The other is a little subtler and may come across as arrogant (for which I apologise in advance). Most of who comment or write posts on WUWT appear to have less scientific training than a typical first-year undergraduate physics student. Quite often the "idea" simply has a fundamental flaw (Nick and Sou have pointed out the flaws in Willis's ideas below and Bob Tisdale seems to think that oceans can generate energy). How do I help to "frame such ideas". They're just wrong. All I would be able to say would be "until your ideas satisfy the known laws of physics, they have no merit". I can't imagine that such comments will go down particularly well or help much to "frame the ideas in a way that can be tested". Wotts Up With That Bloghttp://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-15554112314109560342013-05-27T12:52:07.158+10:002013-05-27T12:52:07.158+10:00What Nick said. Plus you are still missing the po...What Nick said. Plus you are still missing the point that Willis said that El Nino *stores* energy in the ocean, when in fact it does the opposite. It *releases* energy from the ocean. It does make the air warmer by releasing that energy, but that's not what Willis is arguing. <br /><br />If there were, say, several volcanoes back to back and each of them encouraged more El Ninos with only weak La Ninas from time to time, then the oceans would get progressively *cooler* - which is the complete opposite to what Willis is arguing when he talks of the Pacific "storing" more energy. (IMO your redefinition does not capture what Willis was saying in regard to El Nino.) <br /><br />With regard to clouds, Willis argues that no clouds in daylight in the tropics will have a net warming effect compared to clouds. That may be correct or not - I don't know. What about at night time? Willis says that "in the morning the tropics is clear". When did it clear? At night time a lack of clouds would definitely have a cooling effect. Unless he's assuming that clouds appear at mid-day and stay there until sun-up the next day and then disappear, which may be the case or not. What about the wet season vs the dry season vs when the volcanic eruption has maximum effect? He doesn't discuss any of these details.<br /><br />But it's premature to get into a discussion of clouds because Willis' main argument has gone up the spout. He cannot dismiss the effect of CO2 on a whim, nor on the basis of stacking a few 20th century volcanoes and fiddling about with a fudged curve fit.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-47588915500166303662013-05-27T11:18:58.390+10:002013-05-27T11:18:58.390+10:00Willis has not provided any support for that conte...Willis has not provided any support for that contention. He has not noted the season of each eruption. He has not provided any data on cloudiness.<br /><br />"So following the volcano first cooling then warming not, simply recovery" Huh? What is 'recovery' supposed to mean? If cooling the warming isn't that 'recovery'? The observations of temperature always supported that mainstream contention.<br /><br />'Normal heating trends as proposed by most mainstream science' factor in net cloudiness/net sunniness: OLR is monitored all the time. Natural variability!.,<br /><br />Annual/inter-annual variability because of such factors is a constant that science is more than aware of. Which is why warming trend signals take a long period before they can be confidently detected.<br /><br />Back to Willis,he seems to be headed towards deriving some half-baked estimate of TCS,not ECS,from his data torturing,anyway.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09537772941984056434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49976063904257566562013-05-27T09:12:55.788+10:002013-05-27T09:12:55.788+10:00You are misunderstanding his proposed mechanism. H...You are misunderstanding his proposed mechanism. His assertion is that immediately following the volcano you get a fall in energy reaching the earth. That cooling leads to later daily formation of clouds near the tropics which means more sunlight heating the oceans means greater heat transfer into the oceans which subsequently results in lagging feedback in an El Niño that overshoots stasis. <br /><br />So following the volcano first cooling then warming, not simply recovery. The difference being proposed is that the subsequent El Niño has been charged by more sunlight rather than simply continuation of normal heating trends as proposed by most mainstream climate science. If he's right, that's an interesting point. <br /><br />I haven't reread it, but I thought that was pretty clear. I don't understand why you are missing his basic point. Ashbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12350704679808047431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-14506417918048106792013-05-27T08:17:26.726+10:002013-05-27T08:17:26.726+10:00Really thinking about the implications? Really! Yo...Really thinking about the implications? Really! You're not serious I hope. <br /><br />Willis is saying "it's thunderstorms not CO2"! I've devoted a lot more meaningful words to him than he deserves. I could have just written 'poppycock' and left it at that. Or pointed to the science.<br /><br />Willis is bromide for the WUWT crowd. He's a joke to anyone who knows anything of climate science. There are no 'implications' because his whole premise is based on nonsense.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-70530382848457324452013-05-27T07:53:50.975+10:002013-05-27T07:53:50.975+10:00Ashby, you wrote earlier:
...Willis's contenti...Ashby, you wrote earlier:<br /><i>...Willis's contention that Volcanoes may have a causal link to subsequent El Niños.</i><br /><br />Now you're backing off from that? You shouldn't. Go back and read his testable prediction section. He's even put up a chart.<br /><br />The fact that volcanoes can lead to, or as Adams puts it, "drive it more subtly towards.." El Ninos is the entire basis of Willis' 'testable prediction' section. Without it his 'prediction' does not pass his test.<br /><br />But Willis doesn't say the energy is discharged by the ocean. He says the opposite. He says the ocean starts to <b>store</b> energy. He writes: <i>I say this is a result of the action of climate phenomena that oppose the cooling....if my theory were correct, we should see a volcanic signal in some other part of the climate system involved in governing the temperature....I should see an increase in the heat contained in the Pacific Ocean after the eruptions</i><br /><br />Thing is, El Ninos <b>release </b>heat from the ocean, they don't store heat. Willis gets it back to front. The heat he 'sees' is the heat being released by the ocean not the heat being 'stored' by the ocean.<br /><br />So Willis' theory of the ocean storing heat is demolished! If an El Nino occurs then it has the opposite effect to what he theorised. <br /><br />More volcanoes, more El Ninos, earth gets even colder - the very opposite of his 'stabilising' or 'governor' effect of the ocean.<br /><br />I notice that Bob Tisdale pulls him up on that but Willis takes no notice.<br /><br />The reason the system recovers after a volcano is because the aerosols dissipate after a while, not because of El Nino. If it was just El Nino (with lesser La Ninas) the earth would cool even more, as Adams et al suggest happened in the past.<br /><br />These days, the forcing by CO2 is so great that it doesn't take very long at all for the earth to heat up again.<br /><br />Looks to me that Willis' 'prediction' has disproven his theory, not proven it.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-79752336842321482442013-05-27T07:34:38.688+10:002013-05-27T07:34:38.688+10:00Like any popular lightly moderated site on a contr...Like any popular lightly moderated site on a controversial subject matter, you get a fair amount of lunatic fringe interest. Maybe I just have a strong internal filter for that stuff. < shrug >. I do enjoy reading the sometimes lively debate surrounding these issues, and I certainly prefer a bit of skepticism to things like a link to a discussion on Scientific American that I followed recently where they were discussing how the recent temperature record has lead to a lowering of estimates of climate sensitivity. In the comments, you had triumphant links to articles on skepticalscience.com that purported to conclusively address all skeptical arguments. When I followed those links, I got to things like a stale refutation of "the models don't reflect reality" which had last been updated in 2011 with data that stopped in 2007. This in the comments to an article about how recent data is forcing lowering of estimated climate sensitivity to doubling of CO2. The comments on Scientific American were as vicious and as group think as anything I've seen on WUWT, with outdated and refuted data triumphantly cited as icing on the cake. <br /><br />Now, many of my favorite magazines and newspapers have shockingly abysmal online comment sections, so...what are you going to do? But I don't think WUWT is shocking in that respect. Signal to noise ratio can be bad online. The world has lots of nutters and kids with computers in mom's basement. <br /><br />Frankly, Sou's analysis of Willis's Volcano articles are a good example of what I find problematic about a lot of science online. Rather than really thinking about the implications of what Willis is pointing out, I see a fairly shallow analysis heavy on mockery. As a Gedankenexperiment in how the climate system works, I think Willis's thundercloud thermostat and subsequent volcano posts are really quite intriguing. As a plus, they seem to present the prospect of a testable hypothesis. As a trained scientist with a good publishing record, why not try to see if you can help frame the idea in a way that can be tested? If that can't be done, then that is a form of disproof, isn't it? I'd certainly learn more from such an endeavor than I do from criticisms that appear to not even understand his initial hypothesis. Willis may well be wrong, or Willis may be right. Either way, I don't think it actually disproves or proves dangerous anthropogenic global warming (after all, CO2 could still have a long term influence even if thunderclouds do act as a regulator of temperature), but a sympathetic criticism would make for more interesting reading. Ashbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12350704679808047431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-18790966749464274862013-05-27T05:46:00.598+10:002013-05-27T05:46:00.598+10:00Ashby, maybe it is just the "rough and tumble...Ashby, maybe it is just the "rough and tumble of argument over a wide range of abilities and ideas". However, I'm a professional scientist with a good publication record who is well cited and who has never experienced the kind of exchanges that seem normal on WUWT. Maybe you're comfortable with that. I'm not, and I don't see any reason why I should toughen up. If you want to limit the exchanges to those who are "tough enough" then that it is your loss (or WUWT's loss). I decided, instead, to start my own blog. At least there people can read my views and can comment if they wish to do so, but I don't need to put up with the attacks that are likely if I comment on WUWT.Wotts Up With That Bloghttp://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69703443096203316262013-05-27T05:15:13.743+10:002013-05-27T05:15:13.743+10:00To get greek, use html entities:
http://www.w3sch...To get greek, use html entities:<br /><br />http://www.w3schools.com/tags/ref_symbols.asp<br /><br />like λRattus Norvegicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03449457204330125792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19052173878096571442013-05-27T05:08:28.353+10:002013-05-27T05:08:28.353+10:00You seems to rely on the idea that ENSO is an even...You seems to rely on the idea that ENSO is an event or cycle that you imagine Willis claims is triggered by volcanoes. My understanding of what he is describing runs more along the lines of the oceans being almost like a complicated circulating heat battery that is charged by sunlight. What Willis is describing is that vulcanism can effect air temperature and clouds, the changed air temperature subtly changes the diurnal timing of cloud formation and that changes the rate of thermal charge accumulating in the oceans which ultimately is discharged in an El Niño. The article you cite does not seem to contradict that perspective. If anything, what Willis is describing is a possible homeostatic mechanism that supplies the missing subtle forcing described here: "Our results do not indicate that explosive tropical eruptions trigger all El Niño events. Our analyses suggest, rather, that volcanic forcing drives the coupled ocean-atmosphere system more subtly towards a state in which multi-year El Niño-like conditions are favoured, followed by a weaker rebound into a La Niña-like state." In other words, your article doesn't demolish his point at all. Rather, it seems to support it. Ashbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12350704679808047431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-26941608604286568562013-05-27T04:04:03.885+10:002013-05-27T04:04:03.885+10:00You are kidding, Ashby.
Even the very mild-mann...You are kidding, Ashby. <br /><br />Even the very mild-mannered long term contributor RGates got banned eventually. Neither Anthony nor any WUWT-afficianados tolerate anyone who understands climate science. If they can't hound them out they ban them.<br /><br />98% of WUWTers deny climate science. The complete opposite to the scientific community and at odds with the general public too. There's a reason for that. It's deliberate WUWT policy to keep out the riff raff scientists.<br /><br />http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/05/about-that-97-not-great-moment-for-wuwt.htmlSouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-51802275512882231462013-05-27T03:53:00.786+10:002013-05-27T03:53:00.786+10:00Ashby, as well as the other problems in the bulk o...Ashby, as well as the other problems in the bulk of Willis' article, the main problem with that particular theory re ENSO is that Willis writes:<br /><br />"<i>When the reduction in sunlight occurs following an eruption, the Pacific starts <b>storing up more energy</b></i>."<br /><br />However, if what he is describing is El Nino, which is what Adams et al talk about, then the ocean is giving up heat, not storing more of it. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/Adamsetal-Nature03.pdf" rel="nofollow">Adams et al </a>write:<br /><br /><i>Our results do not indicate that explosive tropical eruptions trigger all El Nin˜o events. Our analyses suggest, rather, that <b>volcanic forcing drives the coupled ocean-atmosphere system more subtly towards a state in which multi-year El Nin˜o-like conditions are favoured</b>, followed by a weaker rebound into a La Nin˜a-like state. This finding, though based on uncertain reconstructions of past ENSO behaviour, is entirely independent of previous analyses confined to the restricted instrumental climate record....</i><br /><br /><i>...such a trend would seem consistent with the response to the <b>general increase in explosive volcanism</b> during the fifteenth–nineteenth centuries in conjunction with reduced solar irradiance that is responsible for the <b>millennial cooling trend</b> of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature before modern anthropogenic warming.</i><br /><br />Here is <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/history/ln-2010-12/three-phases-of-ENSO.shtml" rel="nofollow">a good overview</a> of ENSO states.<br /><br />The ENSO part helps demolish his 'theory', not support it.<br /><br />Bear in mind, too, that not getting every single thing wrong doesn't make the whole right. Eg in his thunderstorm 'theory', being 'right' about, say, the fact that water evaporates and then condenses to form clouds doesn't make his whole thunderstorm theory correct.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50766072562779597672013-05-27T03:31:32.238+10:002013-05-27T03:31:32.238+10:00Well, Anthony Watts periodically writes about his ...Well, Anthony Watts periodically writes about his solar energy projects. I doubt anyone would have a problem with saying we should look into alternatives to fossil fuels, provided it wasn't off topic and hopefully more than just a bald assertion. I've been reading WUWT for a while and I'd say it's a pretty good example of the rough and tumble of argument over a wide array of abilities and ideas, much like many other large message boards. Where it is interesting is when you get a good argument going between competent amateur and professional geologists/scientists/mathematicians/statisticians etc. with competing ideas. Yes, you are going to get criticized if you post something counter to the general attitude that the dangers of global warming are hyped, particularly if all you are doing is arguing from authority or citing "consensus" without being willing to discuss the evidence, but so what? You would get the same prickly response if you went to a generally pro-alarmist web site and started arguing that they were wrong. Toughen up and wade in if you want to engage. There are plenty who do. It keeps things interesting and honest. Ashbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12350704679808047431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19255222631248424372013-05-27T03:08:11.846+10:002013-05-27T03:08:11.846+10:00It may well be that the response to Margaret's...It may well be that the response to Margaret's comments were justified. However, the idea that one can avoid such responses by focusing on the ideas is where I disagree with you. You could try this yourself. Log in differently, make a benign comment that indicates - for example - that you think that we should consider alternatives to fossil fuels. Or choose anything related to the post in question but that indicates that you think that there might be some merit to the ideas around AGW. I'd be surprised if you weren't somewhat dissappoined by the response you got.Wotts Up With That Bloghttp://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69870329820033580742013-05-27T02:54:59.393+10:002013-05-27T02:54:59.393+10:00I thought Margaret's major substantive point w...I thought Margaret's major substantive point was that the criteria for selection of the eruptions was not fully outlined and then to leave out two of the six smacks of cherry picking the data. To make such a big conclusion based on four data points chosen with possible bias (we don't know) needs something much more secure, much more analytical. It smacks of the sort of science where they laughed at Galileo, now they're laughing at me so I must be right type. <br /><br />Margaret pointed out the similarity of various denier threads' comments is to head for abuse and was told that was insulting. That was rich. I think she was right to suggest someone with formal science training should make better use of it when claiming to do science.Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-35815368136082813132013-05-27T02:54:01.971+10:002013-05-27T02:54:01.971+10:00...and if you follow along on the subsequent WUWT ......and if you follow along on the subsequent WUWT discussion, you get some interesting links, like this one from Michael Mann: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v426/n6964/abs/nature02101.html<br /><br />It's paywalled, so I don't have access to it, but the basic point appears to support Willis's contention that Volcanoes may have a causal link to subsequent El Niños. You don't find that interesting? What Willis has proposed is a mechanism that may shed light on how the energy in El Niños collects in response to volcanic forcing. Ashbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12350704679808047431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-90656316200933924312013-05-27T02:48:18.502+10:002013-05-27T02:48:18.502+10:00Well, I read Margaret's posts and I can see wh...Well, I read Margaret's posts and I can see why she got the response she did. If I had come on this site and started my first post supersiliously insinuating that I'd give a bad grade to such work, what do you think the response would likely be? She should have talked about the ideas and pointed out problems with the data and selection criteria without the initial framing and subsequent shallow self referential posts. Reread her contributions with an open mind and I think you will see what I mean. All around her posts people are criticizing and discussing the ideas and Margaret just keeps on about Margaret. Rather tedious. <br />Ashbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12350704679808047431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-46508644360079758902013-05-27T02:12:22.472+10:002013-05-27T02:12:22.472+10:00Welcome, Ashby.
I'm somewhat familiar with ...Welcome, Ashby. <br /><br />I'm somewhat familiar with the magical thunderstorms hypothesis. Like most of Willis' other 'wonderings', it's folksy, long on imagination, short on facts and evidence but with a few strands of reality woven in amongst the fantasy. I like how he dismisses atmospheric physics and earth science as inconsequential; and how he rejects not only <a href="http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/oxypulse.htm" rel="nofollow">geological evidence</a> of past change in atmospheric composition but also the carbon cycle and the physics of the greenhouse effect. And the evidence he uses to refute all this is stunning in its simplicity. It consists of just one short sentence: "This seems highly unlikely."<br /><br />I note that as he did in the current post, in his thunderstorm "publication", he builds a strawman about clouds. No Willis theory would be without his men of straw.<br /><br />It certainly keeps the WUWT crowd entertained and entertaining.<br /><br />Anyone interested, get your head vice out of the cupboard and have a read at <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/" rel="nofollow">WUWT</a>.<br><br /><br />Or for the short version (recommended if you don't have a head vice handy but not while drinking coffee), try <a href="http://wottsupwiththat.com/2011/01/04/some-of-the-missing-energy/" rel="nofollow">this</a> or <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/SensitivitySensibility1.html" rel="nofollow">this</a> or <a href="http://skepticalscience.com/SensitivitySensibility2.html" rel="nofollow">this</a>.<br /><br />Margaret Hardman made some good points which raised the hackles of the WUWT concern trolls, who didn't discuss the points she raised but blasted her with nasty personal attacks. Not very nice but seems to be acceptable behaviour at WUWT, but only if the attacks are against someone who could be taken as a genuine rather than fake skeptic.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-89871357762057781842013-05-27T02:11:50.687+10:002013-05-27T02:11:50.687+10:00No, I was referring to your claim that Margaret wo...No, I was referring to your claim that Margaret would have received less attitude if she had tried addressing the ideas rather than trying to run a primitive psych experiment. I've tried restricting comments on WUWT to addressing the ideas. The level of attitude I received was not significantly less that that received by Margaret - in fact it was remarkably unpleasant. Hence my intention to never comment on the site ever again. Wotts Up With That Bloghttp://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-11082364447642699692013-05-27T02:08:19.718+10:002013-05-27T02:08:19.718+10:00Doesn't work in what sense? That clouds (parti...Doesn't work in what sense? That clouds (particularly large thunderstorms) over oceans near the equator don't provide negative feedback/heat venting initiated when a certain thermal threshold level has been passed? It seems intuitively likely and a fairly elegant and testable hypothesis. Can you explain why it doesn't work? I'm happy to read your analysis. Ashbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12350704679808047431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30840742646211767252013-05-27T01:56:53.349+10:002013-05-27T01:56:53.349+10:00I've tried that. It doesn't work either.I've tried that. It doesn't work either.Wotts Up With That Bloghttp://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com