tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post622139133979600603..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Werner Brozek at WUWT claims that "at least" means "at most"!Souhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger128125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-80563597782738775822015-11-14T04:40:25.637+11:002015-11-14T04:40:25.637+11:00I just got banned at WUWT because I suggested that...I just got banned at WUWT because I suggested that meteorology should test one of its main assumptions. Here is a link that explains it better to anybody interested in the science denialism in meteorology:<br />http://disq.us/8r6hxz James McGinnhttp://www.solvingtornadoes.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-68770516676484873432015-11-13T20:16:06.361+11:002015-11-13T20:16:06.361+11:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15274801270885149192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-53405892548478373352015-11-13T20:15:30.502+11:002015-11-13T20:15:30.502+11:00Well, if you want to go there, it doesn't seem...Well, if you want to go there, it doesn't seem weird at all that somebody like you responded to my comment in a manner that is completely political and non-substantive.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15274801270885149192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-25931109709751393792015-11-13T18:33:06.296+11:002015-11-13T18:33:06.296+11:00It certainly is weird to see someone like you come...It certainly is weird to see someone like you come here and apparently complain about WUWT...Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69553919037754622262015-11-13T10:13:12.899+11:002015-11-13T10:13:12.899+11:00This might be a bit off topic, but just when I had...This might be a bit off topic, but just when I had Werner where I wanted him Anthony Watt stepped in and refused to publish my last post. I appealed to Anthony along the lines that this is the coupe de grace of my argument. But he went into denier mode. Here is that last message. Note link at bottom if you want see the post on WUWT that this this FB post is in responding to:<br /><br />https://www.facebook.com/jim.mcginn1/posts/10205160797642100?pnref=storyAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15274801270885149192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-4502455771270993742013-11-12T13:21:52.087+11:002013-11-12T13:21:52.087+11:00Well, looks like Werner ran home, tail between leg...Well, looks like Werner ran home, tail between legs, cognitive dissonance out in full view. Sad, actually, as I also thought he was trying to learn.<br /><br />On the one hand, he said he accepted that there has been warming in the oceans. He knows it's on the order of ^10^22 joules per year. It shows no sign of stopping. Yet he says in response to my question, "“why hasn't the global temperature anomaly gone to zero?” <br />There is a lot of thermal inertia in the oceans and changes do not happen quickly. I predict it will happen within 10 years as the weak solar cycle continues. Be patient."<br /><br />Now, I am a patient person, but I have my limits :) If the energy is going up by 10^22 joules a year, how the heck is the global temperature anomaly supposed to go down. Temperature simply can't go down according to the the law of conservation of energy if there's an energy imbalance in the positive direction (of the order of 10^22 joules per year)!<br /><br />Then this one:<br />“Just for kicks - what's the mechanism for that?”<br />Variations in solar output drive ENSO. I know you do not agree, but that is my answer for now.<br /><br />What? You just make stuff up and say "I know you do not agree"?!? Werner clearly shows the difference between a fake skeptic and true skeptic. A true skeptic questions their own biases before questioning those of others.<br /><br />And finally:<br /><br />"“Even when Judith Curry tried to find cycles recently, she "detrended" the data to remove the positive growth in energy and temperatures. She had to, even she'd admit to that.” <br /><br />Is not her stadium wave article all about cycles?"<br /><br />It is based on cycles Werner - DETRENDED cycles. Jeez Loueez. I had to yell that time.<br /><br />KR is right. Werner is no true skeptic and does not want to learn. He believes in fake cycles that can make anomalies go to zero if we're just "patient" yet doesn't question why it hasn't happened yet. And can hold that thought in his brain while also simultaneously accepting the increase in ocean energy by ~10^22 joules per year over the last 15 years. Sad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-4730969833844552782013-11-12T08:48:09.283+11:002013-11-12T08:48:09.283+11:00FWIW, to demonstrate how things have not really ch...FWIW, to demonstrate how things have not really changed consider splitting things in the following manner at SKS (GISTEMP, 12 month)<br /><br />1981-2001 0.158 +/- 0.107 C/decade<br />1986-2006 0.206 +/- 0.102<br />1991-2011 0.201 +/- 0.101<br /><br />This clearly demonstrates that their has been no significant change in the underlying trend... You can play around but as long as your fitted interval is 15-20 yrs you can show the trend is quite robust...Flakmeisternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-9294328907304439812013-11-12T05:01:35.226+11:002013-11-12T05:01:35.226+11:00"which was the year in which the warming stop..."which was the year in which the warming stopped again?<br />Werner Brozek: For GISS, the slope is 0 since September, 2001. slope = -7.55786e-05 per year"<br />----<br /><br />How fascinating that you report the trend to 6 significant figures with no error bars. Competent scientific analyses quantify uncertainty, which was precisely the point of Santer et al. The <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php" rel="nofollow">SkS trend calculator</a> can examine the GISTEMP trends and uncertainties for equal time spans before and after 2001:<br /><br />1989-2001: 0.178 ±0.234 °C/decade<br />2001-2013: 0.019 ±0.181 °C/decade<br /><br />The error bars overlap, showing that there hasn't been a statistically significant change in the surface warming rate.Dumb Scientisthttp://dumbscientist.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-72800655705178771822013-11-12T04:06:09.669+11:002013-11-12T04:06:09.669+11:00Werner,
You have lots of outstanding questions at...Werner,<br /><br />You have lots of outstanding questions at this site: care to answer them before you go? Just a subset:<br /><br />1) Did Mr Justice Burton find that the thesis of Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" was incorrect?<br /><br />2) Did you look at the full essay by Robert Watson? If so, did you ask your original sources why they misrepresented his words?<br /><br />3) "Variations in solar output drive ENSO. I know you do not agree, but that is my answer for now." How does the "variations in solar output drive ENSO" actually work? <br /><br />4) Have you shared your acceptance that the Earth's energy budget is out of balance enough to warm the oceans by order 10^22 joules per year with Watts, Monckton etc? What did they say?<br /><br />5) What is the evidence that solar variability alone can explain the LIA and the modern warming?<br /><br />6) "It is air temperatures that go in cycles so far, not ocean temperatures." What is the origin of 60-year cycles in air temp? <br /><br />7) {re CO2 contribution to temperature change} "I do not know the exact percentage, but 20% to 30% could be in the ball park in my opinion, but I do not know for sure." What are the time scales over which you expect that to be true, and what is your scientific basis for that statement?<br /><br />PL<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-58299296118202598442013-11-12T03:42:15.935+11:002013-11-12T03:42:15.935+11:00So in your opinion, I totally misinterpreted Sante...So in your opinion, I totally misinterpreted Santer yet almost no climate models predicted that RSS would show no warming for 17 years.<br /><br />“As to your claim that "climate models are running way too high at present and there is too much uncertainty in the climate sensitivity" - well, that is just a reflection of your lack of real understanding of the science.” <br /><br />I have an engineering degree so I know how science is supposed to work. You make a prediction and then see if the results match what you predict. If the results are way off, you need to find out why and change things. In climate science, it is obvious they were counting on large positive feedbacks via water vapour that did not materialize. That is why Hadcrut4 shows no warming for almost 13 years.<br /><br />“except for a very short period of a single data set”<br />The article that was published 16 hours before the RSS article covered 6 data sets.<br /><br />john byattNovember 11, 2013 at 4:23 PM<br />which was the year in which the warming stopped again?<br />For GISS, the slope is 0 since September, 2001. slope = -7.55786e-05 per year<br />See: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2001.66/plot/gistemp/from:2001.66/trend <br /> <br />“At this point I do not consider further discussion with you to be worthwhile.” <br />KR <br />SouNovember 11, 2013 at 5:14 PM <br />“It's a comfortable home for the weird and wacky.” <br /><br />I see that it is time for me to leave. So long!<br /><br />Werner BrozekAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-74850249534688093932013-11-12T02:31:11.988+11:002013-11-12T02:31:11.988+11:00In yet another sign of arm-waving and grabbing for...In yet another sign of arm-waving and grabbing for support without actually understanding it - Wyatt and Curry's "stadium wave" paper starts with and uses linearly detrended data. <br /><br />Forcing changes over the last century are not linear - see the mid-century flattening in temps for evidence, or better yet look at the forcing records such as <a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/" rel="nofollow">those used in the GISS model</a>. As with various poorly based AMO papers, inappropriate linearly detrending the results of a rising and roughly sinusoidal forcing leaves behind a sinusoidal residual - which is not a cycle, but rather the result of incorrect data treatment. <br /><br />All that and more - Werner, you are continuing your approach of throwing everything and anything at the wall in the hopes that something might stick, a <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop" rel="nofollow">Gish Gallop</a>. You try to avoid admitting error, changing the subject to yet another excuse when pinned to the wall. <br /><br />The only thing you are demonstrating with such tactics is that <i>you have no actual support for your objections to AGW</i>. That's a shame - when I first ran across your postings on various blogs I thought you might be truly interested in what the data might tell us. Since then, however, it has become more and more clear that you are tied to your confirmation bias (re)interpreting everything to fit your preconceptions. <br /><br />At this point I do not consider further discussion with you to be worthwhile. <br /><br />KRAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49791002880108273972013-11-11T17:43:42.755+11:002013-11-11T17:43:42.755+11:00"...Anthony does believe that CO2 is a greenh..."<i>...Anthony does believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes SOME warming, but nothing alarming.</i>"<br /><br />Believe, believe, believe.<br /><br />See, here's the thing... <i><b>I</b></i> believe inequality of the sexes, and the right to freedom as long as that freedom does not impinge on anyone else's (human or otherwise) in space or time. I believe in education for all, and I believe that without it (and likely in spite of it) human stupidity probably knows no bounds.<br /><br />I don't "believe" in climate change or global warming. I do, however, accept the veracity of the best physical and climatological science and empirical evidence from my colleagues in those disciplines, and I accept the veracity of the science and the empirical evidence that I and my colleagues in ecology have produced.<br /><br />When it comes to issues of fact rather than of opinion I don't rely on belief, except in the belief that objective and properly trained understanding trumps belief.<br /><br />What you or Anthony Watts or any other denier of science believes is not worth even a square of toilet paper - the latter at least has some practical use.<br /><br />As to your claim that "climate models are running way too high at present and there is too much uncertainty in the climate sensitivity" - well, that is just a reflection of your lack of real understanding of the science.<br /><br />You condemn the worth of your beliefs by your own words, even as you <i>believe</i> your words and opinion to have any credibility (<i>c.f</i> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect" rel="nofollow">Dunning-Kruger effect</a>).<br /><br /><br />Bernard J.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-2476100896427406502013-11-11T17:14:46.545+11:002013-11-11T17:14:46.545+11:00I'm not talking about name calling. I'm t...I'm not talking about name calling. I'm talking about ordinary comments about climate science.<br /><br />I'm not surprised you don't notice many comments at WUWT from people who accept climate science. They are few and far between. Those commenting get banned very quickly, if their comments even see the light of day in the first place. <br /><br />In addition, there are lots of people who've said they got sick of their reasonable comments getting trashed by other commenters and they didn't bother going back. They quit before they got banned.<br /><br />Just look at what happens to Nick Stokes when he comments at WUWT. He doesn't name call but he sure gets lots of flames when he makes a comment.<br /><br />Why do you think it is that while 97% plus scientists accept climate science, 97% plus of WUWT-ers reject it? Or while 70% plus of the normal population accepts AGW almost all WUWT-ers reject it.<br /><br />WUWT is a microcosm of science denial and conspiracy ideation. It attracts deniers and conspiracy theorists and repels (or bans) normal people. It's a comfortable home for the weird and wacky.<br /><br />WUWT's own online survey shows it is <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/05/about-that-97-not-great-moment-for-wuwt.html" rel="nofollow">97% plus science deniers</a>.<br /><br />Anthony used to maintain a list of people (IP addresses maybe too) that would not get posted but would go into a moderation queue. He probably still does. That way he got to choose which posts went up and which were binned.<br /><br />I have to laugh when I read WUWT-ers say that WUWT doesn't censor comments. When things get rough, then cut - is Anthony's motto.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-60545266149121704742013-11-11T16:34:01.299+11:002013-11-11T16:34:01.299+11:00Variations in solar output drive ENSO. I know you ...<i>Variations in solar output drive ENSO. I know you do not agree, but that is my answer for now.</i><br /><br />As usual, Werner, you ignore the science. I call it laziness. Pumping for an overly simplistic and very silly response. "It's the sun" is the denier's answer to everything, when they aren't claiming that "it's not happening" or "climate always changes" :(<br /><br /><a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/history/ln-2010-12/three-phases-of-ENSO.shtml" rel="nofollow">The three phases of ENSO</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.earthgauge.net/wp-content/fact_sheets/CF_ENSO.pdf" rel="nofollow">More about ENSO including what drives it</a>Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-91371453035491470042013-11-11T16:23:28.972+11:002013-11-11T16:23:28.972+11:00which was the year in which the warming stopped ag...which was the year in which the warming stopped again?<br /><br />GISS anomalies<br />1990 39<br />1991 38<br />1992 19<br />1993 21<br />1994 29<br />1995 43<br />1996 33<br />1997 46<br />1998 61 ************<br />1999 40<br />2000 40<br />2001 53<br />2002 61<br />2003 60<br />2004 52<br />2005 66<br />2006 60<br />2007 63<br />2008 49<br />2009 60<br />2010 67<br />2011 56<br />2012 58<br />2013 ?john byattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-51824332074137712262013-11-11T16:11:43.901+11:002013-11-11T16:11:43.901+11:00Werner - re your air temperature "cycles"...Werner - re your air temperature "cycles" you wrote: <i>Sorry! I was talking about Hadcrut4 from 1850.</i><br /><br />HadCRUT is a measure of the surface temperature anomaly - land and sea surface. It's not air temperature. Satellites monitor air temperature at different heights as reported by UAH and RSS, but those records only go back to 1979 - falling short of your "60 years". <br /><br />UAH and GISTemp are very closely aligned as you know, or you wouldn't be focusing on the single data series that stands out for being (slightly) different- RSS. Even with your RSS, you have to chop off most of the RSS data and only look at the most recent few years to try to wangle the answer you want. <br /><br />You studiously avoid looking at *climate* change and *global* warming for whatever reason known only to yourself. You avoid the myriad changes in the oceans (not just heat content) and ignore every time series of temperature data, except for a very short period of a single data set, which you think gives you the "answer" you are looking for.<br /><br />The global land and sea surface temperature anomaly as indicated by both HadCRUT and GISTemp demonstrate that much more than mere "cycles" are at work. Check the GISTemp chart in the article again. HadCRUT is similar. So is Berkeley Earth System's charts and they used completely different methods to determine the changes in global surface temperature. <br /><br />If it was just your "60 year cycles", then the surface temperature now would be that of 1953, which in turn would have been that of 1893. Temperature are a lot different to that.<br /><br />Instead it's much hotter now, despite the recent drop in incoming solar radiation and all the smog in Asia.<br /><br />That's because of all the extra greenhouse gases we've tossed into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels and clearing land and so forth.<br /><br />Knowledgeable people have done the sums. You might not like the answer but it's head in the sand behaviour to deny it.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-29085575538593639772013-11-11T15:32:30.628+11:002013-11-11T15:32:30.628+11:00“And which bit of the air it's supposed to be....“And which bit of the air it's supposed to be.” <br /><br />Sorry! I was talking about Hadcrut4 from 1850.<br /><br />“The one thing I got is that you're back to denying that warming has occurred during the last 15 years.”<br /><br />I accepted that warming occurred in the ocean over the last 15 years, but not on what RSS measured over the last 17 years. And I agree that other data sets show an extremely small amount of warming over 15 years in the air, by which I mean what Hadcrut4 measures. But Hadcrut4 measured way less than the average models projected.<br /><br />“Just for kicks - what's the mechanism for that?”<br />Variations in solar output drive ENSO. I know you do not agree, but that is my answer for now.<br /><br />“why hasn't the global temperature anomaly gone to zero?” <br />There is a lot of thermal inertia in the oceans and changes do not happen quickly. I predict it will happen within 10 years as the weak solar cycle continues. Be patient.<br /><br />“That's ~10^22 per year, every year.” <br />I expect this number to get less as this solar cycle continues.<br />“Even when Judith Curry tried to find cycles recently, she "detrended" the data to remove the positive growth in energy and temperatures. She had to, even she'd admit to that.” <br /><br />Is not her stadium wave article all about cycles?<br />http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/10/the-stadium-wave/#more-13302 <br /><br />“I hope your grandchildren don't live in Florida.” <br />We are in cold Canada. And if I had an extra thousand dollars that I had to spend either on carbon capture or more insulation for my house, I know what I would do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-42348367507370626692013-11-11T15:03:29.541+11:002013-11-11T15:03:29.541+11:00In my comments on WUWT, I try to stay away from pe...In my comments on WUWT, I try to stay away from personal comments such as describing someone a “religious nutter” nor do I wish to make comments about other people making what I consider to be inappropriate comments about anyone else. Nor am I interested in going through a bunch of blog posts to see who is right and who is wrong in a particular dispute. We all make mistakes and we all may not always express ourselves perfectly. Then some comments may be intended as sarcasm but it was not indicated as such and problems arise.<br /><br />Now as for your science comments that were rejected, there are some topics that Anthony will not entertain. And out of over a thousand comments that I made the only one that was clipped was on barycenters. Now I know the “slayers” do not believe in the greenhouse effect at all. They also do not get much traction since Anthony does believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes SOME warming, but nothing alarming. The people who believe in barycenters or the “slayers” may also feel Anthony is denying science. So you may feel strongly about a different topic that you regard as scientific truth but that Anthony does not like. But these things are his call and I respect that.<br /><br />As for what I was getting at, in a nutshell it is this: <br />The climate models are running way too high at present and there is too much uncertainty in the climate sensitivity for me to take the IPCC seriously at this time. But I will keep an open mind if things change.<br /><br />Werner BrozekAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-82489055463059337972013-11-11T14:21:47.067+11:002013-11-11T14:21:47.067+11:00Werner, you've had a relapse and, as Sou said,...Werner, you've had a relapse and, as Sou said, you seemed to have posted a whole bunch of stuff to try to prove something. It's not exactly coherent. The one thing I got is that you're back to denying that warming has occurred during the last 15 years. Let me remind you of our conversation earlier:<br />"“I'll call that progress if you now accept that global warming has happened over the last 15 years, although it was small on land and more significant in the ocean.” <br /><br />O.K. I will accept that. "<br /><br />It's very simple, CO2 is causing an energy imbalance of ~10^22 joules per year. Sometimes that shows up more in the oceans (as in recent years) and sometimes it shows up more on land (as it has done since the mid-70s). Ocean currents eventually bring that heat from the ocean to the surface.<br /><br />The rest of your post seemed like random nonsense, sorry, especially the part about air temperature cycles. Just for kicks - what's the mechanism for that? Do the air molecules somehow remember their old temperature and return? Why aren't we at the same global temperatures as in 1953? Why haven't the temperatures declined for decades? When was the last cold year record? As I've been asking and you have not been able to correctly answer - why hasn't the global temperature anomaly gone to zero? It just makes no sense.<br /><br />It's simply a fact that the energy being kept in by CO2 just accumulates. That's ~10^22 per year, every year. Worse part is that the imbalance is getting worse because there's more CO2 in the atmosphere. It's simply the law of conservation of energy - no hocus pocus as in your "cycles" theory. Even when Judith Curry tried to find cycles recently, she "detrended" the data to remove the positive growth in energy and temperatures. She had to, even she'd admit to that.<br /><br />As far as not panicking - that's your prerogative, but don't deny basic science because it's just silly. You don't look smart or strong by coming here to "defend yourself," especially if you deny data presented directly to you. You achieve those attributes by admitting mistakes and learning even if that means you discover that WUWT has been misinforming or even outright lying to you.<br /><br />You can't deny that sea levels have been rising and even accelerating that rise. I hope your grandchildren don't live in Florida.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-52409568911469287192013-11-11T12:00:36.150+11:002013-11-11T12:00:36.150+11:00It is air temperatures that go in cycles so far, n...<i>It is air temperatures that go in cycles so far, not ocean temperatures.</i><br /><br />I wonder how that's supposed to work? And which bit of the air it's supposed to be. The lower troposphere perhaps? The upper troposphere? Air above the tropics? Air above the poles? Air above central England :)<br /><br />Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-85386499219931200662013-11-11T11:28:55.607+11:002013-11-11T11:28:55.607+11:00Just a quick comment. Werner, Your experience fr...Just a quick comment. Werner, Your experience from mods would be completely different from that of someone who accepted science. Anthony banned me directly because he didn't like my tweets. They showed up his double standards and his nasty streak (his nastiness towards Bill McKibben, when Bill was very gracious towards Anthony - if you followed the link).<br /><br />Although from my first comments at WUWT ages ago when I was polite and courteous, I got nasty flames by WUWTers partic Smokey - who was at the time sockpuppeting - he was also a mod (DBS). <br /><br />David Boehm Stealey's tactic was to flame the science types as Smokey. That was a dogwhistle to other WUWT-ers to pile on and join in with more flames. Then when the science type finally had enough of being attacked by all and sundry and reacted to the nasty comments, David/Smokey would ban or censor them wearing his mod hat (DBS). <br /><br />It was a simple but quite effective system that worked well for Anthony until someone exposed Smokey as DBS. <br /><br />The comment you quoted is mild as anything by WUWT standards. Of course if the writer accepts science then anything they say is unacceptable at WUWT. <br /><br />If you reject science you can say pretty much anything at WUWT. If you accept science you are treated as and often called a troll no matter how polite you may be.<br /><br />I don't know what the rest of your post is about. It reads as if you've trawled the web to justify something or the other. Is there a point you are trying to make?<br /><br />I hope you do take some time to try to come to grips with climate science. The IPCC summaries are a good place to start. Or just pick a segment of the main report you are interested in, read that and then check out the references they provide and use Google scholar to look up the latest findings. It's a fascinating journey once you get started.<br />Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-2480554338380959252013-11-11T08:44:18.848+11:002013-11-11T08:44:18.848+11:00“Thanks, Werner. However WUWT blog owner Anthony W...“Thanks, Werner. However WUWT blog owner Anthony Watts added a new unwritten censorship policy to prevent me from commenting at WUWT.”<br /><br />My experience from comments by moderators is that you can repeatedly make wrong science comments and not be banned, but it is usually how you say things that causes problems. For example, the following would never make it past the moderators:<br />"SouNovember 7, 2013 at 11:10 AM<br />Do you teach your grandma to suck eggs too? :D”<br /><br />“The ocean is not an infinite heat sink” <br />The average temperature of the deep ocean is about 3 C. And we assume a gain of 0.1 C every 50 years, it would take 1000 years for the temperature to go up 2 C. Now of course if the forcing is exponential it would take less time, but we will be out of hydrocarbons and probably using nuclear fusion long before then. Just think of how much technology has changed over the last 100 years.<br /><br />“The energy just keeps accumulating and so the temperatures keep going up.” <br />Over the last 100 months, GISS and Hadcrut4 show a negative trend. See http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:100/trend/plot/gistemp/last:100/trend <br />Will it continue that way for the next 100 months? No one knows.<br /><br />“Simple law of conservation of energy shows that the energy will stay and collect further so long as there's an energy imbalance of 10^22 joules per year.” <br />And if all of this energy warms the deep ocean from 3 C to the average air temperature of 15 C, how long will it take?<br /><br />“Your ocean calculation should have taught you that it's not a cycle.” <br />It is air temperatures that go in cycles so far, not ocean temperatures.<br /><br />“there must be cycles that explain this” <br />The fact that temperatures seem to go in 60 year cycles is as apparent that over the course of a year, temperatures can go from -30 C to +30 C and back to -30 C where I live. Of course merely stating this observation does not explain why it happens.<br /><br />From:<br />http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf <br />“a new Maunder‐type solar activity minimum cannot offset the global warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions.”<br />The last 15 years seemed to take the IPCC by surprise with the low increase in temperature. <br /><br />As well the IPCC summary says: “Equilibrium climate sensitivity** is likely in the range 1.5 deg. C to 4.5 deg. C …” <br /><br />To this a commentator said <br />“Indeed, the climate sensitivity of atmospheric CO2 is now as uncertain as it was in 1979 when a National Academy of Sciences report first established the same range of 1.5 to 4.5 deg. C (Charney et al., 1979). In other words, no refinement has been made in 34 years in determining how much warming is likely to result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2.“<br /><br />Needless to say, the present knowledge of climate science combined with the last 17 years RSS does not make me panic about my grand children's future. But I will keep an open mind and could change it in 5 years from now. How about you?<br /><br />Werner BrozekAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-67739484342323928682013-11-11T05:21:30.302+11:002013-11-11T05:21:30.302+11:00Looks like Werner accepts that the Earth is out of...Looks like Werner accepts that the Earth is out of net energy balance, by enough to explain the rising heat content of the oceans; progress. But now he's drifted into "there must be cycles that explain this; it can't be anthropogenic GHGs."<br /><br />Now he should read Feulner and Rahmstorf (2010) " On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth":<br /><br />http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-66301300690143467182013-11-10T17:27:14.516+11:002013-11-10T17:27:14.516+11:00I won't hold my breath. The IPCC reports are t...I won't hold my breath. The IPCC reports are too much for Werner to handle. He almost looks as if he's ready to take one tentative step forward but each time he changes his mind and instead takes three steps back.<br /><br />Werner still hasn't acknowledge that if it were his 60 year "cycles", the surface temperature anomaly today would be the same as it was in 1953 and 1893 (and of course it was hotter in 1953 than in 1893 anyway). <br /><br />Humans won't see surface temperatures like those again for thousands of years unless there's an asteroid strike or a few super-volcanic eruptions or a massive nuclear war.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-27191759086969297142013-11-10T17:16:10.800+11:002013-11-10T17:16:10.800+11:00Good that you now agree that global warming has be...Good that you now agree that global warming has been happening the last 15 years, just more so in the oceans. That's huge progress.<br /><br />This is wrong, though: "If that same energy went into the air over the last 55 years, the air would have gone up about 500 times as much as 0.1 C or by about 50 C. But for all intents and purposes, the ocean is an infinite heat sink and it will make sure the air temperature cannot possibly get too far above the ocean surface temperature. " The ocean is not an infinite heat sink and this is the point about ENSO - we are due for a major El Nino a la 1998 whereby energy from the ocean will make its way to the surface. Then the surface temperatures will rise significantly and quickly after which your old friends at WUWT (hopefully you're starting to realize that they've been disinforming you) will sing a different tune. You see they only talk about the recent slow increase in surface temps because the ocean heat growth damns their story. My original question about why doesn't the global temp anomaly disappear is focused on exactly the question they completely avoid - why doesn't the temperature drop if there's no CO2 warming? You see if there was no man-made CO2 warming, then the anomaly would disappear rather quickly just as it has done after recent solar-induced warmings in history. Unfortunately, the solar radiation has been declining for the last 30 years so this is not solar. The proof is obvious. There's no cycle Werner this time. The energy just keeps accumulating and so the temperatures keep going up. <br /><br />Ok, then you took a turn for the worse in your post with "“I asked why doesn't the global temperature anomaly drop to zero? Do you now know the answer?” Climate goes in cycles of various lengths such as the 60 year cycle (Akasofu) and 1000 year cycles such as was manifested by the MWP and LIA." Wrong! As I stated above - no 60 year cycle can explain the fast rise in temperature over the last 150 years. Also, you're completely ignoring what you just agreed to. 10^22 joules/year just doesn't get hidden under the rug. Simple law of conservation of energy shows that the energy will stay and collect further so long as there's an energy imbalance of 10^22 joules per year. Your ocean calculation should have taught you that it's not a cycle. Quote data not some silly WUWT post...those links don't work out here in the real world.<br /><br />Are you almost out of denial? Will you now go and read some real science like the IPCC?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com