tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post7021395972228802522..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: "Up yours!" sez Anthony Watts with another Tim Ball "Climate Hoax" conspiracy theorySouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger133125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-55311947541971707562014-12-08T08:17:18.332+11:002014-12-08T08:17:18.332+11:00I have nothing against people using political argu...I have nothing against people using political arguments why we should not do anything. You can have a political debate about that and try to find some sort of compromise. Tim Balls party may be willing to support mitigation if they get some aircraft carriers.<br /><br />It is their fight against science, their fake science and their fake advocacy for "better science" that make an adult conversation impossible. A political debate is not the right place for understanding how nature works. That debate takes place in the scientific literature.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-31031605042617180972014-12-05T12:44:36.093+11:002014-12-05T12:44:36.093+11:00That's probably why Tim says he sees a "c...That's probably why Tim says he sees a "cooling trend" too. There are treatments available for people suffering delusions like that. I don't know if they work or not.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-47919383814293127402014-12-05T07:24:00.450+11:002014-12-05T07:24:00.450+11:00I see there is yet another article by Tim Ball at ...I see there is yet another article by Tim Ball at WUWT titled "Whither The Weather?".<br /><br />The author argues that doing nothing about climate change. In the comments he says:<br /><br /><i>"I agree that to do nothing is the best option, because bigger government is never better government."</i><br /><br />Slightly confusing science and ideology I think. Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-6819494573977345782014-12-04T05:34:06.833+11:002014-12-04T05:34:06.833+11:00dhogaza> i seem to recall them doing much the ...dhogaza> i seem to recall them doing much the same thing when Spencer (or was it Christy?) came out with a model attributing all recent warming to ENSO or something. wildly simplified to the point of being grossly unphysical, but they fell over themselves in their rush to praise it.lignenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-28831816396810424702014-12-03T11:39:35.335+11:002014-12-03T11:39:35.335+11:00I am sorry if I misjudged your motives DMH. My ba...I am sorry if I misjudged your motives DMH. My background is in Physics which I studied in the late '60's early '70's. I have spent my whole working life in science at the forefront of my field. This does not qualify me to comment about other even related fields as I do not have the depth and breadth of knowledge needed. I have become super sensitive to deniers repeating false memes ad infinitum. I still do not fully understand all the nuances of climate science even with a lot of reading of the condensed and peer reviewed science. As is usual as in any field of science we just do not know the unknown unknowns. <br />We do not need any Physics to see the Earth is warming. The evidence is incontrovertible. Do I need to list all the symptoms of a changing Earth. When the ice in the esky or cooler is melting, we know the beer will eventually be undrinkable. Bert<br />Bert from Elthamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-51613671032364408602014-12-03T03:50:49.966+11:002014-12-03T03:50:49.966+11:00Sometime a simple two layer model (surface and atm...Sometime a simple two layer model (surface and atmosphere) where the atmosphere has just one layer is used to explain the greenhouse effect in a very simple way. That is nice to do some simple math, but not realistic when the the optical depth of CO2 becomes larger. In this simplified model you do get saturation. In reality you get the logarithmic behaviour you mention.<br /><br />Unfortunately, most people asking about the greenhouse effect of CO2 are crackpots that do not want to know how it works. In that light, one can understand the above reaction.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-72259479720737052672014-12-03T03:05:24.117+11:002014-12-03T03:05:24.117+11:00A better response to "anon" might have b...A better response to "anon" might have been to redact the "sheep" statement (a la ATTP), but require follow-up (i.e., a checkable reference) on the statement "Well, I did check it, and they did NOT make a stepwise adjustment. They made a linear adjustment, approximately -0.02C per year." I would have been interested in the source for that.<br /><br />Note that BEST also include the Rutherglen data and see a step bias across the long gap of poor quality data in the 1970's: <br /><br />http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/151882<br /><br />although they don't take the data back as early as ACORN does.PLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-61496106590420506332014-12-03T02:23:02.963+11:002014-12-03T02:23:02.963+11:00"Let's stick with Rutherglen, if it is al...<i>"Let's stick with Rutherglen, if it is all the same to you."</i><br /><br />And here we see a common pseudo-skeptic error - cherry-picking data. In the context of the set of nearby stations Rutherglen showed an anomalous jump, inconsistent with the data as a whole <i>(when only one of N stations shifts anomalies, the parsimonious explanation is that something changed at that station, not that the station is OK and everything else in the region simultaneously offset)</i>. Note that temperature anomalies have demonstrated correlation over distances of 1000km - such a singular offset is a clear sign of station change. <br /><br />Taking a single station out of context and claiming nefarious intent <i>(cf conspiracy theories)</i>, despite the data as a whole and the quite detailed reconstructed history of the changing station, is utter nonsense. Anon should <i>(but probably won't)</i> be ashamed.KRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-83998724530119980412014-12-02T23:18:33.589+11:002014-12-02T23:18:33.589+11:00Anonymous says: "Quick now, Sou, hit the dele...Anonymous says: <i>"Quick now, Sou, hit the delete button before your gullible sheep start to question."</i><br /><br /><b>Baah, baah</b>, I have been to the <b>baah</b> Jennifer M<b>aaa</b>roh<b>aaa</b>sy website, cut and p<b>aaa</b>sted stuff but not bothered checking the B(<b>aaa</b>)oM methodology. Th<b>aaa</b>t m<b>aaa</b>kes me <b>aaa</b>n independent thinker. <b>Baaah.</b> <br /><br />Baaah humbug!<br />Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-42066955677764359632014-12-02T17:58:05.014+11:002014-12-02T17:58:05.014+11:00I've actually heard some deniers with a zealou...I've actually heard some deniers with a zealous Creationist religious bent, that they believe the Noah's Ark/Global Flood story was real and that 'God' promised never to flood the earth again. So rising sea levels are impossible for them to believe... because... Rainbows. I kid you not.Ceistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-41355273262874583202014-12-02T14:01:58.118+11:002014-12-02T14:01:58.118+11:00OK, tx. That confirms what I suggested to Sou abo...OK, tx. That confirms what I suggested to Sou above about the MRL and effects being logarithmic. Different way of explaining it, same end result. Long time since I did physics (30+ years) but it is coming back now.<br /><br />I don't know how someone would argue that the effect would saturate. Being logarithmic, it would certainly be subject to the law of diminishing returns, but it could never actually saturate.DMHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-63975741982737227842014-12-02T09:00:41.809+11:002014-12-02T09:00:41.809+11:00DMH, hi,
Sometimes it's hard to tell whether ...DMH, hi,<br /><br />Sometimes it's hard to tell whether people are genuinely inquiring, or just repeating AGW denier memes :-\ Giving you the benefit of the doubt, here is the best explanation I've ever read of the greenhouse effect, a collaborative effort from Spencer Weart, noted climate historian, and Ray Pierrehumbert, a climatologist who also excels at explaining things to us laypeople:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/" rel="nofollow">A Saturated Gassy Argument</a><br /><br />As well as explaining the GHE, it also explains why the GHE can never saturate, as some would lead you to believe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-45875348129433907572014-12-02T07:43:20.324+11:002014-12-02T07:43:20.324+11:00Let me add to the pile by saying that what deniers...Let me add to the pile by saying that what deniers deny most of all is the possibility that AGW might have serious negative consequences after all. They do not doubt the possibility, they are 100% certain (though labelling themselves skeptics) that it's impossible.<br /><br />You see, if they admit that there is a possibility that AGW might have serious negative consequences, then we start talking risk management, and it's really difficult to keep mitigation policies out of that discussion, as that wouldn't be rational risk management. Especially given all the uncertainty and lack of knowledge the deniers keep stressing.<br /><br />The reason they absolutely don't want mitigation policies, is (most of the time, next to old man conservatism) that it messes up their religious belief in laissez-faire free market economics. And so they must deny the possibility that AGW might have serious negative consequences. Which, of course, no real sceptic would ever do.Nevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15413215743703093876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10562566024985729892014-12-02T07:02:28.818+11:002014-12-02T07:02:28.818+11:00How about 1100 (and counting) spittle-flecked cons...How about 1100 (and counting) spittle-flecked conspiracy-mongering comments over at WUWT?<br /><br />Maybe that's not what they were expecting, but it's certainly what they *got*.<br />caerbannoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03896552738444745753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-56595782940066168772014-12-02T05:54:52.984+11:002014-12-02T05:54:52.984+11:00Well, I don't think it is a stratosphere versu...Well, I don't think it is a stratosphere versus troposphere thing. That doesn't make sense to me. What does make sense is that there is an average altitude at which any given photon escapes to space. The literature refers to MRL, which I figured out means Mean Radiating Layer (Level?). For Stefan-Boltzmann to be applicable, since the atmosphere has no surface per se (a photon can in theory escape from any altitude) you'd have to have an MRL at which the EFFECTIVE black body temperature of earth occurs. As CO2 increases, the chance that any given photon gets intercepted increases, so the MRL altitude must also increase. That means that for any photon releases from the MRL, the free path to space is shorter, and below the MRL, it is longer. So temps below the MRL must rise, while temps above must fall.<br /><br />This model yields a statistical distribution which would follow a natural log 2 function. Which is why the literature seems to express sensitivity in terms of degrees per doubling of CO2.DMHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-75108572906533716292014-12-02T05:03:20.256+11:002014-12-02T05:03:20.256+11:00Thanks, numerobis. I'll add that tip to the &q...Thanks, numerobis. I'll add that tip to the "Comment & HTML Guide" page up top.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-88583373869637063882014-12-02T04:58:59.390+11:002014-12-02T04:58:59.390+11:00I see it all the time; nearly half my posts disapp...I see it all the time; nearly half my posts disappear into the ether.<br /><br />One thing I finally worked out (because someone else made a comment about this behaviour) is that if I change my "reply as" option *after* I wrote something, my reply is silently disappeared when I hit "publish" -- it doesn't even get to you. I have to decide *before* I type the first character who I'm going to be.numerobisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-6015870649736614702014-12-02T04:49:08.420+11:002014-12-02T04:49:08.420+11:00I've not seen that, CC. Sorry if it's happ...I've not seen that, CC. Sorry if it's happened. I do occasionally retrieve comments from the spam folder but I've not heard of any comments disappearing altogether and never being retrieved. If it happens again do let me know. Check first though, it could just have been stuck in moderation or maybe never got through in the first place. (Someone once told me they thought they'd posted a comment but I never got it. They tried again and all was good.)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-82579964254205161392014-12-02T04:33:49.184+11:002014-12-02T04:33:49.184+11:00whimcycle, excellent couple comments, especially 1...whimcycle, excellent couple comments, especially 1:50<br />You packed it all into <130 words,<br />adding those links gives it an A+.<br />Quotable and repeatable.<br />And I intend to, with your moniker attached, <br />if you don't mine.<br /><br />~ ~ ~<br />Sou, sometimes I enter comments and they just disappear,<br />rather than getting acknowledged or posted. <br />This may be a double post.citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-43196755931109003312014-12-02T04:31:52.472+11:002014-12-02T04:31:52.472+11:00"Judith Curry's recent Climate sensitivit..."Judith Curry's recent Climate sensitivity paper predicts a significantly lower TCR. It's based on observations, with an attempt to match major ocean states. It is peer reviewed published science, so that's a good indicator the climate sensitivity range isn't yet written."<br /><br />Complaining that those who write GCMs think that climate is far simpler than it is in reality, while simultaneously touting the Lewis & Curry (mostly Lewis, actually) ultra-simple model as being more correct than the far more complex GCMs is self-contradictory and obviously motivated by bias.dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-56523315363544287412014-12-02T04:17:56.387+11:002014-12-02T04:17:56.387+11:00Up one should of course read:
Energy transfer up ...Up one should of course read:<br /><br />Energy transfer up in the stratosphere (not troposphere) would be predominately radiation. In the troposphere it's predominately convection.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-48438010536359420612014-12-02T04:15:04.557+11:002014-12-02T04:15:04.557+11:00In regard to the second law, don't forget that...In regard to the second law, don't forget that space is very cold and energy comes in from the sun. Earth is not a closed system.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-65706341050256931522014-12-02T04:11:37.064+11:002014-12-02T04:11:37.064+11:00I'm stretching here but this is how I understa...I'm stretching here but this is how I understand it.<br /><br />Think how thin the air is in the top of the troposphere and the stratosphere. The stratosphere doesn't cause an increase in the temperature of the troposphere. Energy transfer up in the troposphere would be predominately radiation. In the troposphere it's predominately convection. <br /><br />Short wave radiation comes in. Long wave goes out. GHGs radiate in all directions. In the troposphere where there is a higher concentration of GHGs a lot more LW is radiated back down (and a lot more up, but then hits more GHGs where some goes down and some goes up - simplifying it). This continues until you get way up in the troposphere where the energy radiated up has almost nothing to stop it, so it shoots back out into space.<br /><br />In the stratosphere there is much less of everything - less CO2 and almost no water vapour. Therefore there's little to stop the radiation going straight out into space. Any LW radiation on its way out to space from the top of the troposphere, well some might get absorbed by GHGs, but most won't. There's virtually no energy transfer by convection, unlike the troposphere.<br /><br />Feel free to wade in anyone, if I've not got this quite right.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-14662645657070439602014-12-02T04:03:24.002+11:002014-12-02T04:03:24.002+11:00Well Bert, I asked what should be a pretty obvious...Well Bert, I asked what should be a pretty obvious question for anyone starting to research this for themselves. What right do you have to accuse me of repeating talking points? How is your response helpful? Can YOU explain the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or Stefan-Boltzmann? I asked specific questions, and now I have helped answer them too.DMHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30212040528957583962014-12-02T03:50:11.612+11:002014-12-02T03:50:11.612+11:00Yes Millicent. I wonder if Anonymous forgot which ...Yes Millicent. I wonder if Anonymous forgot which article he was commenting on. Not the best advertisement if he wants to make out that anyone at WUWT knew what they were talking about. <br /><br />One World Government conspiracy theorists don't inspire confidence in anything, let alone science.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.com