tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post8427470922984047558..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Rob's GallopSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger103125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-66744030629678387362015-05-19T04:03:55.479+10:002015-05-19T04:03:55.479+10:00Maybe best forgotten.
No change in position or d...Maybe best forgotten. <br />No change in position or direction, while increasing verbosity, getting nowhere.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-35980496764823553562015-05-18T15:05:13.887+10:002015-05-18T15:05:13.887+10:00Hank - thanks for the clarification. (I'd almo...Hank - thanks for the clarification. (I'd almost forgotten about your question :D)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-54758530263275357592015-05-18T11:05:04.070+10:002015-05-18T11:05:04.070+10:00or 'oogle will pull up for example just the la...or 'oogle will pull up for example just the last month's results, using the "Search Tools" modifier, <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Arealclimate.org+%22Rob+Ellison%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=site:realclimate.org+%22Rob+Ellison%22&safe=off&tbs=qdr:m" rel="nofollow">thus</a>.<br />Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-647200548150342732015-05-18T06:54:37.202+10:002015-05-18T06:54:37.202+10:00This sort of thing, continuing: http://www.realc...This sort of thing, continuing: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/05/global-warming-and-unforced-variability-clarifications-on-recent-duke-study/comment-page-1/#comment-629900Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-47836693636966972362015-04-26T17:59:31.512+10:002015-04-26T17:59:31.512+10:00Hank, before I delve into this, can you elaborate ...Hank, before I delve into this, can you elaborate on which questions you are talking about when you refer to "his ideas"? Are you referring to the Tsonis stuff - PDO-IPO - or something else?Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-52980494793057915852015-04-26T14:56:02.518+10:002015-04-26T14:56:02.518+10:00Hank, thanks for your comments - I'll try to f...Hank, thanks for your comments - I'll try to follow this up shortly. (I'll also change the thread so any comments appear immediately rather than going into moderation - or I might even start a new article. I won't get back to this for a little while - a couple of hours or so.)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-72022983383398396402015-04-26T08:56:47.080+10:002015-04-26T08:56:47.080+10:00R.E. apparently doesn't want to resume in this...R.E. apparently doesn't want to resume in this thread. He's still posting at RC, half of his posts get diverted to the <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/the-bore-hole/" rel="nofollow">Borehole</a> thead, which he doesn't know about, and he thinks they're "lost" so posts the same material repeatedly. The sum of it all seems to be "until climate science accepts X, nothing else can be said usefully" but what X is exactly, it's hard to tell. What baffles me, after trying to follow some of the sources he claims inspire him, is that those authors don't suggest their work is a fundamental overthrowing of the existing science, as it seems RE does.<br /><br />Has anyone seen any of his cited sources make claims along the lines of his ideas?<br /><br />I know, DFTT, but it's an annoying loose end to see the same thing over and over.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-74232086224109307722015-04-19T10:21:24.462+10:002015-04-19T10:21:24.462+10:00Hm, I've been asking the same questions at RC,...Hm, I've been asking the same questions at RC, pointless to have the same thing in two places.<br />I'll stick with this one, as it's a dedicated topic.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-3686353020943506502015-03-02T23:02:34.559+11:002015-03-02T23:02:34.559+11:00I'm sure that there's irony - of the sun s...I'm sure that there's irony - of the sun sort.Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-68215026330771860422015-03-02T20:42:05.131+11:002015-03-02T20:42:05.131+11:00@Bernard
Said ironically? Or without a hint of ir...@Bernard<br /><br />Said ironically? Or without a hint of irony? Who can tell.<br /><br />Perhaps some sort of ironic Poe. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17772569190440193912015-03-02T16:22:25.840+11:002015-03-02T16:22:25.840+11:00"Now that I have repeated myself - twice - I ..."<i>Now that I have repeated myself - twice - I guess it is time to call it quits on this particular echo chamber. </i>"<br /><br />Said without the slightest hint of self-parody...Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-81498484453877604672015-02-24T18:46:14.938+11:002015-02-24T18:46:14.938+11:00Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every ...<i>Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every 3 to 7 years and last from 6 to 18 months, the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years. The shift in the PDO can have significant implications for global climate, affecting Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, the productivity of marine ecosystems, and global land temperature patterns. #8220;This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale pattern [in 2008] tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.” <br /><br />Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.”</i> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703<br /><br />So more cut and paste from reputable sources and peer reviewed science. It's such a failing. <br /><br />There are thousands of studies on the Pacific state. But the Tsonis et al study put this into a network model. Providing some mathematical justification for 'A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts'. <br /><br />Climate shifts in the Pacific are pretty obvious - e.g. http://www.geomar.de/en/news/article/klimavorhersagen-ueber-mehrere-jahre-moeglich/<br /><br />Now that I have repeated myself - twice - I guess it is time to call it quits on this particular echo chamber. Rob Ellisonhttp://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/23/the-unstable-math-of-michael-ghils-climate-sensitivity/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-65160013220645838052015-02-24T18:35:26.727+11:002015-02-24T18:35:26.727+11:00'What defines a climate change as abrupt? Tech...'What defines a climate change as abrupt? Technically, an abrupt climate change occurs when the climate system is forced to cross some threshold, triggering a transition to a new state at a rate determined by the climate system itself and faster than the cause. Chaotic processes in the climate system may allow the cause of such an abrupt climate change to be undetectably small.' National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Abrupt Climate Change, 2002<br /><br />The key ideas are threshold, driven at its own pace by internal mechanisms and chaotic processes. Complexity science suggests that the system is pushed by greenhouse gas changes and warming – as well as solar intensity and Earth orbital eccentricities – past a threshold at which stage the components start to interact chaotically in multiple and changing negative and positive feedbacks – as tremendous energies cascade through powerful subsystems. Some of these changes have a regularity within broad limits and the planet responds with a broad regularity in changes of ice, cloud, Atlantic thermohaline circulation and ocean and atmospheric circulation.<br /><br />Dynamic climate sensitivity implies the potential for a small push to initiate a large shift. Climate in this theory of abrupt change is an emergent property of the shift in global energies as the system settles down into a new climate state. The traditional definition of climate sensitivity as a temperature response to changes in CO2 makes sense only in periods between climate shifts – as climate changes at shifts are internally generated. Climate evolution is discontinuous at the scale of decades and longer.<br /><br />You haven't really got the idea of dynamic sensitivity have you. It's an unstable math - http://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/23/the-unstable-math-of-michael-ghils-climate-sensitivity/Rob Ellisonhttp://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/23/the-unstable-math-of-michael-ghils-climate-sensitivity/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-46892601486794340052015-02-24T18:30:08.979+11:002015-02-24T18:30:08.979+11:00I spend little time on the triple plus unscience o...I spend little time on the triple plus unscience of the blogosphere - apart from Judy's. As I think I made clear. Even that has worn very thin - there is very little new and the same ossified comments over and over. Pretty much like here - aye Joshua. <br /><br />But I am a scientist - an engineering hydrologist and environmental scientist. I have studied the Pacific state for decades. I survived Cyclone Marcia. It wasn't all that difficult. I spent the day in a cyclone shelter. A precaution purely. Wind peaked here at 150km/hr - which is not to be trifled with but not a huge problem either. The town lost some pre 1984 housing. Post 1984 housing is much stronger. <br /><br />Nor it is even close to unprecedented. I'd recommend looking at the work of Jonathon Nott looking at extremes on the Australian coast. - https://research.jcu.edu.au/portfolio/jonathan.nott/ - We ain't seen nothin' yet.<br /><br />All in all it is a story of successful emergency planning and management. Everything worked liked it should - the spirit was one of forbearance, mutual support, humour, fortitude. Things are rapidly returning to normal. All in all it a story of adaptability and resilience. Rob Ellisonhttp://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/23/the-unstable-math-of-michael-ghils-climate-sensitivity/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-85639487900442726432015-02-21T00:28:25.010+11:002015-02-21T00:28:25.010+11:00Climate sensitivity cuts both ways? Ie a large inc...Climate sensitivity cuts both ways? Ie a large increase in temps due to positive forcing also means a large decrease in temps due to negative forcing - that is what I thought he might have meant.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-82706471216324364452015-02-21T00:20:00.137+11:002015-02-21T00:20:00.137+11:00BBD's quote from the RC thread included the ve...BBD's quote from the RC thread included the very interesting remark: "A climate that is highly sensitive to radiative forcing (i.e., responds very strongly to increasing greenhouse gas forcing) by definition will be unable to quickly dissipate global mean temperature anomalies arising from either purely natural dynamical processes or stochastic radiative forcing, and hence will have significant internal variability."<br /><br />I can see that high climate sensitive would amplify warm years (anomalously hot->difficult to dissipate->warm periods extended), but anomalously cold years would have their "coldness" damped down. Net result would be a similar level of variability to reference conditions. So, obviously, I'm missing something.<br /><br />Can someone explain for the dumb ones like me why that is the case?<br /><br />Quick, before the thread-bombing starts again (even though he said he had to go an batten down the hatches, it seemed even Cyclone Marcia couldn't stop the copypasta).<br /><br />Thx in advance.Frank Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-70610550061648986442015-02-20T16:57:36.491+11:002015-02-20T16:57:36.491+11:00It is bizarre that a twit like Rob would even bot...It is bizarre that a twit like Rob would even bother to come here. He is a denier of the best sort that evolution can produce. Somehow the most plausible deniers think they can 'pass' as scientists. He invokes the highest form of pseudoscience that sounds correct to the ignorant masses to the point he even fools himself!<br />To endlessly quote Chaos Theory and Fractals to prove we are totally ignorant is as valid as saying we do not understand turbulent airflow so we should not fly our 420 tonne <br />My old boss in 1974 who was a fighter pilot in the Battle of Britain would call him a blithering idiot. <br />He is a charlatan!<br />No more needs to be said!<br />This is not an insult, it is reality!<br />By the way my old boss was at Cambridge when the DNA imbroglio was happening.<br />Bert<br /><br />Bert from Elthamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-38095743950140800862015-02-20T14:53:15.192+11:002015-02-20T14:53:15.192+11:00Have you ever watched ducks dabbling? All you can ...Have you ever watched ducks dabbling? All you can see is their arses sticking up in the air ...<br /><br />Seems appropriate.Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-63076418878018263402015-02-20T14:49:00.656+11:002015-02-20T14:49:00.656+11:00Sou : "... to all intents and purposes ...&qu...Sou : "... to all intents and purposes ..."<br /><br />I think you're neglecting certain intents and purposes :)Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-85761974658789517622015-02-20T14:24:51.090+11:002015-02-20T14:24:51.090+11:00Speaking of evacuation alerts, here are a few more...Speaking of evacuation alerts, here are a few more simple questions for Rob Ellison.<br /><br />How many Category 5 cyclones have hit the Queensland shore in the last 50 years, and how has the frequency of such changed with time? And what are the implications for the latter should business as usual continue and the concentration of atmospheric CO2 rise to 500+ ppm? How might the answer to the last question impinge on the direct costs of the warming that Queensland will experience over this time?Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-65037460655944953492015-02-20T13:54:12.272+11:002015-02-20T13:54:12.272+11:00===> "I don't inhabit blogs much. I......===> "I don't inhabit blogs much. I... from my very limited dabbling"<br /><br />Too funny.Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08058404311263880189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69434289277850519192015-02-20T13:17:44.419+11:002015-02-20T13:17:44.419+11:00KR:
"[ This focus by Ellison on just one or ...KR:<br /><br />"[ This focus by Ellison on just one or two papers strikes me as 'single-study syndrome'. There's more to science than any one publication. ]"<br /><br />Worse - it's "single-study misrepresentation syndrome", since Tsonis and Swanson 2009 don't say what he says it says nor imply what he says it implies.<br />dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-71137384504007864072015-02-20T12:58:22.628+11:002015-02-20T12:58:22.628+11:00Thanks for linking to Victor's excellent post ...Thanks for linking to Victor's excellent post Sou. It elegantly answers several of the questions that I put to Rob Ellison, so he now has no excuse for stalling and changing the subject, or feigning disinterest in engaging with pertinent points.<br /><br />I especially like the graphs in <a href="http://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/556140695162200064/photo/1" rel="nofollow">Gavin's</a> and <a href="http://twitter.com/krabkrabkrab/status/557365602495369216/photo/1" rel="nofollow"> rick baartman's</a> tweets. How anyone could refute the solidity of the consensus science and ignore the depauperacy of the denialist pseudoscience in the face of just those two graphs astonishes me - even after all these years...Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-20049010873092554572015-02-20T12:30:22.617+11:002015-02-20T12:30:22.617+11:00As far as I'm concerned and to all intents and...As far as I'm concerned and to all intents and purposes, 2014 was the hottest year on record. The chance of 2014 being the hottest year has been worked out at 30% greater (NOAA) or 15% greater (NASA) than it being the next hottest year (2010).<br /><br />Victor Venema has a nice post on the pickiness of deniers when it comes to the hottest year on record (so far). He compared it to world records in athletics.<br /><br />http://variable-variability.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/we-have-new-record.html<br /><br />What makes this hottest year important is the context more than the actual year (eg it could have been 2013 but wasn't, soon it might be 2015 or 2016). <br /><br />Fourteen of the hottest fifteen years on record have been from 2001 onwards. There hasn't been a coldest year on record in more than a century - not since 1909 (GISTemp). <br /><br />Last year was 1.2 degrees hotter than the coldest year on record. (It was also 0.2 degrees hotter than the fifteenth hottest year on record, 2008.)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-84619339982011672562015-02-20T11:32:14.094+11:002015-02-20T11:32:14.094+11:00Tony Learns observed "You could use your argu...Tony Learns observed "<i>You could use your argument with every single year being slightly statistically hotter than the last. It could be 3°C warmer by 2050 without ever being able to be sure that any particular year was the warmest</i>".<br /><br />I made the same point a couple of years ago in a conversation just like this one, and perhaps even on Hotwhopper. I can't find it now, but I did link to <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=11&p=5#89115" rel="nofollow">this graph that I posted at Skeptical Science</a>. It demonstrates that one could have consistent underlying interdecadal warming of 2° C per century and never detect it with statistical significance even over a period of 12-20 in the most recent past.<br /><br />Now, what were you saying about climate shifts Rob Ellison?<br />Bernard J.noreply@blogger.com