tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post8499944124937764346..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Denier Don Easterbrook and his 30 year periodsSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49434181820843948982016-08-26T08:56:35.063+10:002016-08-26T08:56:35.063+10:00Don Easterbrook brings up an interesting argument....Don Easterbrook brings up an interesting argument. If this PDO alternates every so often proving that temperature rise is natural than sea level rise must be natural because of the tides.<br /><br />Therefore we can't do anything about it and we don't need to worry about it. Just as we do not worry about or bother to fight plagues and cancer.MightyDrunkennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-41059242000539510492016-08-25T22:28:16.514+10:002016-08-25T22:28:16.514+10:00More likely the Antediluvian bar...
RMore likely the Antediluvian bar...<br /><br />RAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-7098170259728563252016-08-25T21:46:03.100+10:002016-08-25T21:46:03.100+10:00This comment has been removed by the author.chrisdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10494573891618930891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-80737993083060905772016-08-25T21:40:50.605+10:002016-08-25T21:40:50.605+10:00DC, I suspect that you're probably right about...DC, I suspect that you're probably right about most of that, with one exception. It seems to me that 'reduction in world industry due to destruction of many European and Japanese factories' would reduce aerosol emissions and thus be a post-war warming factor rather than a post-war cooling factor. chrisdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10494573891618930891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-493664834035161082016-08-25T20:38:16.255+10:002016-08-25T20:38:16.255+10:00It the same problem when they bring the 1860 - 188...It the same problem when they bring the 1860 - 1880 warming period as part of the 60 year cycle. That's only a 20 year period compared with the past 46 years.Bellmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04872924578152375407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-73019114344203726102016-08-25T11:43:47.705+10:002016-08-25T11:43:47.705+10:00"Your Honour, ladies and gentlemen of the jur..."Your Honour, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, forest conflagrations and scrub fires have blazed across this nation - indeed, they have shaped the continent as we know it - for countless millenia, well before <i>Homo sapiens</i> ever trod upon its shores or traversed its (highly flammable!) interior, and certainly well before the invention of the puny, insubstantial Zippo lighter you have been presented as supposed 'evidence', and yet the prosecution has the temerity to make a claim that my client is guilty of some putative crime it refers to as 'arson'..."<br /><br />(Lord Monckton at the Antipodean bar?)billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-57091832340207262842016-08-25T09:22:27.641+10:002016-08-25T09:22:27.641+10:00Don E:
"I plotted up the GISP2 oxygen isotope...Don E:<br />"I plotted up the GISP2 oxygen isotope measurements of Stuiver and Grootes for the past 500 years and found a pattern of regularly alternating warm/cool periods with an average duration of 27 years (you can find this curve in several of my publications–just google my name to find them).<br /><br />This regularly repeating pattern of warm/cool periods of 25-30 years, long before CO2 entered the picture, shows that these climate changes have nothing at all to do with CO2 . And because the past is the key to the future–we can extrapolate this ongoing pattern into the future (which I did in 1999 when I predicted global cooling for the first two decades of this century)"<br /><br />Don Easterbunny 'finds' a 'pattern' in GISP2: circa 30 year warming cooling periods at one site, which he then blithely extrapolates to a global scale signal....he uses his 'discovery' to predict, in 1999, cooling in the first two decades of this century..<br /><br />His 'prediction' fails his first test...but the Easterbunny does not notice.<br /><br />What is going on in his head?Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09537772941984056434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-7556988526388340562016-08-25T02:20:53.834+10:002016-08-25T02:20:53.834+10:00Re. the "there always been forest fires"...Re. the "there always been forest fires" meme, I once asked some skeptic who had put it in strong terms (something like: since the earth formed 4 billion years ago there have always been floods, hurricanes, forest fires, etc.) if that had been the case before the oxygenation of the atmosphere could support combustion or before the evolution of land plants.<br /><br />No reply, and I doubt I convinced him of anything except to be more careful with his talking points.Magmanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-29655367826731284902016-08-25T01:23:17.769+10:002016-08-25T01:23:17.769+10:00DC - it's flattering :)DC - it's flattering :)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-41480816332492744232016-08-25T01:15:11.034+10:002016-08-25T01:15:11.034+10:00Sou, sorry for confusing you with SkS. Both great ...Sou, sorry for confusing you with SkS. Both great though.D.C.Pettersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05078422582348328238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-84610285992526887602016-08-25T00:37:51.019+10:002016-08-25T00:37:51.019+10:00Excellent - thanks, Mark.
I've also fixed the...Excellent - thanks, Mark.<br /><br />I've also fixed the link:<br /><a href="http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2016/08/naive-empiricism-and-what-theory.html" rel="nofollow">http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2016/08/naive-empiricism-and-what-theory.html</a>Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-43997708538978553992016-08-25T00:32:26.543+10:002016-08-25T00:32:26.543+10:00Victor Venema's most recent blog post touches ...Victor Venema's most recent blog post touches on some of the issues in the 1940-45 data set: <a rel="nofollow">http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2016/08/naive-empiricism-and-what-theory.html</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12592033354859428333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-90512298824241162542016-08-25T00:25:01.801+10:002016-08-25T00:25:01.801+10:00>>Sou, I know you have used the image of a b...>><i>Sou, I know you have used the image of a body with a knife stuck into it</i><br /><br />That would have been SkS rather than me, I think. I might have done, but I generally shy away from that sort of imagery.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10999873949823559772016-08-24T23:38:18.238+10:002016-08-24T23:38:18.238+10:00DavidR,
"Your 9/11 analogy, whilst apt, migh...DavidR,<br /><br /><i>"Your 9/11 analogy, whilst apt, might trigger a whole new set of conspiracy theories in the mind of the average climate 'sceptic'!"</i><br /><br />It's sort of an experiment to see how hard it is to start rumors :)D.C.Pettersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05078422582348328238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-78421009270923312932016-08-24T23:34:22.195+10:002016-08-24T23:34:22.195+10:00I suspect the pre-1940 spike and subsequent brief ...I suspect the pre-1940 spike and subsequent brief drop will eventually come down to a combination of factors:<br /><br />1) The period from 1850 to 1940 saw rapid increase in the use of coal in both home heating and industrial processes; the greenhouse emissions from that could have contributed to the rise of temps pre-1940.<br /><br />2) An artifact of differences in measurement during the war, which significantly impacted how temperature data was collected.<br /><br />3) Cooling influences after the war: aerosols caused by the war, and reduction in world industry due to destruction of many European and Japanese factories.<br /><br />4) Natural variations that coincided with the war, leading to mutually reinforcing forcings (warming before, cooling after).<br /><br />5) Maybe some other more minor factors we haven't thought of (seems unlikely though).<br /><br />It's significant that most denialist arguments about the 1930s-1940s spike don't bother with "causes", and simply assert that today's increases can't be human-caused because (another assertion) the 30s-40s spike wasn't human-caused.<br />D.C.Pettersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05078422582348328238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-61064429299056475932016-08-24T23:29:21.441+10:002016-08-24T23:29:21.441+10:00lollolTadaaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07736188830660481871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-18245620693684734982016-08-24T23:28:12.942+10:002016-08-24T23:28:12.942+10:00imv the best response to the "happened before...imv the best response to the "happened before" meme, is Forest Fires <br /><br />that they occurred exclusively by natural phenomena over the last million or so years, does not stop the fact, in the present they are overwhelmingly caused by human factors <br /><br />(quickly googles "biggest cause forest fires")Tadaaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07736188830660481871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-86835253504895875782016-08-24T23:27:10.585+10:002016-08-24T23:27:10.585+10:00This comment has been removed by the author.Tadaaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07736188830660481871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-65684420457092592582016-08-24T23:23:55.195+10:002016-08-24T23:23:55.195+10:00D.C.Petterson
I prefer the forest fire analogy (&...D.C.Petterson<br /><br />I prefer the forest fire analogy ('forest fires occurred before there were humans, therefore humans can't be the cause of forest fires').<br /><br />Your 9/11 analogy, whilst apt, might trigger a whole new set of conspiracy theories in the mind of the average climate 'sceptic'!DavidRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-85430892011941880512016-08-24T23:22:39.348+10:002016-08-24T23:22:39.348+10:00"... warming from 1910 to 1945 ... similar wa..."... warming from 1910 to 1945 ... similar warming from 1975 to 2009..."<br /><br />Okay, this is a rhetorical question. Why stop the second period at 2009? Warming has continued unabated (in fact, has accelerated) in the subsequent years from 2009 to 2016.<br /><br />The answer is obvious: because that would make the second period 46 years long (at least--it's still ongoing) as contrasted with the 35 years of the first period, thus blowing the idea of repeating cycles of roughly equal lengths.<br /><br />Notably, May and Easterbrook didn't mention any "pause" as a significant part of the second period. What's up with that? Are the WUWTism Cultists coming after them with pitchforks for ignoring such a basic tenet of denialist dogma?D.C.Pettersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05078422582348328238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-7058928646203404902016-08-24T22:59:09.473+10:002016-08-24T22:59:09.473+10:00I have a snigger when I see the deniers come up wi...I have a snigger when I see the deniers come up with all these fantastic theories based on circumstantial evidence (anything but CO2 oh my!). We should send them to Senator Malcolm Roberts so he can challenge them in parliament for not having any evidence :-)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-43129806474747562632016-08-24T22:55:36.036+10:002016-08-24T22:55:36.036+10:00I do recall someone was discussing once that the d...I do recall someone was discussing once that the drop may have been caused by WW2 aerosols. Maybe an internet search will turn up something.<br /><br />Just eyeballing it it looks like a warm peak that regressed back to the mean afterwards, so if it is real and not just an artifact I would say it was just a burst of natural warming.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-36023797600990042882016-08-24T22:54:25.195+10:002016-08-24T22:54:25.195+10:00This will be a bit long. I apologize for that. I t...This will be a bit long. I apologize for that. I think i need to turn this into an article.<br /><br />I'm frequently amused by the denier arguments involving natural variation. The simplest form of the argument is, "It's been warm before, therefore CO2 can't be causing the warming now." <br /><br />Any one of an infinite number of analogies can be used to show why this is a silly argument. Sou, I know you have used the image of a body with a knife stuck into it; people have died before of natural causes, therefore this person couldn't have been murdered. I've used the idea that flat tires can happen from running over a nail, therefore a tire can't go flat by being slashed.<br /><br />Lately, I've been using The 9/11 Analogy: buildings have been destroyed by natural disasters like earthquakes or hurricanes, therefore the World Trade Towers were not brought down by airlines crashing into them.<br /><br />Half of the response to idiot positions like that of Easterbrook or Andy May is to show the ridiculousness of the basic argument. The other have is evidence-based, something which is implicit in the analogies. In order to argue that two superficially similar results were brought about by the same causes, one has to provide evidence that the same causes were present both times. Further, correlation is not causation; one has to describe the mechanism by which those causes operate, and prove that mechanism was in force in both instances.<br /><br />The simplest version of the denialist argument is mere pattern recognition. We look at a graph and think we see similar bulges both <b><i>here</i></b> and <b><i>there</i></b>, and then merely assert the two must had had the same cause. That's not science. That's <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/haruspicy" rel="nofollow">haruspicy</a>. It's the equivalent of reading tea leaves or watching the flight of migratory birds to predict the fluctuations of the stock market. It has no explanatory power and doesn't even attempt to understand causes.<br /><br />The reason climate scientists say the current upward temperature trend is caused by CO2 isn't simply because the temperature is going up and so is CO2 production. It's because the causes of previous climate changes are mostly understood, and the forces that drive them are not in place today; and further, we know the impact that rising levels of atmospheric CO2 would be expected to have, and we are seeing precisely that.<br />D.C.Pettersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05078422582348328238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-52189906260745112192016-08-24T21:47:27.318+10:002016-08-24T21:47:27.318+10:00I think it's entirely explained by El-Nino, AM...I think it's entirely explained by El-Nino, AMO, and PDO on top of the secular warming from CO2.<br /><br />It's a little crude still but you can use this tool to play with some of these factors: http://phosphorus.github.io/app.html?id=17364672&full-screen=true<br /><br />Set CO2 to 2.25, NINO to 0.03, and PDO to 0.07. The blue line is the result of your selections and shows a similar spike at 1940.Layzejhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11346550512734519728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-38773895265366783832016-08-24T21:01:25.900+10:002016-08-24T21:01:25.900+10:00The quantity of particulates released into the atm...The quantity of particulates released into the atmosphere *should* cause a drop in global temperatures. Running a Google search shows that the usual suspects ('Steven Goddard', Judith Curry, WUWT, Bob Tisdale, etc) have a bit of an obsession with the 1940s 'blip' although I can't for the life of me figure out why (heavy sarcasm).Kevin Bettsnoreply@blogger.com