Report this

00

Obviously, whoever is writing the Blimey stuff fails that logic bar, and self-editing requirement completely. I should have kept the ban on (he’s been blocked once as “Brendan” and using two identities is another reason to ban). But since sometimes he posts a link to an interesting paper I allowed him, it, her, them, to post, just in case he could point to another interesting paper. Silly me.

It’s easy to waste a bloggers time. Blimey tactics:
1. Post long link-filled comments, where most of the sentences are written in condescending smug bombastic terms, often incoherent too.
2. Post links to papers he doesn’t understand and can’t explain or discuss the evidence. But then claim unscientifically, that they must be right, they are peer reviewed, and from an expert. This guarantees no real scientific dialogue is possible. He has an infinite number of irrelevant, flawed, incomplete, out of date papers to draw on, and no need to read them first.
3. Accuse me of deceiving people but hypocritically get huffy when I point out he writes in an incoherent style. He expects me to ask for “clarification”, but he’s free to invent insults.
4. Demand I justify points which I’ve blogged on repeatedly but who are too lazy to use my index. (See “evidence”, and “New Here?”)
5. Invent strawmen. eg “Like the way you contradict yourself on CO2 being a feedback. Ooops!”
6. React with faux indignation at non-points, ie defending his anonymous pseudonym.
7. Go off topic,
8. Repeat steps 1 – 7 ad nauseum.

No I don’t have time to get into long conversations with anonymous time wasters.

For the Record:

The Idso rebuttals he quoted are an fallacious ad hom, they are:
1/ about Craig Idso’s father
2/ written about different papers to the ones I quote on another topic.
3/ Was rebutted and updated years ago by Sherwood Idso (as it happens)

He/she/it discounts all of one man’s work based on attacks on his father. Then cherry picks papers (the idso rebuttal was from the same edition of the journal he quotes above, but he didn’t list it), and accuse me of cherry picking. (I prefer the UAH series BTW because 1 it agrees with the radiosondes best in the Upper T, 2/ the other satellite series RSS is known to have a slight warm bias, 3/ Giss et al uses ground stations are near airports and tarmacs.)

The single point in his long comment that relates to the original post, and the evidence, is a repeat assertion about “a paper” (as usual, he don’t tell us which paper, just refer to “one of the links” above) said this:

“We can use this empirically derived climate sensitivity to predict the temperature rise from a forcing of 4 W/m2, arising from a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial levels. The result is a predicted temperature increase of 3 °C.”

I did read all the papers he suggested in a comment above — Hansen 2008, Royer 2007, Chylek 2008. Royer and Chylek are models as I expected. If he meant Hansen 2008? – he didn’t read it — Hansens aim to “verify” models with paleo data. It’s the “best” but horribly confounded, very circular, and demonstrates nothing. That’s why even Hansen didn’t get excited about this paper.
It doesn’t have the resolution to test cause and effect. They assume a climate sensitivity of 3/4°C per W/m2 and then use models to calculate a global temperature scale, which not surprisingly fits the known pattern, which proves nothing. With a flawed model, and sea levels (at a resolution of a few thousands years) they can produce a graph a lot like “the real one”. But temperatures drive the CO2 curve, and they also drive sea levels. It’s just not possible to extract the climate sensitivity from that confounded mix.

The neolithic unscientific reasoning “by authority”, and ad homs don’t meet the standards of logic for commenters here. For the minimal benefit of dubious papers he brings, he requires too much editing.

No more from Brendan-blimey. I’ll go back to unpacking people with real names, who write material coherent enough to be published by real news sources.

Jo

The Evidence:

The repeated request for evidence from someone too lazy to look before scoffing with fake zeal: From the New Here page:

there is no empirical (by observation) evidence that net feedbacks (mostly clouds and humidity) will amplify the warming in the long run.
Humidity will rise, sure, but it can rain out or form low clouds. This is what the trillion dollar bet is about. Will humidity hang around and thicken the “blanket”, or not? While the simulations say “yes”, the observations say “No”. Measurements of satellites, cloud cover changes, 3,000 ocean bouys, 6,000 boreholes, and 28 million weather balloons looking at temperature or humidity can’t find the warming that the models predict. The heat is not in the upper troposphere (the hot spot is missing) and, importantly, while ocean heat has been rising for decades, it isn’t rising fast enough. There is no hidden heat accumulating there.

Off the top of my head: Lindzen and Choi 2011 (and 2010), Douglass and Keen (Argo), Christie et al 2010, McKitrick 2010 (and correngium updated 2011). Spencer and Braswell 2010 updated 2011. McKitrick, R. and Vogelsang, T. J. (2011), Anagnostopoulos, G. G., D. Koutsoyiannis, A. 2010.

——————

PS: Seriously Blimey– it’s been nice, and I’m flattered and all — wish I had the time to keep helping you with the basics of logic and sentence construction, but I have to get back to writing about people who have reputations that matter. I do hope you graduate to a real name one day. You have potential.

Report this

10

Que? You misquoted me, apologized, and now expect me to quantify how many times you were wrong?

No, I expect you to read properly and quantify the “minor” effect. You don’t provide any scientific evidence for why you think the CO2 effect is minor.

See “evidence” in the site index.

Contrast that to the science in the IPCC report which shows the amount of forcing GHG have.

http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-2-23.jpg

When will you provide such evidence or analysis?

See “evidence” in the site index.

[snip incoherent ]

And you can’t find an example of me cherry picking. the best you can do is read something that wasn’t there, and leap with wild inferred excitement to the “proof” of something you want to find.

[snip repetitive - he sill can't provide any evidence to back up the Caillon speculative caveat.]

Did you miss the post about you cherry picking UAH data in your handbook?

UAH data agree with both major radiosondes sets. RSS is known to have a warm bias. Your team pick GISS all the time because it’s the highest.

https://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/theres-been-no-warming-since-2001-er-no-better-make-that-2010/

Blimey/Brendan/anonymous fan, we did this to death. You accuse me of not explaining every caveat in a headline, even though I got the text right.

No I accused you of cherry picking. You accept only the science that supports your preconceived opinion and you reject out of hand anything you disagree with, even when it is pointed out that you never supply evidence to support your position.

except for hundreds of posts when I do. See “evidence” in the site index. See also “New Here”, The Skeptics Handbook I and II.

[snip off topic]

[snip baby-like bluster without any reference or substantiation].

Idso quotes 1100 studies to show that acidification is not the guaranteed disaster that it’s made out to be, and you find one study of the 1100 that says that one of the many species that benefit from more CO2 is an algae? That’s it? And many of the other papers you find quote damage at very low pH’s, which will not occur in the next 3000 years.

No, I picked out the most obvious one to demonstrate why Idso’s shallow analysis method is flawed.

And I listed numerous other problems here … https://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/nova-on-acid/ … to which you seem oblivious or lack the ability to counter argue.
[snip condescending vacuous non-reason]

[snip, irrational. When you give us your real name we will bother to spell it properly]

[snip more bluster with no substantiation]

Oh look an anonymous commenter reckons climate scientist Idso is “flawed”, based on… his opinion.

By anonymous blogger, do you mean climate scientist publishing in peer-reviewed journals?

http://www.springerlink.com/content/p774t26218367vl5/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h41u42t104411870/

Idso’s methods do not get repeated these days by any other climate scientist. That’s because they were shown to be flawed, not because I said so.

[snip - see my comment below]

[Cherry picking = 0. Skill with stats = infinite. You are far too kind.]

[snip bluster]

No. not a tangent. That is the whole point. You claim the climate sensitivity is high, but you can’t name any empirical evidence to back it up.

Gosh it’s remarkable that you write this and COMPLETELY IGNORE THE LINK GIVEN WHICH SHOWS THE CALCULATION BASED ON EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

This is what I mean by incoherent. Which link? What paper? What evidence? See below in my comment.

[snip baseless repetition]

So you concede you take those papers on “faith” and can’t explain how they calculated climate sensitivity.

(I looked btw, and they are based on models.)

[snip bluster]

We can use this empirically derived climate sensitivity to predict the temperature rise from a forcing of 4 W/m2, arising from a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial levels. The result is a predicted temperature increase of 3 °C.

Estimating climate sensitivity based on ice cores is problematic in any case, as Lindzen and others are now pointing out.

It’s always been problematic. But that begs the question, how do you know it’s low or is this just more of your wishful thinking without evidence?

We can’t calculate the climate sensitivity when the time-frame for equilibrum conditions is so much shorter than the data points. Lindzen and spencer are analyzing “months”. The ice core data is hundreds of years between CO2 points.

Transient sensitivity is defined as 20 years and even that’s lower and shorter than equilibrium conditions. I suggest you try again Nova, perhaps after you understand the definition.

[Which agrees with my point. The data from ice cores doesn't have the resolution even if it is a 20 year "equilibrium. ]

Yawn, In the end, basically I’m “wrong” because I’m a blogger.

No, you seem to be wrong because you fail to look at ALL of the evidence.

You are wrong because you cherry pick only the small sections of data that agree with your viewpoint and ignore all other science that shows the planet is warming.

You are not right simply because you state something. You need to follow that up with evidence. Scientific evidence.

Note: he/ she/ it /they don’t provide any convincing evidence.

It doesn’t matter how much evidence I cite

I’ve asked for your calculations on climate sensitivity estimates many times already. Your answer is “I don’t calculate a “projection”.The modelers do.”.

See “evidence” in the site index. I list hundreds of papers.

That’s not supplying evidence.

[snip off-topic repetition I've already answered]
[snip irrational]

nor that I quote experts

[snip incoherent. I have never once said CO2 is not a feedback. ]

[snip bluster]

It’s known as argument from authority

And on a topic where you can’t get the definition of climate sensitivity right, let alone begin to calculate it, yes I’ll take their opinion over yours EVERY SINGLE TIME.

[snip drivel]

As said before, you can always ask for polite clarification rather than pretending a question doesn’t make sense.

Report this

11

I’m not a climate scientist and whilst I can follow the basics I am quite happy to admit that the more advanced workings are beyond my current understanding.

So you concede you take those papers on “faith” and can’t explain how they calculated climate sensitivity. (I looked btw, and they are based on models.)

Estimating climate sensitivity based on ice cores is problematic in any case, as Lindzen and others are now pointing out. We can’t calculate the climate sensitivity when the time-frame for equilibrum conditions is so much shorter than the data points. Lindzen and spencer are analyzing “months”. The ice core data is hundreds of years between CO2 points.

Yawn, In the end, basically I’m “wrong” because I’m a blogger. It doesn’t matter how much evidence I cite, nor the impeccable logic I speak, nor that I quote experts. If I was a certified expert, you’d know I was right, even if I disagreed with other certified experts (and they’d be right too, of course).
What a bog-of-confusion.

It’s known as argument from authority, and there is no point continuing the conversation. There is nothing I could say that would change your mind. You are stuck in the stone age logic of pandering to your chosen Gods.

I’ve added in a few inline comments above, some of the non-sequiteurs are not worth cut and pasting. They don’t make sense even in context.

Report this

20

[I have repeated that CO2 causes minor warming maybe 100 times on my blog. Only a religious reader could ignore that. JN]

But once again you fail to quantify that amount, nor do you present any science to support your view. “Blogger science” is worthless.

Que? You misquoted me, apologized, and now expect me to quantify how many times you were wrong?

[I'm just stating the obvious. Go read Caillon and find the evidence within it that supports that speculative statement.
If a scientific paper said 2+2=5, (pace Keenan) I don't need to publish a peer reviewed paper to point out the flaw. JN]

Caillon is not stating that 2+2=5, Caillon states that CO2 is a feedback. This is not speculative, but based on the knowledge that CO2 is a GHG and that Temperature was causing CO2 levels to rise, both which you agreed.

This means CO2 was acting as a positive feedback. For you to state that you no longer wish to agree with Caillon on this point is like having a logical disagreement with yourself.

OK, you admit you can’t find any evidence in the Caillon paper to back up his statements on feedback.

[...Also known as IPCC standard procedure. JN]

So you don’t deny cherry picking? You’re happy to cherry pick and thereby deliberately mislead people. Interesting!

And you can’t find an example of me cherry picking. the best you can do is read something that wasn’t there, and leap with wild inferred excitement to the “proof” of something you want to find.

And so can you show me where in the IPCC report they cherry pick temperature data the same way you do?

Blimey/Brendan/anonymous fan, we did this to death. You accuse me of not explaining every caveat in a headline, even though I got the text right.

[I did. See my commentary and graphs on this page. JN]

You have written nothing that contradicts Caillon suggestion that CO2 is a positive feedback.

I’m not the one pretending that Caillon is evidence for positive feedback. You are. You find the observations. I said they’re NOT there. I’ll quote the evidence he didn’t provide “……”. Does that help?

[So I gather you concede that Cook used a deceptive graph, perhaps unwittingly, but never disclosed that to his readers, or objected to it's use... JN]

No, I’m not aware of the graph you refer to.

See here

I am aware that CO2Science Hides the Decline when they present unrealistic CO2 level projections.

Idso quotes 1100 studies to show that acidification is not the guaranteed disaster that it’s made out to be, and you find one study of the 1100 that says that one of the many species that benefit from more CO2 is an algae? That’s it? And many of the other papers you find quote damage at very low pH’s, which will not occur in the next 3000 years.

[Thanks. I'll reply to that in a comment when I have time to look at it. But I must say I'll be amazed if it's not just another model guesstimate. JN]

Where can I find your method of determining climate sentivity? How do YOU calculate a projection for comparison against empirical data?

(Please don’t go citing Idso again – we’ve been down that path and Idso’s methods were fundamentally flawed such that today NO climate scientist, even skeptical ones, accept his findings.)

Brimey, I don’t calculate a “projection”.The modelers do. Oh look an anonymous commenter reckons climate scientist Idso is “flawed”, based on… his opinion.

Blimey / Brendan / whoeveryouare, you write so much inconsequential baseless stuff (see my inline replies above) that on those 1 in 100 comments when you write something that matters I do miss it.

I see your skill with statistics is inversely proportional to that of your cherry picking ability.

[Cherry picking = 0. Skill with stats = infinite. You are far too kind.]

Thanks for the papers, now to show that you have read them and know something about them and are not just here to waste my time, you can explain in your own words how they calculated climate sensitivity due to CO2 and whether it was empirical as I asked for, or just based on models that we know to be fatally flawed.

Oh a tangent question not in the least bit connected to why CO2 is a feedback – FWIW …

No. not a tangent. That is the whole point. You claim the climate sensitivity is high, but you can’t name any empirical evidence to back it up.

No Jo, I’m not a climate scientist and whilst I can follow the basics I am quite happy to admit that the more advanced workings are beyond my current understanding. But that’s the difference between you and I. I’m an expert in a completely different field and I will concede that the experts in the field of climatology know a lot more about it than I do. Another difference between you and I is that acccept all of the science unless new science shows it to be flawed. And that science MUST come from the peer-reviewed process, whilst not perfect, it’s certainly much better than making crap up and posting it on a blogger website.

I will also take this opportunity to once again point out they even I with my limited knowledge know that you are wrong when you say … “Climate sensitivity refers to carbon dioxide’s effect on the climate.”. Whilst often expressed per doubling of CO2, climate sensitivity is the temperature response to a given amount of radiative forcing, no matter what the source of forcing.

Hence you can even estimate the climate sensitivity from ice cores where the solar forcing drove the change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Sample_calculation_using_ice-age_data

Of course, you have read the papers haven’t you? You aren’t just taking them on “faith”?

People that have spent many years studying the science in one area are generally much better at it than some blogger on the internet. Especially when that blogger is easily exposed for their cherry picking methods and lack of understand in even something so basic as the definition of climate sensitivity.

Yeah, I’ll accept the scientific consensus on matters that are beyond my own understanding every single time.

Report this

64

Thanks for the papers, now to show that you have read them and know something about them and are not just here to waste my time, you can explain in your own words how they calculated climate sensitivity due to CO2 and whether it was empirical as I asked for, or just based on models that we know to be fatally flawed.

Of course, you have read the papers haven’t you? You aren’t just taking them on “faith”?

Report this

10

As for Cook, you “me too’ed” 100% of Blimey’s proof (which was the Cook link and the speculative caveat). You own it too.

As for the “runaway” greenhouse effect. I realize that f < unity does not guarantee a runaway effect. But f = .65 (IPCC) is still so high in a multivariate system that it's inherently unstable. All it takes is a few other parameters to shift through their natural ranges and given a billion years, would go off the scale. No natural stable state has a positive feedback as wildly high as 0.65.

See my point 5 above. The Climate Scare has no paper to support their claims of amplification. It's speculation. Is it 0.1, or 0.65? Who knows, but based on the past 500 million years 0.65 is highly unlikely.

Report this

00

1. I have never said “the lag is proof that CO2 is not a GHG.” You can apologize for the misquote when what I did say is written on this very page. Perhaps you could read it?

I apologise. I’m glad you agree CO2 is a GHG and it has a warming effect. From the way you go on about the lag so much it appears as if you think CO2 does not have a warming effect. To the casual reader it looks almost as if you are intentionally misleading them.

[I have repeated that CO2 causes minor warming maybe 100 times on my blog. Only a religious reader could ignore that. JN]

2. I read Callion: He has no evidence in his paper to back up that statement you quote, it’s just pure speculation. That he said it rather proves that people have to write bland mindless caveats into their papers in order to get published.

And your peer-reviewed rebuttal can be found where exactly?

[I'm just stating the obvious. Go read Caillon and find the evidence within it that supports that speculative statement.
If a scientific paper said 2+2=5, (pace Keenan) I don't need to publish a peer reviewed paper to point out the flaw. JN]

What’s the term for cherry picking out only the small section of science that supports your own beliefs and ignoring the rest? Oh that’s right, it’s “cherry picking”.

[...Also known as IPCC standard procedure. JN]

I don’t mind dispensing with poor science, should it turn out to be that way, but you need to back up your claim with evidence, not just your own opinion.

[I did. See my commentary and graphs on this page. JN]

3. Tristan: Just because John Cook reckons something is so doesn’t make it true.

It’s the science Cook cites that’s important, and he doesn’t cherry pick just a piece of abstract.

[How is it cherry picking when I'm talking about his major conclusion, backed by the evidence in his paper? Do you think I'm supposed to reprint speculative caveats which have no data to back them up every time too? JN]

Indeed when I have bothered to debunk Cook, Cook had no reply, and didn’t apologize for all his errors, or his use of a flagrantly deceptive graph either.

I’ve not seen CO2Science correct their graph on ocean acidification either.

[So I gather you concede that Cook used a deceptive graph, perhaps unwittingly, but never disclosed that to his readers, or objected to it's use... JN]

4. Blimey, my moderators can write where ever they so choose. Get over it. If you lift your standards and quote me instead of attacking strawmen they won’t have the urge to write all over your sloppy comments eh?

CTS’s posting an abstract had nothing to do with my standard of comment.

I agree your moderators can and will write wherever they like. That doesn’t make it appropriate. The copy/paste of an abstract, without any comment from the moderator added nothing to this discussion. They would have been better to cite the abstract and explain their reasoning for the citation.

Doing so in a new post rather than editing my post will make this topic flow better.

5. Go on, both of you, find one paper that calculates climate sensitivity due to CO2 (ie.demonstrating the positive feedbacks) from the ice core data post 1999.

Really Jo? You’ve agreed that CO2 is a GHG (thus it traps heat – and you seem to agree on this although you’ve a slightly twisted concept of climate sensitivity -it’s not specific to CO2 but to any forcing. Perhaps your confused because it is quite often expressed as per doubling of CO2). You’ve also agreed that Temperature controlled CO2.

So when the temperature rises, the CO2 levels increase and therefore, because CO2 is a GHG then it causes even more heating. That’s a positive feedback.

I’m not sure why you wish to venture into climate sensitivity at this point, but here’s an answer for you anyway.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Hansen_etal.pdf

[Thanks. I'll reply to that in a comment when I have time to look at it. But I must say I'll be amazed if it's not just another model guesstimate. JN]

… global climate sensitivity including the slow surface albedo feedback is 1.5°C per W/m2 or 6°C for doubled CO2 (Fig. 2), twice as large as the Charney fastfeedback sensitivity.

Or perhaps you could have looked at any of the others I listed last time you made this request instead of ignoring me.

Report this

00

As for Cook, I don’t see what he has to do with my comment but he can defend himself if he cares to. I certainly don’t share all of his opinions.

Report this

00

Report this

00