Bob Tisdale is wrong!

I think Anthony Watts must be getting rattled by what Sou is writing on her blog. Not only did he – very kindly – out her a while ago, he and Bob Tisdale now insist on using her proper name (rather than her chosen pseudonym), and Bob Tisdale has now written two posts about why she is wrong and he is right (here and here). There’s nothing fundamentally immoral or illegal about deciding not to respect someone’s decision to remain pseudonymous, but it’s not great. Given that all you typically discover is someone’s name, where they work, and something of where they live, it would seem to be more an intimidation tactic, than anything else.

I haven’t gone through Bob Tisdale’s recent posts about Sou to see precisely what he thinks she’s getting wrong, but I have read a number of his earlier posts, that present his views on global warming. I’ve also read many of Sou’s posts. Bob’s are typically wrong, and Sou’s are – typically – not wrong. The main problem with Bob’s principle argument is that he is suggesting that global warming is a consequence of ENSO events. He does this by looking at temperature records and associating changes in temperature with ENSO events. Nothing fundamentally wrong with this, as it is clear that ENSO events are significant contributor to variability in the temperature record. However, this does not mean that they are the cause of our long-term warming.

The problem with Bob’s basic idea is that if we are in equilibrium and an ENSO event produces a change in surface temperature, this will either push temperatures above equilibrium, and we will then be losing more energy than we’re gaining and will then cool, or it will do the reverse. The heat content of the atmosphere is quite low, so we should then return to equilibrium quite quickly. This isn’t what we’re seeing. On long timescales we see a continual rise in surface temperatures. Is there a way that this could simply be a consequence of ENSO events?

Well, we could have started out of equilibrium and we’re simply recovering, with the ENSO events simply modulating the recovery. The problem with this is that the temperature profile is wrong. We should have warmed faster in the beginning than now. Also, paleo evidence suggests that we’re warmer today than we’ve probably been for more than a thousand years. If so, how are we still out of energy balance and warming, if we’re already warmer than we been for more than 1000 years? Alternatively, ENSO events are pumping so much energy out of the oceans into the atmosphere that we’re continuing to warm despite being above the equilibrium temperature. The obvious problem here is that if that were the case, the ocean heat content should be decreasing, not increasing – as it very obviously is. We’re very clearly currently gaining more energy than we’re losing. How can this be due to ENSO events?

So, what could it actually be? Well, the most likely reason for our current warming is the significant increase in atmospheric CO2, driven by anthropogenic emissions, that then acts as a greenhouse gas. This means that it traps some of the outgoing long-wavelength radiation, moving us out of energy balance, and causing the energy in the climate system to increase until surface temperatures have risen to the point where the outgoing flux matches the incoming flux.

So, I can understand that Bob might be slightly ticked off that Sou refers to him as perennially puzzled, but maybe he should consider the possibility that he actually is, rather than using what appears to be an intimidation tactic. Also, although he may not be actually encouraging misogynistic comments on his posts, he’s doing little to discourage them. I also think that if there is any real desire to improve the dialogue about climate science, a first step is to eliminate those ideas that are clearly wrong. Bob’s it’s all ENSO very clearly is, and while Anthony Watts continues to promote Bob and his ideas on his blog, I don’t see the point of trying to engage constructively.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Anthony Watts, Bob Tisdale, Climate change, ClimateBall, ENSO, Global warming, Satire, Science and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

144 Responses to Bob Tisdale is wrong!

  1. jsam says:

    Watts’ purpose is disruption not construction. Tiswas fits in perfectly.

  2. John Hartz says:

    ATTP: Posts like this do nothing more than give Tisdale, Watts, and their cronies oxygen. I say, “Let them wallow in their own poppycock.” We’ve got more important things to do.

  3. curiousaboutclimate says:

    The energy has to come from somewhere! Does Tisdale not understand this? Ocean cycles, simply put, cannot explain a warming ocean and a warming surface and atmosphere at the same time, especially with declining solar output.

  4. gator says:

    Not using a person’s chosen pseudonym is at best impolite, at worst intimidation. It is deliberate. Notice they use ATTP’s name, Sou’s name, but not Steve Goddard’s name.

  5. JH,
    You make a perfectly valid point. Pointing out their errors every now and again does seem to have its place though.

    curious,
    Indeed, that would seem obvious to anyone who understands the concept of energy conservation. Hence my conclusion that Bob does not understand this very simple physical law.

  6. gator,
    Have they really used my name? I hadn’t thought so, but maybe things have changed.

  7. ATTP: “There’s nothing fundamentally immoral or illegal about deciding not to respect someone’s decision to remain pseudonymous, but it’s not great. “

    Maybe the key word is “fundamentally”, but I would see outing someone real name against their wishes as immoral. The more so as the aim is clearly to intimidate people, as you also write yourself:

    ATTP: “Given that all you typically discover is someone’s name, where they work, and something of where they live, it would seem to be more an intimidation tactic, than anything else. “

    Steve Goddard published a comment with a call to his social Darwinists to visit me in my office. This is not a scientific debate and people knowing your name is not just fun.

  8. Rachel M says:

    I think it probably is unethical to disclose someone’s identity when they want to remain anonymous, especially if harm can come to that individual. Even if no-one turns up at your office or sends you threatening mail, to have your identity handed over in a sort-of encourage the mob kind of way could be distressing and probably causes more than a little anxiety.

  9. Rachel,
    Yes, unethical, that’s the word I was looking for.

  10. BBD says:

    Watts has once again gone too far.

    What Victor relates above about “Goddard’s” behaviour only confirms that the intent is to silence by intimidation. By bullying. By fear.

    I’ve said it before and will happily repeat that these people are beneath contempt.

  11. BBD,
    Yes, that’s certainly how it seems,

    Victor,

    This is not a scientific debate and people knowing your name is not just fun.

    Indeed. There’s not much that is fun about this.

  12. BA says:

    Isn’t Bob Tisdale a pseudonym? Steve Goddard certainly is.

  13. BA,
    That’s something I had wondered too. Even if it isn’t, for all intents and purposes, it is. Not that I want to know anything personal about him, but given that he appears to not want that information publicised, it seems somewhat ironic (unethical) that he feels comfortable doing that to someone else, simply because that other person publicly criticises him.

    Steven Goddard is indeed a pseudonym and I do find it ironic that many who complain about those who use pseudonyms have not found it within themselves to criticise Steven Goddard. I think it has something to do with whether or not you agree with the person who’s using a pseudonym.

  14. Sou says:

    Thanks, ATTP.

    “Bob Tisdale’s” WUWT articles typically get very few comments and those that he does get are usually of the “I don’t understand it but it’s brilliant”, type. He’s getting a lot more comments now that he’s tossing the misogynists a bone. He’s finally found his forte 🙂 Bob’s still got practically no comments about the so-called “science” apart from “you sure showed them sciency types, Bob”. I don’t think anyone but Bob knows what he’s talking about. And Bob gets an awful lot wrong.

    (I alternate between the words “tedious” and “perennially puzzled” whenever I manage to get the energy to read one of Bob’s long-winded articles.)

  15. Sou,
    No problem, happy to help 🙂

    You could alternate between perennially puzzled and tediously tendentious.

  16. Sou says:

    BTW – I agree are indications that “Bob Tisdale” is a pseudonym. Not that I imagine his real name would mean anything to anyone. I’ve no problem with him using a pseudonym. He’s said on more than one occasion that he values his privacy.

    My contempt for him has risen because of his double standards in that regard; and his unethical attempts to intimidate / encourage his fans to harass the people I work with, and his encouragement of crude sexist comments. (What is weird is the WUWT-ers who arrive at HW from one of the more vulgar threads at WUWT, at times with not-so-veiled threats to me personally, and have the cheek to complain about the tone at HW.)

  17. WebHubTelescope says:

    [Mod: disrespectful] You try googling something on ENSO or Pacific oscillations and all you find is his dreck. At some point somebody has to start cleaning this stuff up, otherwise it will continue to swirl around and lower the scientific IQ of people trying to learn something.

  18. AndyL says:

    I don’t normally read Bob Tisdale’s posts, but after reading this post I made an exception.

    ATTP says he disbelieves Bob Tisdale because his theories have some fundamental error. However in the post that ATTP criticises, Bob Tisdale has not put forward any theory at all. He has merely shown data that apparently demonstrates Sou is in error in her analysis.

    I really don’t care enough about the topic to plough through reams of posts and comments, but in general it isn’t a great idea to say “Sou is right and Bob is wrong” based on some previous posts without even glancing at the post in question.

  19. AndyL,
    If you’d read my post properly you’d have noticed that I said Bob’s posts are typically wrong and Sou’s are typically right.

  20. Doug Bostrom says:

    Further to John Hartz, perhaps the vector of Tisdale’s notoriety could be improved while still permitting discussion by henceforth always referring to her/him (“Bob” but is it Roberta or Robert?) as “Heat Pump Tisdale?”

  21. EFS_Junior says:

    [Mod: Disrespectful]

    I use to comment over there and I had to out myself after numerous complaints from Willard about hiding behind a pseudonym. It finally came to the point where I basically said to Willis/Willard to go f**k yourselves (I used a fake name something like Willard Anthony Watts and a fake email address something like anthony.watts@wtfuwt.com.mie), knowing full well that they would do a IP traceback, which they did, and send me an email, which they did. Never opened/read that email, deleted it ASAP, it made the rest of my email feel, you know, dirty.

    Anyone who even posts over there, with less than half a denier brain, eventually gets censored, and/or questioned about their true identity.

  22. Sou,
    On one of Anthony’s threads (may have been the one where he implied I was a narcissistic, sadistic, psychopathic, troll) he was arguing against people being anonymous/pseudonymous. Numerous commenters were arguing that they were anonymous because of the typical tone of the debate. I happen to sympathise, but as you say, they seem to regard it as acceptable only when the person is someone with whom they agree.

    WHT,
    Indeed. I had a very interesting discussion on a blog somewhere with a Professor of Philosophy that ended up being about the advocacy and whether or not one could trust scientists who advocated. His example was James Hansen and his evidence was a WUWT post about Hansen’s 1988 paper. He took it very well when I pointed out that his evidence was from, arguably, the most ill-informed science blog in the history of the internet. However, if well-intentioned, credible academics can be fooled, then we have reason to worry about the role that Bob Tisdale’s misinformation is doing.

  23. Steve Bloom says:

    Tendentiously tedious is a little redundant. Totally tedious for the parallelism? And does turgid deserve a place in this line-up? But I like the concept very much.

    IIRC Tamino has used bag of hammers, which while lacking in alliteration has much to recommend it.

  24. AndyL says:

    ATTP
    You did say Bob’s posts are typically wrong, and I noticed that. However you have not demonstrated that “Bob Tisdale is Wrong!” in this case because your argument has nothing to do with the posts you linked to. You seem to be saying he is “Wrong!” now purely because he has been wrong before, and then attack his position on ENSO even though ENSO is not mentioned in his two posts.

    In this case his disagreement with Sou seems to be over which combination of data sets to use for sea temperatures around the Florida Keys, so your criticism of his theories is irrelevant.

    Rather than link your attack on Tisdale to this squabble, I sugget it would have been better to link it to a specific argument that he made.

    Oh, I agree with your points about pseudonyms, though there may have been some provocation. When it becomes appropriate to mention someones real name is an interesting topic, but on the internet it is difficult for anyone to have an expectation of anonymity

  25. AndyL,
    Oh, I see, you’re referring to the title. I could have written, Bob Tisdale is typically wrong and he’s also wrong to not respect someone’s choice to remain pseudonymous, but that doesn’t quite roll of the tongue as well as Bob Tisdale is wrong! Fair enough, given that I’ve haven’t read through his most recent post in exquisite detail, it’s possible that it isn’t wrong. It would be the first of his that could be described as “not wrong” if it is, though.

  26. Andrew Dodds says:

    The interesting thing is that something like ENSO could drive temperature (i.e. somehow set ‘normal’ to 0.2K above pre-ENSO, then there would be evidence.

    If ENSO events caused forest to grow over desert, leading to a lower global albedo.. there would be evidence.

    If ENSO events shrunk snow cover to a stable lower level.. there would be evidence.

    There could be others.

    And it’s sadly revealing that the guys who push this kind of thing never seem interested in the underlying physical mechanism. Even though discovering such a mechanism would actually give their hypotheses half a chance..

  27. AndyL,
    I’ll expand on this, though

    Rather than link your attack on Tisdale to this squabble, I sugget it would have been better to link it to a specific argument that he made.

    The point is, though, that Bob Tisdale’s fame is because of his ideas about global warming. His ideas about global warming are, however, wrong. The reason he is annoyed with Sou is because she continually points this out. I don’t really care about his most recent post, specifically, but was simply pointing out that someone who is typically wrong appears to be trying to intimidate someone else who often points this out. If you were wanting to give some advice to someone about how these should behave, it might be better to give it to Bob Tisdale, rather than to me.

  28. BBD says:

    AndyL

    When it becomes appropriate to mention someones real name is an interesting topic, but on the internet it is difficult for anyone to have an expectation of anonymity

    It is an interesting topic. Watts does it to bully and intimidate, which is not acceptable behaviour. Interesting, yes. Acceptable no. Yet you are obliquely condoning it by saying ‘yeah, but the internet’. The reason Sou’s identity is on the internet is because Watts put it there and BT keeps it there. They are doing it out of malice, which is not acceptable behaviour. You shouldn’t be making excuses for either of them and I suspect that you know it, really.

  29. AndyL,
    Okay, you were asking me to link to another of Bob’s arguments. You could try this one I wrote about a while back.

  30. Steve Bloom says:

    I lost all patience with commenting at WUWT years ago, but did try to engage somewhat with the PP&TT Tisdale in his earliest flounderings (flounderingly flubby? nah). The bag was smaller and the hammers were apparent, although maybe the mix hadn’t yet gone to all-sledge.

    These days Kahan gets a lot of attention when it comes to trying to understand what drives the Tisdales of the world, and while I think the affinity group idea is part of the answer, another part can be seen in another line of research that found a widespread inability to understand stocks and flows. IMO it greatly facilitates correlation/causation errors of the sort to which Tisdale is joined at the hip.

    The key paper (couldn’t locate a public copy, but the supplement seems to tell the tale more fully than the paper) in that line of research (by John Sterman of MIT with various colleagues) found a limited ability to understand stocks and flows in a population of… MIT grad students. (Yikes, as I continue to say to myself every time I think about it.) There’s a bunch of related material linked on Sterman’s pubs page.

    See in particular “Why don’t well-educated adults understand accumulation? A challenge to researchers, educators, and citizens”. From the abstract, the upshot:

    We show that many people, including highly educated individuals with strong technical training, use what we term the ‘‘correlation heuristic”, erroneously assuming that the behavior of a stock matches the pattern of its flows.

    I don’t think it’s a stretch to conclude that less-educated adults like the PP&TT Tisdale are even more prone to this problem (as we see in his posts).

    More depressingly, it’s hard to avoid concluding that lots of scientists, including climate scientists, suffer from this deficiency.

    Now add Dunning-Kruger syndrome to the mix. What fun!

  31. Steve,
    Those are interesting links. I haven’t read them in detail, but it does seem similar to the problem of trying to explain hydrodynamics to students. A fluid quantity (in a Eulerian framework, for example) only changes if there is a net flux into the volume.

  32. AndyL says:

    Not making excuses. I said I agreed with ATTP about pseudonyms, and what they are doing seems ugly

  33. Steve Bloom says:

    TBC, IMO most climate scientists don’t suffer (much) from the affinity group problem (since other scientists have become their primary affinity group) or from D-K (much) since they know enough to have a good sense of what they don’t know. I say “much” since nobody can entirely escape from these.

  34. Steve Bloom says:

    Hydrodynamics indeed. An early paper (from 2000) was “Bathtub dynamics: initial results of a
    systems thinking inventory”
    . They had an on-line bathtub flow simulator, although at a quick glance I don’t see it there now.

    While I’m on the subject, I should point to “Understanding public complacency about climate change: adults’ mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter” from 2007.

    (Clearly that wasn’t enough for the PP&TT Tisdale, who had to go full-on conservation of energy.)

  35. Steve Bloom says:

    Maybe a post on this, Anders? Sterman doesn’t promote his work the way Kahan and some others do, so I suspect many people who should be aware of it aren’t.

  36. John Hartz says:

    To expand on my initi al comment — Anthony Watts and his ilk have created and function in an imaginary place known as Deniersville. I prefer to spend my time and energy in the real world educating people about the causes and consequenences of manmade climate change.

  37. Steve,
    Are you offering to write one?

    JH,
    Yes, I of course agree that that would be better. It’s, however, a pity when what Watts says ends up in the MSM and so pointing out the errors can have some value.

  38. John Hartz says:

    ATTP: I scan mucho MSM* artilcles about climate change during the course of a day and rarely do I see references to Watts.

    *Excluding Murdoch controlled propaganda outlets which I do not consider to be “media”.

  39. JH,
    True, if you exclude the Murdoch controlled media, then you do have a point.

  40. entropicman says:

    I am not convinced that Bob Tiadale is interested in constructive discussion.

    When I suggested that his hypothesis violated the Second Law of Thermodynamics he threw mW off the site. 🙂

  41. Eli Rabett says:

    FWIW, Willard Tony reacted extremely negatively to a visit to his liar. Think he could project a bit, but self awareness is not Tisdale or Watt’s thingee. Sadly no.

    As to the nym thing, in the one distasteful conversation Eli has had with him (think Jabba the Hut but less informed, Mosher was at least clued in on the nature of things), the Rabett pointed out that vastly more people know of his nym than this other guy.

  42. uknowispeaksense says:

    Watts likes to dogwhistle so his flying monkeys can go and do the intimidating for him. Before Watts blocked me he revealed the university I was employed at claiming I was using taxpayers money to write comments on blogs and that it was “against your university’s IT rules” or some such nonsense. I didn’t bother informing him at the time that my research was externally funded, which included paying for office space, internet and phone access at the university. Even if I was a regular employee, it didn’t breach any rules anyway. The end result was a small number of abusive phone calls to the poor girls on the university switchboard from right wing nutjobs.

    As for Bob, well…… http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/bob-tisdale-making-comments-disappear/

  43. markus says:

    I don’t understand how WUWT or Bob Tisdale are able to “ban” or “block” people. How does that work?

    Occasionally when I am bored, travelling or whatever I post a few short inflammatory comments over at wuwt. It only takes a small nod to science to wind a whole bunch of them up. It always amuses me how a few words about control knobs for example can cause a whole bunch of them to waste their time typing out incensed replies.

    Anyway, despite this I’ve never been banned. Maybe it is because I keep changing my name and email address (all fake) just because that’s how I use the internet.

    My dream is to visit the university of east anglia one day and post a comment to WUWT from one of their machines so the IP address will show up as UEA. Make an afternoon about it and see what kind of conspiracy theories they begin cooking up about my identity.

  44. Bobby says:

    I know you already said it ATTP, but I always like to jump in on a Tisdale thread and make the obligatory comment about his ignorance. Here goes…Bob Tisdale simply does not understand the Law of Energy Conservation. Period.

  45. Sou says:

    Actually, “Bob Tisdale” is wrong in the particular as well as in general. So even though he might or might not be aware in this particular instance, ATTP is correct in the title of this particular blog article.

    As if there were any doubt 🙂

  46. Steve Bloom says:

    OK, Anders, I will. I’ll have to re-review the literature, so it won’t be immediately. By coincidence it looks as if I’ll be reporting on the frosty part of the AGU fall meeting for the Arctic Sea Ice Blog, which will involve writing a bunch of posts, so a little practice would be a good thing since despite my many verbose comments here and elsewhere I have yet to produce an actual post.

  47. “Bob” “Wayman” “Tisdale” functions as an examplar of going over the deep end. Right now, I am sensitive to this accusation myself, because I am going down the rabbit hole of trying to figure out what makes ENSO tick. The problem with this discipline in general is that it is so susceptible to “just-so” stories — these are narratives that have not quite reached the stage of hypothesis but they seem utterly plausible to someone that is enchanted by a fast talker. And that describes “Tisdale” in a nutshell. He shares that trait with Wonderin Willis.

  48. Steve Bloom says:

    Web, I’ve always conceived of Bob as a slow talker, but otherwise yes to that. Willis OTOH would fit right in as a barker for a Human Blockhead act.

    Re ENSO, as someone who’s studied it extensively do you think there’s any connection between the recent persistent NE Pacific high and the paucity of El Ninos?

    At AGU this year, Eli?

  49. Raff says:

    Hey folks, Andrew Montford over at Bishop Hill (latest post, “Numbskull or nefarious?”) has a new hobby – timing the length of segments allocated to each interviewee on the radio. And the Timekeeper smells a rat – a conspiracy to give a green (admittedly an idiot who thinks the national grid is a massive storage system) more time.

  50. Pierre-Normand says:

    ATTP: “It would be the first of his that could be described as ‘not wrong’ if it is, though.”

    I seem to remember a few discussing surface temperature records that were not *even* wrong. This is arguably worse than wrong, though.

  51. Pierre-Normand says:

    ATTP: “I haven’t read them in detail, but it does seem similar to the problem of trying to explain hydrodynamics to students. A fluid quantity (in a Eulerian framework, for example) only changes if there is a net flux into the volume.”

    I tried to explain to a hydrological engineer of 30 years of experience that a parcel of air adiabatically expanding in its surrounding, and thereby ending up with a reduced average kinetic energy per molecule, can’t still have, as he insisted, the same *total* kinetic internal energy at the end. He never could agree to this or see the mathematical impossibility of his claim. His argument basically was: “same total energy, more widely stretched out, hence reduced average per molecule, so obvious, you must be pulling my leg”. I demonstrated it arithmetically. The simple concept of arithmetic mean. He didn’t get it.

    He also insisted that there can’t be *any* vertical pressure gradient in an enclosed vessel filled with air, because kinetic theory dictates that the molecules will spread randomly and uniformly in the whole vessel. I argued that in that case there would be no hydrostatic equilibrium within the vessel, all parcels of air would be free-falling; or that a helium filled balloon would fall down through the denser air; or that the weight of the air would not register outside of the vessel. He argued that the pressure gradient within the vessel is irrelevant since the buoyant force is in all case dependent only on the weight of the displaced air, and the weight of the air in the box still is m*g.

  52. Pierre-Normand,
    So he doesn’t understand the concept of an expanding gas doing work on its surroundings?

  53. Pierre-Normand says:

    Yes. I gave the second stage of the Carnot cycle as an example. He dismissed this and claimed that adiabatic expansion of rising air masses in the atmosphere is more akin to free expansion (Joule expansion) — since there are no solid walls to push against, the molecules diffuse freely across boundaries, and the concept of an air parcel, and of work, just are convenient idealizations! He claimed I can’t understand the real process because I am ignoring the complexity. Of course he has to account for the loss of kinetic energy of the molecules, since the rising air parcel cools. Thus his insistence that a reduced average kinetic energy per molecule, with conservation of the number of molecules (he understands that adiabatic also entails no material flow), is consistent with a conserved total kinetic energy!! Lately he’s come to denying that that average kinetic energy per molecules only is a function of kinetic temperature.

  54. wuwt.fan.4.6yrs says:

    Sou, seems odd that you’re suggesting Tisdale’s posts at WUWT have low traffic and comments when your Oct 21, 2014 Denier Weirdness: “Why don’t reporters get their science from the flat earth society?” wails WUWT! has had 1 comment to date (wow) and your Oct 20, 2014 How WUWT missed the memo about the IPCC WG2 report had a whopping 6 comments (remarkable). I archived them so that people here wouldn’t add a lot of comments to them now in response to this one. Looking back at Tisdale’s first post on the long term effects of ENSO Can El Nino Events Explain All of the Global Warming Since 1976? – Part 1, it had over 200 comments back in January 2009 when the WUWT traffic was much lower than today.

    Y’all have a nice day now,

    wuwt.fan.4.6yrs

  55. P-N said:

    “I tried to explain to a hydrological engineer of 30 years of experience that a parcel of air adiabatically expanding in its surrounding, and thereby ending up with a reduced average kinetic energy per molecule, can’t still have, as he insisted, the same *total* kinetic internal energy at the end. “

    I followed that exchange but could not support your position vocally because I am banned at Climate Etc.

    The Chief Hydrologist Robbo Ellison has got to be one of the great meatsticks of the internet. His argumentation schtick is to project his own scientific weaknesses onto his adversary. One time we had him going with his inability to do simple unit dimensionality correctly.

    Like with Tisdale, you are almost right by definition if you have an argument with Ellison.

  56. wuwt.fan.4.6yrs you are forgetting that popularity does not equate with quality, especially in regards to scientific discussion.

    Consider that the syndicated US radio program Coast2Coast AM is apparently the most popular radio show in its time slot. It claims to be about science but its main focus is on the paranormal and of pushing scientific conspiracy theories. Much like WUWT.

    It would only be odd if WUWT was not as popular as it is. You underestimate the strong pull of those kinds of media sites when it comes to discussions of promoting pseudo-science. I suggest that you read Michael Shermer’s books on crank science to understand the need for certain kinds of belief systems among a large segment of the population.

  57. wuwt.fan.4.6yrs says:

    WebHubTelescope, my comment above was in response to Sou’s statement:

    “‘Bob Tisdale’s’ WUWT articles typically get very few comments and those that he does get are usually of the ‘I don’t understand it but it’s brilliant’, type. He’s getting a lot more comments now that he’s tossing the misogynists a bone. He’s finally found his forte 🙂 Bob’s still got practically no comments about the so-called “science” apart from ‘you sure showed them sciency types, Bob’.”

    My comment ws a pretty clear reply to that. Please don’t try to infer something else.


  58. My comment ws a pretty clear reply to that. Please don’t try to infer something else.

    Too late, I already did. Popularity of a scientific discussion topic does not equate to quality of the discussion.

  59. Steve asked :


    Re ENSO, as someone who’s studied it extensively do you think there’s any connection between the recent persistent NE Pacific high and the paucity of El Ninos?

    Not really sure. From what I have found in the literature, shifts of circulation in the northern Pacific can change the character of ENSO. For example, several studies have shown that some sort of shift occurred around 1975/1976 which has since disrupted the ENSO pattern.

    I discovered that this is best illustrated by looking at a wavelet scalogram.

    The horizontal scale is months since 1880, so that month 1200 is 1980. Notice how the regular pattern at scale 8 started to become much more pronounced after 1980. According to the model I am working on (lower panel that is indicative of more regular forcings at about a 10 year period.

    BTW, “Bob Tisdale” doesn’t like my ENSO modeling activities … enough so that he recently left some of his “insight” on my blog’s comment section.

  60. Sou says:

    WUWT fan, I was comparing “Bob Tisdale’s” typical comment response at WUWT with the response count to other articles at WUWT. Not to the comment count on my blog, which gets far fewer visitors than WUWT (though some articles rack up a fair response). Like I say, he’s discovered that his readers are more interested in sexist rants (and dreaming up conspiracy theories about me) than in discussing “Bob’s” particular brand of pseudo-science with each other,

    I think what WUWT fan was trying on is known as Tu Quoque. Would that be right, people? Bit like “Bob Tisdale”.

  61. Willard says:

    An interesting backstory about “but KNMI”, featuring Collin, Bob, and Marcel:

    http://www.realsceptic.com/2014/01/21/bob-tisdales-ideological-armour/

  62. wuwt.fan.4.6yrs says:

    WebHubTelescope said, “BTW, ‘Bob Tisdale’ doesn’t like my ENSO modeling activities … enough so that he recently left some of his ‘insight’ on my blog’s comment section.”

    Tisdale doesn’t like your “ENSO modeling activities”? That doesn’t sound like the Bob Tisdale I’ve been studying for years. He welcomes good research.

    It would have been nice if you had provided a link to what he wrote. It would have saved me a few minutes to find it at your blog. He left his comment at October 7, 2014 at 8:16 am on your “Using Tidal Gauges to Estimate ENSO” article. Truthfully, I don’t see where he said that he didn’t like your ENSO modeling activities. To contradict what you wrote, he actually said (I’ve highlighted the pertinent parts):

    Well, good luck with your research, Webby. As I noted above, you’ve got a few hurdles to deal with. And I’m glad you’re trying to learn about a miniscule portion of ENSO…the impacts of ENSO on Sydney sea levels.

    Tisdale’s insight in his entire comment looks pretty…insightful. Maybe you should try to understand it, instead of downplaying it. Tisdale’s entire comment said:

    Hi Webby: I understand from a friend that you were trash talking me but in the same breath looking for help on ENSO, so I wandered over here to your blog to see what you were up to.

    1, It’s not surprising that you can find an ENSO signal in Sydney sea level data. ENSO is the dominant mode of natural variability on the planet. You can find ENSO impacts in almost every dataset.

    2, I assume you understand that the direct El Niño and La Niña processes, especially those relating to sea level, take place in the tropical Pacific and are focused on the equatorial Pacific. Yet you are attempting to use sea level data from a location (Sydney, Australia) that’s outside of the tropics and more than 3700 km (2300 miles) from the equator. Curious. So basically you’re studying the impacts of ENSO in Sydney sea levels, nothing more, nothing less.

    3, As a result, the satellite-based sea level data from the western equatorial Pacific (that are directly impacted by ENSO) run in and out of synch with the Sydney Harbor tide gauge data, even over a short-term like 1993 to 2003: https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/sydney-versus-western-equatorial-pacific-sea-level-anomalies.png

    4, Being so distant from the tropics suggests the variations in Sydney sea level data you’ve found are not caused by the direct effects of ENSO, that you’re seeing the secondary effects caused by changes in atmospheric circulation.

    5, That you’ve inverted the SOI for your visual comparisons confirms that you are not seeing the direct impacts of the “ENSO sloshing” that takes place in the western tropical Pacific. Sea levels there fall during El Niños and rise during La Niñas.

    6, That you had to lag data by 2 years also suggests you’re seeing aftereffects, not the direct effects. But we already know that ENSO impacts sea levels so I fail to see what we’re learning from your exercise.

    7, You’ve “easily” spliced two tide gauge datasets together from Sydney Harbor. But you failed to show that they agree during the overlap period(s).

    Last, I did see your “Pacific gyre garbage patch” comment at HotWhopper. Cute. In my series on the 2014/15 El Niño (an El Niño that still has yet to develop) I present ENSO basics. These are processes that have been known and documented for decades. I present data to help with the visualizations of those processes. Because WUWT has such a wide audience, I’ve helped thousands of people learn about basic ENSO processes this year. They read my posts, then go to—let’s say—the NOAA ENSO blog and the stories are the same in both places. And then you call my work garbage. That undermines your credibility, Webby, not mine.

    You may not like my calling ENSO a chaotic, naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled, recharge-discharge oscillator. But I’ve documented that for—what?—5 years.

    You may not like my presentation of the upward steps in sea surface temperatures in response to strong El Niño events. One reason you don’t like it is, you’ve never bothered to try to understand it. And the fact that you don’t like my data presentation does not make it wrong. In fact, last year, Trenberth began to confirm my interpretation was right by parroting it. But he conveniently overlooks the fact that he’s written in at least two papers that El Niños are fueled by sunlight, due to reductions in cloud cover during La Niñas. I’ve also documented and confirmed that with data and reanalyses numerous times in numerous ways.

    Well, good luck with your research, Webby. As I noted above, you’ve got a few hurdles to deal with. And I’m glad you’re trying to learn about a miniscule portion of ENSO…the impacts of ENSO on Sydney sea levels. I won’t be back to comment again.

    It looks to me like Tisdale was being extremely helpful. He was also was calm and collected about your “garbage” comment. I think I’ll follow his lead…I won’t be back to comment again. You appear to have a problem with reality, WebHubTelescope.

  63. wuwt.fan.
    If you happen to chat to Bob, maybe you could suggest that he actually publish his ideas about the role ENSO events play in global warming. You might also suggest that he consider whether or not they actually conserve energy. Of course, I suspect people have been pointing these things out to him for years without success, so I doubt he’s going to take any notice of them now.

  64. KR says:

    ATTP – Yes, Tisdale has had peer reviewed publication suggested to him, as well as the issues of statistical significance, not to mention conservation of energy and spectroscopy (both of which his theories violate). See this thread for some examples.

    No sign of a learning curve so far…

  65. wuwt.fan.4.6yrs :

    You really do have the blinders on, not being able to detect the passive/aggressive tendencies of “Bob Tisdale”. He is not being helpful at all, other than in his ability to score an #OwnGoal. And read again his last line, which you seem to appreciate.

    “I won’t be back to comment again.”

    A strange psychosis you all seem to share — an aversion to knowledge.

  66. Bobby says:

    Wow KR. I just went through that thread (or as much as I could follow). In fairness to Bob, he was overwhelmed with questions. However, in fairness to reality, he ran away after a flurry of posts at the very end where he sidestepped most reasonable criticisms and still left the question of “where’s the energy coming from Bob?” unanswered.

    WRT GHGs, here was his (repeated handwave) response:
    “Downward longwave radiation appears to do nothing more cause a little more evaporation from the ocean surface, which makes perfect sense since it only penetrates the top few millimeters.”

    And wrt energy source, I honestly don’t think he recognizes there’s an issue. Seriously. Nonetheless, he finally gave a kind of answer:
    “The sun is the primary energy source, but sea surface and ocean heat content warming can and do also take place without the exchange of heat, which is the result of teleconnections. The process through which the sun creates the warm water for El Niño events was described in my comment 139, where I replied to composer99:
    El Niño and La Niña events are part of a coupled ocean-atmosphere process. Sea surface temperatures, trade winds, cloud cover, downward shortwave radiation (aka visible sunlight), ocean heat content, and subsurface ocean processes (upwelling, subsurface currents, thermocline depth, downwelling and upwelling Kelvin waves, etc.) all interact. They’re dependent on one another. During a La Nina, trade winds are stronger than normal. The stronger trade winds reduce cloud cover, which, in turn, allows more downward shortwave radiation to enter and warm the tropical Pacific. ”

    None of this explains the rapidly growing OHC during a La Nina dominated recent history, but most readers of this blog get that I’m sure.

  67. Bob Tisdale says:

    Sou, I find your October 28, 2014 at 5:04 pm comment remarkable, and not in a good way. You have once again broadcast, for all the world to see, your unlimited capacity to distort reality.

    Sou says: “BTW – I agree [sic] are indications that ‘Bob Tisdale’ is a pseudonym. Not that I imagine his real name would mean anything to anyone. I’ve no problem with him using a pseudonym. He’s said on more than one occasion that he values his privacy.”

    I can assure you, Sou, my surname is Tisdale, and one of my given names is Robert…thus Bob. I have been known as Bob Tisdale for all of my adult life. And I can assure you I am not more than one person, as has been speculated.

    Sou says: “My contempt for him has risen because of his double standards in that regard…”

    There are no double standards on my part, so your contempt is unfounded. While I do in fact value my privacy, Sou, you, on the other hand, have published your name and pseudonym together. If you’re not aware of this, it’s common knowledge that Sou and [Mod : name redacted] are one and the same person. If you were to Google “Sou”+“[Mod : name redacted]”, Google will return more than 3500 results.

    Sou continued: “…and his unethical attempts to intimidate / encourage his fans to harass the people I work with, and his encouragement of crude sexist comments.”

    Your statements have no basis in reality, Sou. They are outright fabrications. I made no attempt in my two rebuttal posts to intimidate you or anyone else. I have not encouraged anyone anywhere at any time to harass you or the people you work with, contrary to what you’ve written. Nor have I ever encouraged “crude sexist comments” at my blog or at WattsUpWithThat. I suggest you quote chapter and verse from my two blog posts where I have done as you’ve said. Here are the posts in question:

    Open Letter to [Mod : name redacted] of HotWhopper (a.k.a. Sou)

    More On [Mod : name redacted] Misunderstandings at HotWhopper

     

    While I cannot and will not apologize for what others have written in comments, I will assure you, in upcoming HotWhopper rebuttal posts, I will preface and end them with requests that people refrain from ad hominem comments. And I will assure you, there will be more rebuttal posts. You’ve left me a wealth a material to work with. Thank you.

    Adios, Sou.

    Y’all have a nice day here at AndThenThere’sPhysics

  68. jsam says:

    I love faux outrage. It’s the best sort.

  69. Bob,

    If you’re not aware of this, it’s common knowledge that Sou and [Mod : name redacted] are one and the same person. If you were to Google “Sou”+“[Mod : name redacted]”, Google will return more than 3500 results.

    As I understand it, this is largely because Anthony Watts decided to out Sou. I certainly haven’t been through all 3500 results, but the first few pages appear to be either posts by you or related to WUWT. So, it might be true that it is now well known, but that appears to be because you’ve ensured that to be the case. If so, this is one of the most remarkably circular arguments I’ve ever encountered “I’m going to keep using your real name because everyone knows who you really are because I’ve insisted on always using your real name”.

    Nor have I ever encouraged “crude sexist comments” at my blog or at WattsUpWithThat. I suggest you quote chapter and verse from my two blog posts where I have done as you’ve said. Here are the posts in question:

    How about this, or this, or this. And then there’s your comment encouraging people to use restraint….oh, hold on, no it’s not.

    While I cannot and will not apologize for what others have written in comments, I will assure you, in upcoming HotWhopper rebuttal posts, I will preface and end them with requests that people refrain from ad hominem comments. And I will assure you, there will be more rebuttal posts. You’ve left me a wealth a material to work with.

    Well, I tend to take some responsibility for what people write as comments on my posts. Good to see that you don’t feel restrained by such niceties. Maybe look at the concept of energy conservation. It’s fairly fundamental and your ideas fail to satisfy it.

    Y’all have a nice day here at AndThenThere’sPhysics

    You too.

  70. See what I mean by that passive/aggressive persona that “Bob Tisdale” portrays?

    He is nasty in the body of the message but ends it with a folksy charm.

    Who can take that kind of cr@p?

  71. jsam says:

    “I’m going to keep using your real name because everyone knows who you really are because I’ve insisted on always using your real name”. is Steynish.

    Deniers can say anything the like about Mann because he is a public figure – because they made him a public figure.

    Circular and squalid. And their physics is even worse.

  72. Tony Lurker says:

    Bob,

    Given that WUWT has a policy of deleting posts deemed “inappropriate” and banning posters, why have you not deleted the “crude sexist comments” and banning repeat offenders?

  73. John Hartz says:

    This comment thread has devolved into mud-wrestling. Don’t adults have better things to do?

  74. JH,

    This comment thread has devolved into mud-wrestling. Don’t adults have better things to do?

    Yes, it has a little. Maybe Bob would like to make a substantive and mature comment that indicates his willingness to accept criticism and recognises that deciding against respecting someone’s choice to remain pseudonymous may not be the most acceptable way to behave. I’m not holding my breath, mind you.

  75. Eli Rabett says:

    No. The science is settled, or at least settled enough to make sensible policy so what is left

  76. Willard says:

    Adults can always roam over the Internet finding mud wrestling and ask themselves why it exists.

  77. KR says:

    Bobby – You’re quite right, Tisdale didn’t answer some (very) reasonable questions in that thread, and handwaved others with nonsense. He seems to argue for a (recent) asymmetry between El Nino and La Nina events, ignoring energy conservation (increasing OHC as well as atmospheric temperatures during the last 50 years) and the fact that if such asymmetries were effective agents of long term climate change we would have seen correlation between long term averaged ENSO and climate _long_ before the current period – correlation that doesn’t exist. And his repeated denial of the radiative greenhouse effect is just absurd.

    Tisdale has a ‘hammer’ (Pacific SSTs and ENSO), and to him all climate effects are thus ‘nails’, with no other factors in play. He could profit from a few more tools, but I don’t see any interest in learning on his part.

    Just more graphs, lots and lots of graphs of cherry-picked data, incorrectly baselined and detrended, with statistically insignificant short term trends (wrongly) hailed as crucial evidence.

  78. Bobby says:

    And then there’s energy conservation.

  79. Bobby says:

    KR – looks like we cross-posted 🙂

  80. Catmando says:

    Bob Tisdalemsaid:

    “While I cannot and will not apologize for what others have written in comments, I will assure you, in upcoming HotWhopper rebuttal posts, I will preface and end them with requests that people refrain from ad hominem comments. And I will assure you, there will be more rebuttal posts. You’ve left me a wealth a material to work with.”

    Imseemmto remember a lotmofmsteam coming out of Anthony Watts’s ears when Anders temporarily had a comment up that Anthony didn’t like. As they say, birds of a feather. Frankly, Bob, you could have reminded some commenters to appear less Neanderthal and more modern.

  81. When I worked with (Name Redacted) at the (blacked out by a CIA censor) I located the energy source using a (blacked out by a CIA censor) with an a diabetic aura, which seemed to violate my own Laws of Thermostatics.

  82. So the moderator redacted the hyperlink text, but left Sou’s real name plain to see in the link :/

  83. Colin,
    Well, I would have had to then simply remove the link, and then there would be cries of “censorship”, “conspiracy”.

  84. gymnosperm says:

    Wow, Steve Goddard and now Bob Tisdale accused of being pseudonyms? Part of the “paid shill” meme no doubt. Who would take all that money under their own name? Now I actually use a pseudonym, mostly because it seemed cool and everyone was doing it back in the day, but everyone knows who I am. Privacy does not exist in cyberspace.

  85. gymnosperm,
    I’m rather confused by your comment. Steven Goddard is a pseudonym. Bob Tisdale is, apparently, not a pseudonym. Your point was?

  86. Bobby says:

    So much outrage, but nobody can explain how Bob Tisdale’s magical ENSO machine can violate energy conservation.

  87. gymnosperm says:

    Wow again. Apparently Steve Goddard IS a pseudonym. I had no idea. He is unmistakably unique, whoever he is. My point is that to tar all skeptics as pseudonymous paid shills is totally flat earth.

  88. anoilman says:

    Paid internet trolls are out there;

  89. gymnosperm says:

    Eli, he ain’t paying me, and he’s not paying Bob Tisdale. Won’t speak for “Steve”.
    I may agree that Bob places too much emphasis on ENSO, but it is certainly a big factor. It blows my mind to read webtelecscope reading his wavelets and decreeing that there was a shift in ENSO probability in 1976. Yes, sir, web, that would be called the PDO shift and you might want to check the wavelets for another around 1997.

    The problem with your conservation of energy arguments is that Carbon dioxide, which resides in the atmosphere, cannot warm the oceans without also warming the lower atmosphere. There is a virtual plasma of energy exchange between the ocean skin and the lower atmosphere that cycles more energy than the earth receives from the sun.

    The net movement of energy is always between the warmer ocean and the cooler atmosphere as both latent and sensible heat. When the atmosphere is warming as it was from 1976 to 1997, the ocean will slowly follow as it is losing heat more slowly. When the atmosphere ceases to warm, as it has done since 1997, increases ocean heat transport to the atmosphere cease as well, and the flywheel effect of heat capacity allows the oceans to continue warming. For a while…

    So all this foolishness of the oceans eating the warming is impossible. The atmospheric contribution to ocean warming ended 18 years ago. Whatever is causing the Indian and South Atlantic oceans, which account for all the ocean surface warming since the millennium, to warm; is surely not human CO2 in the atmosphere.

  90. gymnosperm said:


    It blows my mind to read webtelecscope reading his wavelets and decreeing that there was a shift in ENSO probability in 1976. Yes, sir, web, that would be called the PDO shift and you might want to check the wavelets for another around 1997.

    It’s called math gymn. As it turns out, the forcing of well known phenomenon such as the Quasi-Biennial Oscillations (QBO) will lead to the quasi-periodic oscillations of ENSO. One can align the phase of QBO as a forcing input to a wave equation and do a very decent job of characterizing ENSO over many decades.

    It works well enough that it can discriminate subtle changes in the circulation.

    More at http://azimuth.mathforge.org and at http://ContextEarth.com

    One thing I can say is that Wayman Tisdale no like, that’s for sure. Too much math and he can’t just diddle with his spreadsheets.
    .

  91. @gymnosperm:

    “The problem with your conservation of energy arguments is that Carbon dioxide, which resides in the atmosphere, cannot warm the oceans without also warming the lower atmosphere.”

    The real problem is that you are utterly clueless about atmospheric and oceanic circulation (and their mutual interaction). Still cracking up about the flywheel effect though. Must have slept during this particular physics lecture back then. Let’s see whether I get my breakfast egg boiled after having switched off the stove. I mean, there is a flywheel effect after all, right!?


  92. Wow again. Apparently Steve Goddard IS a pseudonym.

    Yes, and his Twitter handle is SteveSGoddard, because you just know that if he includes his middle initial, then it has to be his real name. And if he rides his bike to work and doesn’t use an air-conditioner in the summer in Maryland, then he has to be a conscientious person.

    Right?

  93. gymnosperm,

    My point is that to tar all skeptics as pseudonymous paid shills is totally flat earth.

    Look up strawman.

  94. verytallguy says:

    Gymn, 

    There is a virtual plasma of energy exchange…

    Wow.  Ain’t sciencey smashing.  

  95. wuwt.fan.4.6yrs says:

    ATTP, Bobby, KR, et al.: Hello, I decided to come back for one more comment, since ATTP has been gracious enough to approve mine.

    I will agree with Bobby that Tisdale looked overwhelmed by the number of comments he was getting on the El Niño thread at SkepticalScience. And I’ll add that some of the comments he was bombarded with were tries at misdirection, like that one about North America being larger than the East Pacific Ocean. (When the east Pacific is actually more than 4 times larger than North America.)

    But I’ll disagree that Tisdale had never explained where the energy comes from that fuels El Niño events in that exchange at SkS. The first example on that thread was part of his 00:49 AM on 3 December, 2012 comment (comment 139). He went into a lot of detail. Cited a couple of papers.

    One of Tisdale’s best presentations on that topic is from his post Open Letter to the Royal Meteorological Society Regarding Dr. Trenberth’s Article “Has Global Warming Stalled?” It begins under a new heading after Figure 20.

    One of my most favorite graphs that he has ever presented comes from that post. It compares downward shortwave radiation (sunlight) data at the surface and downwelling longwave radiation (infrared radiation) data at the surface, both for the equatorial Pacific, both from the NCEP-DOE R-2 reanalysis.

    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/figure-24.png

    Surface DSR had increased at the surface of the equatorial Pacific during that time and surface DLR had decreased. Looks pretty obvious to me which of the two supplied the energy along the equatorial Pacific.

    Tisdale’s presentation of ENSO as a chaotic, naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled recharge-discharge oscillator is pretty easy to understand if you want to understand it.

    But many people don’t try to understand it. They’ll say something like “TSI at the TOA has decreased since 1979. How then could El Ninos cause global warming?” But they fail in realize there are indications that sunlight increased over the tropical Pacific in that time, and increased a lot from 1979 till the turn of the Century.

    That’s it for now.

    Thank you, ATTP.

  96. wuwt,
    FWIW, I will tend to approve comments if the commenter at least tries to be polite and pleasant.

    But I’ll disagree that Tisdale had never explained where the energy comes from that fuels El Niño events in that exchange at SkS.

    It’s not about the energy specifically, it’s about how we can retain more and more energy without changing the radiative properties of the atmosphere. I’ll try to explain.

    Our equilibrium surface temperature is set by 3 things; the Sun, our albedo, the properties of our atmosphere. The only way that we can get long-term warming is if one of these things changes. So, ENSO events can clearly influence our surface temperature, but if they want to produce long-term warming, they need to somehow influence the radiative properties of our atmosphere, or change our albedo (they can’t influence the Sun).

    Now, it is clear that internal variability (ENSO events) can indeed produce changes in the radiative properties of our atmosphere (for example, cloud feedbacks due to the change in temperature). The problem is, that we’d expect this to average to zero. We don’t expect internal variability to, for example, only produce warming.

    So, if Bob wants to push his ENSO idea, he has to consider a number of fundamental things

    • What physical process associated with ENSO events is producing a change in the equilibrium surface temperature.
    • Why does this internal process produce warming only. In other words, why doesn’t the effect average to zero over sufficiently long timescales (decades).
    • Why now? Why is this process – which according to Bob is not influenced by anthropogenic forcings – producing long term warming now, but hasn’t (according to paleo evidence) done so in the past?
    • What’s happened to the anthropogenic forcings and the resulting feedbacks?
      • Basic physics tells us that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations should produce a radiative forcing and any resulting warming should produce a feedback that is almost certainly positive. Why, is this negligible (according to Bob)?

    Maybe Bob should realise that the important part of science isn’t just looking at data, it’s correctly interpreting what that data is telling us about the system we’re investigating.

  97. Eli Rabett says:

    gym, this is the INTERNET and Eli is skeptical. Talk to Nigel Persaud about this

  98. Eli Rabett says:

    Surface DSR had increased at the surface of the equatorial Pacific during that time and surface DLR had decreased. Looks pretty obvious to me which of the two supplied the energy along the equatorial Pacific.

    Short answer: The sun heats clouds from the top.

  99. Wayman Tisdale forgets that ENSO is a essentially a sloshing mechanism, whereby the underseas thermocline upwells toward the surface, exposing cooler water. Any sloshing phenomena has a characteristic frequency associated with it [1][2] (modulated via a Mathieu-type nonlinearity) and this can be deduced from measurements, see Clarke et al [3].

    To start the sloshing in motion, a source of forcing is required and this is provided by sources such as QBO, angular momentum changes — see the Chandler wobble [4], and yes, even the variations in solar thermal entering the ocean.

    But these are all very close to zero-sum terms and they result in observation that the southern oscillations always reverts to zero.

    [1]J. B. Frandsen, “Sloshing motions in excited tanks,” Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 196, no. 1, pp. 53–87, 2004.
    [2]O. M. Faltinsen and A. N. Timokha, Sloshing. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
    [3] A. J. Clarke, S. Van Gorder, and G. Colantuono, “Wind stress curl and ENSO discharge/recharge in the equatorial Pacific,” Journal of physical oceanography, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 1077–1091, 2007.
    [4]R. S. Gross, “The excitation of the Chandler wobble,” Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 27, no. 15, pp. 2329–2332, 2000.

  100. BBD says:

    By ‘eck, the comments sections fair rip along these days, ATTP 🙂

  101. KR says:

    wuwt.fan – a chaotic, naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled recharge-discharge oscillator” And therein is the problem with Tisdale and conservation of energy. The requirement for both recharge _and_ discharge in a zero sum oscillator is violated by his hypothesis, as both air temperature and OHC have been rising over the last 50 years or so. That energy has to come from somewhere, from long term changes in (as ATTP noted) in insolation, albedo, and/or IR to space.

    The ENSO doesn’t maintain a trend long enough for current warming, there is no support for long term ENSO driven changes in the historical record, and Tisdale is in denial of the radiative greenhouse effect that wholly explains observed warming. In short, there is no support _whatsoever_ for his hypotheses….

  102. gymnosperm says:

    Karsten,

    Wow, I do exactly what you describe every time I boil eggs. Haven’t been disappointed yet.

  103. gymnosperm,
    I believe Karsten meant turning the stove off before the water was boiling. If Bob is right, as long as you put a small amount of extra energy in, internal cycles should act to amplify that.

  104. gymnosperm says:

    Webhub,
    Indeed a very good approximation and the best I’ve seen. What do you predict for this year? Even the earliest GCM’s produced index for ENSO, but these indices had no predictive value.

  105. BBD says:

    gymnosperm

    So all this foolishness of the oceans eating the warming is impossible. The atmospheric contribution to ocean warming ended 18 years ago.

    The atmosphere does not heat the ocean. DSW heats the ocean. Atmospheric temperature determines the thermal gradient across the ocean skin layer, which modulates the rate of heat loss by conduction through the skin layer and so the rate at which the ocean cools.

  106. gymnosperm says:

    ” both air temperature and OHC have been rising over the last 50 years or so”

    Only if you happen to believe the surface temperature record. I do not. The thermometers are five feet off the ground or whatever. If the warm air they record were content to stay there it might be argued that the satellites, which measure the entire lower tropospheric section, could be fooled.

    But warm air is never content to stay “under the radar”. It rises, and even if trapped by an inversion, the satellites which ping Oxygen with microwaves would register the warm air and the inversion alike.

  107. gymnosperm,

    Only if you happen to believe the surface temperature record. I do not.

    I’m not a huge fan of climate science deniers commenting here. If you want to talk complete nonsense, there are plenty of other sites that encourage exactly that. Bishop Hill, WUWT are two classics. You’d fit right in.

  108. gymnosperm says:

    BBD,
    I agree, except that the 180 Petawatts that cycle radiatively between the skin and resonating gasses (principally water) in the lower atmosphere must be accounted for. Incidentally I was criticized for referring to this process metaphorically as a plasma. The process is difficult to describe. I have called it the “photon food fight” but nobody liked that either. Open to suggestions.

    The point is that while a warming atmosphere is certainly not a major source of ocean warming, it does contribute in a backhanded sort of way, but ONLY when the atmosphere is warming.

  109. gymnosperm,

    I was criticized for referring to this process metaphorically as a plasma. The process is difficult to describe. I have called it the “photon food fight” but nobody liked that either. Open to suggestions.

    Are you sure you want suggestions?

  110. WebHubTelescope says:

    gymn says:


    Webhub,
    Indeed a very good approximation and the best I’ve seen. What do you predict for this year? Even the earliest GCM’s produced index for ENSO, but these indices had no predictive value.

    Go for it. Take my formulation and run with it! I am sure it will work. The problem with GCM’s is that they include a significant stochastic input. I don’t have a stochastic input of any note — it is all driven by the other periodic forcings that are known to control the ENSO behavior So by definition, the GCM will have no predictive value, other than as a probabilistic estimate — a Monte Carlo stochastic input is randomly chosen so the outcome will be random, apart from any stochastic resonance that might arise.

    Fan says:


    Tisdale’s presentation of ENSO as a chaotic, naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled recharge-discharge oscillator is pretty easy to understand if you want to understand it.

    On the one hand, this is not Tisdale’s idea; the recharge-discharge oscillator is actually a standard model that has been around for a while. See for example the delayed oscillator theory of ENSO.

    On the other hand, Tisdale manipulates the idea to his own ends, extracting meaning and outcomes from the model that do not exist. For example, he violates conservation of energy.

  111. BBD says:

    gymnosperm

    Only if you happen to believe the surface temperature record. I do not.

    I cannot argue with fixed counter-factual views. If you deny that the lower troposphere has warmed they you will deny that atmospheric temperature continues to reduce the rate at which the ocean cools. We can go nowhere.

  112. WebHubTelescope says:

    gymn said:

    “Only if you happen to believe the surface temperature record. I do not. The thermometers are five feet off the ground or whatever. If the warm air they record were content to stay there it might be argued that the satellites, which measure the entire lower tropospheric section, could be fooled.”

    So how do land temperature records respond so sensitively to ENSO variations? Are all the thermometers somehow configured to ignore a secular warming trend, yet capture El Nino events that transiently heat land so effectively ?

    Did Thomas Edison invent such a thermometer that we do not know about?

  113. jsam says:

    After the risible failure of the Steve Goddard “the numbers are fudged” campaign the new denialist meme is satellite temperatures are better than surface temperatures. The Marshall Institute representative insists this is true. Evidence for this assertion is, we are promised, forthcoming. It may well be in the next A Watts’ peer-reviewed paper. The world awaits.

  114. Steve Bloom says:

    Simple, Web, it’s teh fraud!

    “New” meme, jsam? Just revived. The sat temp stuff was all the rage in the late ’90s and early 2000s, although it’s amusing to see the reliance on the former debbil RSS rather than UAH.

  115. BBD says:

    I think the satellite reconstructions are in for another big shake-up. See Weng et al. (2014):

    Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) and Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit-A (AMSU-A) observations from a series of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellites have been extensively utilized for estimating the atmospheric temperature trend. For a given atmospheric temperature condition, the emission and scattering of clouds and precipitation modulate MSU and AMSU-A brightness temperatures. In this study, the effects of the radiation from clouds and precipitation on AMSU-A derived atmospheric temperature trend are assessed using the information from AMSU-A window channels. It is shown that the global mean temperature in the low and middle troposphere has a larger warming rate (about 20–30 % higher) when the cloud-affected radiances are removed from AMSU-A data. It is also shown that the inclusion of cloud-affected radiances in the trend analysis can significantly offset the stratospheric cooling represented by AMSU-A channel 9 over the middle and high latitudes of Northern Hemisphere.

  116. jsam says:

    Mr Bloom is correct. I should have said newly upcycled.

  117. BBD says:

    Steve

    it’s amusing to see the reliance on the former debbil RSS rather than UAH.

    Fickle and inconstant things, these skeptikoids, but also careless…

    Most of them don’t know this, but no less an authority than Roy himself has aired his doubts about RSS bequeathing us a quote I like to wheel out whenever I get the chance 😉

    Anyway, my UAH cohort and boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching between satellites, is pretty convinced that the RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality. We have not used NOAA-15 for trend information in years…we use the NASA Aqua AMSU, since that satellite carries extra fuel to maintain a precise orbit.

  118. gymnosperm says:

    This really is the crux. One set of scientific measurements says it is warming and another set of measurements says it is not. Both are science, which is fundamentally the act of taking measurements. Neither set is perfect. My money is on the satellites (UAH is the best) for reasons I have described and because they have a much better view.

    Cheers,

  119. WebHubTelescope says:

    gymnosperm said:


    Both are science, which is fundamentally the act of taking measurements.

    So a shoe-salesman is a scientist?

    Where’s Al Bundy when you need him?

  120. jsam says:

    My money is on the surface records. Creationists and the Marshall Institute are not my idea of reliable science stewards.

  121. gymnosperm,

    My money is on the satellites (UAH is the best) for reasons I have described and because they have a much better view.

    UAH shows warming. Are you sure you didn’t mean RSS? You seem unable to even get your cherry-picks right 😉

  122. BBD says:

    gymnosperm

    My money is on the satellites (UAH is the best) for reasons I have described and because they have a much better view.

    Too much of a view can… cloud the bigger picture, shall we say. See Weng et al. above.

    If Weng et al. is correct it will spoil the good agreement between UAH vs GISTEMP.

  123. wuwt.fan.4.6yrs says:

    KR says: “The requirement for both recharge _and_ discharge in a zero sum oscillator…”

    Therein lies an assumption that is not supported by data. It’s not a zero sum oscillator. All you have to do is look at the NODC ocean heat content data for the tropical Pacific to see that.

  124. wuwt,

    It’s not a zero sum oscillator. All you have to do is look at the NODC ocean heat content data for the tropical Pacific to see that.

    Hmmm, unless I’m misunderstanding you, you seem to be assuming that it is an oscillator and that is not a zero sum one because of some data you’ve found. What others are trying to point out is that without some change in radiative forcing, albedo, or the Sun, it has to be a zero sum oscillator. That there clearly is a build up of energy in the system tells us that it cannot simply be an internal process. As I think I’ve pointed out before, science doesn’t involve simply looking at some data. It also involves considering the fundamental laws of physics and using that to understand what that data is telling you about the system you are considering.

  125. BBD says:

    ATTP says:

    That there clearly is a build up of energy in the system tells us that it cannot simply be an internal process.

    That *is* supported by the data, eg NODC OHC Tropical Pacific 0 – 700m layer.

  126. Robert Way says:

    gymnosperm,
    My money is on the satellites (UAH is the best) for reasons I have described and because they have a much better view.

    Well there are uses for that type of data but there are challenges as well. The irony is that data homogenization is criticized often times in the surface air temperature datasets and yet it is far more comprehensible than the homogenization process employed for the satellite data. Multiple satellites stitched together with varying issues and uncertainties with each…

  127. wuwt.fan.4.6yrs says:

    WebHubTelescope says: “On the one hand, this is not Tisdale’s idea; the recharge-discharge oscillator is actually a standard model that has been around for a while. See for example the delayed oscillator theory of ENSO.”

    You are confusing a whole slew of things.

    First, what you’re referring to as Tisdale’s idea is actually based on Trenberth et al 2002. Tisdale never claimed it was his idea. Tisdale has been quoting a portion of that Trenberth paper for years, and Tisdale’s been presenting data to support it. Trenberth et al 2002 wrote (My capital letters):
    “The negative feedback between SST and surface fluxes can be interpreted as showing the importance of the DISCHARGE of heat during El Niño events and of the RECHARGE of heat during La Niña events. Relatively clear skies in the central and eastern tropical Pacific allow SOLAR RADIATION to enter the ocean, apparently offsetting the below normal SSTs, but the heat is carried away by Ekman drift, ocean currents, and adjustments through ocean Rossby and Kelvin waves, and the heat is stored in the western Pacific tropics. This is not simply a rearrangement of the ocean heat, but also a restoration of heat in the ocean.”

    Trenberth et al 2002:
    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/2000JD000298.pdf
    Again, Tisdale has only been documenting that small portion of Trenberth 2002. What Tisdale has also taken the time to do is document the effects of the warm water redistributed in the wake of strong El Niños. That warm water is created by sunlight, released from the “western Pacific tropics” and redistributed to the adjacent ocean basins in the wake of the strong El Niños. Then the trailing La Niña–using sunlight as stated by Trenberth–restores some of the heat released by the El Niño…or all of the heat…or in some cases, the La Niña creates more warm water than had been released by the El Niño that went before it…thus a portion of the use of the word chaotic in Tisdale’s summary. It’s real easy to understand, if you want to. But instead of trying to understand a very simple process, you and many others make excuses.

    Second, the other recharge-discharge oscillator you found along with discussions of the delayed oscillator theory of ENSO was one proposed by Jin back in 1997. Do you remember that paper? Were you even thinking of ENSO back in 1997? A simplistic explanation of the Jin recharge-discharge oscillator is that warm water from an El Nino is transported poleward (discharged) as a result of the El Nino and after a couple of years (the time varies) a portion of that warm water is circulated back to the equatorial Pacific (recharging it).
    Jin 1997:
    ftp://apapane.soest.hawaii.edu/users/niklas/JinNeelin.JAS.1997.pdf

    You obviously have confused the Jin 1997 recharge-discharge oscillator with the sunlight-fueled recharge-discharge oscillator associated with Trenberth et al 2002, the latter of which is documented by Tisdale.

  128. wuwt,
    Maybe consider the difference between what you describe above in the absence of any changes in external forcings (anthropogenic for example) and in the presence of increasing anthropogenic forcings. How would it differ?

  129. BBD says:

    Think about it like this wuwt.fan:

    Total forcing and OHC 0 – 7–m

    This is just a sketch, but it conveys the essential idea.

  130. BBD says:

    That should be “OHC 0 – 700m”.

  131. WebHubTelescope says:

    Fan said:


    Second, the other recharge-discharge oscillator you found along with discussions of the delayed oscillator theory of ENSO was one proposed by Jin back in 1997. Do you remember that paper? Were you even thinking of ENSO back in 1997? A simplistic explanation of the Jin recharge-discharge oscillator is that warm water from an El Nino is transported poleward (discharged) as a result of the El Nino and after a couple of years (the time varies) a portion of that warm water is circulated back to the equatorial Pacific (recharging it).
    Jin 1997:
    ftp://apapane.soest.hawaii.edu/users/niklas/JinNeelin.JAS.1997.pdf

    You obviously have confused the Jin 1997 recharge-discharge oscillator with the sunlight-fueled recharge-discharge oscillator associated with Trenberth et al 2002, the latter of which is documented by Tisdale

    I am really not confused by any of these “just-so” narratives of what is happening. I use the data as is — e.g. the SOI records that Trenberth has long analyzed — and input the forcings due to QBO, the Chandler wobble, and TSI anomaly variations into the sloshing wave equation. What results is a quasi-periodic time-series that is close to what the SOI shows. (see the chart I linked to above).

    “Tisdale” gets and deserves no credit for “explaining” any of this. Worse, he has only served to make more people confused by what is happening. Like I said, he is the Pacific gyre garbage patch of internet knowledge concerning ocean dynamics. I am someone that is doing this in my spare time as well, but I am actually interested in the physics & math behind the phenomena, and not in pushing some anti-climate-science agenda as “Tisdale” appears to be doing. If “Tisdale” has a mathematical formulation for the ENSO behavior, he should put it forward instead of continuing with his hand-wavy just-so narratives.

    What is he up to, #19 in his WUWT series on ENSO? My gawd, it’s like reading the Old Farmer Tisdale’s Almanac of weather folklore — it’s really that embarrassing.

  132. BBD says:

    Just an aside, but many sceptics believe that there was a global, synchronous MWP as warm as or even warmer than the present. Irrespective of the validity of this belief, it’s interesting that the evidence suggests an persistent La Nina-like state characterised the E Pacific during the period when there were episodes of regional warming in the NH (Diaz et al. 2011; Steinke et al. 2014)

    La Nina. Not El Nino. Persistent EN states seem to be associated with the LIA.

  133. Bobby says:

    Fan says. “a chaotic, naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled recharge-discharge oscillator”…hmm, but solar incident energy has been on the decline for 35+ years. And, as KR, ATTP and others have pointed out – how does an internal oscillator increase the energy of the whole system on its own? BBD pointed to OHC going up pretty clearly. In short, energy conservation is a pretty important physical law.

    Next, this kind of data denial is just pathetic in a science discussion: gymno says, ” “both air temperature and OHC have been rising over the last 50 years or so” Only if you happen to believe the surface temperature record. I do not. ”

    Notice how gymno both denies temperature data and ignores OHC data in one sentence.

    At what point in this discussion, will fake spkeptics accept both the laws of physics and the data?

  134. John Hartz says:

    On a positive note —

    Some climate science deniers eventually change their stripes.

    For example, see: Confessions of a Former Climate Change Denialist

  135. uknowispeaksense says:

    ATTP: you’re starting to understand my position. I’ve gone as far as I can reading this thread. My face cannot take anymore palming.

  136. uknowiss,
    I think I’ve always kind of understood your position. I just haven’t done this long enough to yet lose all of my patience 🙂


  137. ATTP: you’re starting to understand my position. I’ve gone as far as I can reading this thread. My face cannot take anymore palming.

    I may seem selfish, but I do appreciate(?) the feedback from the deniers. These guys are evil SOBs, but they do seem to engage in some form of background research, usually enough to unearth some little tidbit that I may not be aware of. What they don’t seem to realize is that doing this will invariably hurt their case. That’s what happens with science — it really does not allow one to hide understanding from others; instead, it just further exposes the truth.

    That’s not a universal principal, but I will take feedback where ever I find it 🙂

  138. gymnosperm says:

    Whoa.
    Webhub, yes, a shoe salesman is a scientist in that regard because he did not consult some preconceived formula for your shoe size based on your height, weight, political affiliation, etc. He actually measures your foot. Both datasets do that without regard to model projections.

    …and Then, yes UAH shows warming, but nowhere near what the surface record shows. In the great tradition of the modelers my inclination is to average the lot ant that average is dead flat.

    Robert Way, there are errors in the satellite data just as there are UHI biases in the surface record. I have allowed that neither is perfect. We are blind monks grasping at an elephant. Be humble.

    Whoever it was, really? You would discredit Roy Spencer’s work based on his religion? I don’t agree with his religion either, and I don’t agree with some of his science, but I happen to believe that he has done the best job of interpreting the microwaves. Yes, his data shows some warming. How could there not be some warming when the average SST has continued to rise?

  139. KR says:

    gymno – I don’t reject Spencers work based on his religion; rather, I reject his work based on its many science errors.

    Overly simplistic modeling with too many free parameters (allowing the extraction of literally _any_ climate sensitivity you desire), unphysical assumptions about ocean layers, inversion of cause and effect (clouds respond in days to temperatures, yet he feels that long term undriven cloud changes cause the ENSO, rather than vice versa), and his promoting utterly absurd graphs such as his miscomparison of models and temperatures (arranged around a ‘baseline’ of the highest UAH peak above trend in the satellite record, inducing an artificial offset), etc etc.

    His stated religious beliefs that include denial of a great deal of the science do, however, provide some potential insight into how he approaches matters.

    As to the satellite record – it’s an impressive bit of work to extract air temperatures from microwave emissions. But the details of modeling that relationship and dealing with confounding influences such as diurnal drift are quite complex, leading to many updates that quite literally have reversed the original extracted trends. And there is reason to believe that additional corrections would be appropriate.

  140. KR says:

    gymno – Oh, and let’s not forget Spencer and Braswell 2011, where they ran 13 climate models to examine lead/lag relationships with SSTs, plotting 3 low sensitivity and 3 high sensitivity models and (incorrectly) claiming that the low sensitivity models were more accurate. While not even plotting the rest of the models they ran, including medium sensitivity models that just happen to better track ENSO, which were much better fits, models that utterly invalidated their paper. They omitted the data.

    You can’t excuse that kind of omission by saying “Oops!”

  141. Pingback: Stocks and flows | …and Then There's Physics

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s