The GWPF doesn’t get the joke?

One of the running jokes at the moment is that the “skeptic” argument will change from “no warming since 1998” to “no warming since 2016”. It’s really meant to be mocking the typical “skeptic” misunderstanding of this basic issue: if you pick a particularly warm year as your start year, the resulting trend will appear to be smaller than it probably actually is. It’s a classic cherry-pick. The Global Warming Policy Foundation appears not to have got the joke, as they seem to be suggesting exactly this, by asking

Is the global warming pause over for good — or will it continue once the current El Nino dies down?

So what is really being suggested? That temperatures could drop back down so that there will have been little warming since 1998? Well, that seems highly unlikely. That they could go back to a phase of slower warming after the somewhat large increases in 2014, 2015 and – possibly – 2016? Okay, but even if it did, what would that tell us? Simply that the surface doesn’t warm in some kind of smooth way. It wouldn’t suggest that it isn’t warming. Even the slowdown in the last decade or so has not really changed the long-term warming trend.

The point that many people seem to ignore (or misunderstand) is that – on average – how much we will warm will depend on how much we emit. Our emissions are currently increasing anthropogenic forcings at around 0.3W/m^2/decade. This produces a planetary energy imbalance (more energy in than out) that has to be closed by warming of the surface. However, surface warming is very sensitive to relatively small changes in ocean warming. Hence, we might have periods of faster than average surface warming, and periods of slower than average surface warming. Maybe it will warm in a step-like fashion, with periods of relatively slow warming, followed by relatively rapid/large jumps that then lead to another – but warmer – period of relatively slow warming. At the end of the day, however, the surface has to continue – on average – to warm as we continue to emit CO2.

The author of the GWPF piece happens to be their science editor, is a member of their Academic Advisory Council, and has a PhD in astrophysics. It’s rather hard to see how he doesn’t get this. On the other hand, credentials are not some kind of guarantee that someone will understand a relevant concept. Maybe he just doesn’t understand this topic very well. Possibly Richard Tol, one of their other Academic Advisors, can let us if the reason the GWPF promotes this type of stuff is because they just don’t understand it very well, or because they’re knowingly promoting mis-information. It’s hard to see an alternative option.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Climate change, ClimateBall, Global warming, Science and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

65 Responses to The GWPF doesn’t get the joke?

  1. jsam says:

    The GWPF is the joke. Tol is just the punch line.

  2. Hal Morris says:

    I’m totally with you. I probably should know this, but is there a sound explanation of why 1998 was an outlier?

    Also, w.r.t. “2C in NH”

  3. I think we have to be careful of pushing the 2C in NH line. The supposed limit is 2C global, which would be closer to 3C NH.

    I probably should know this, but is there a sound explanation of why 1998 was an outlier?

    I’m not sure I follow the question, but it was a big El Nino.

  4. Hal Morris says:

    Also , w.r.t. “2C in NH”, it seems to me the constant emphasis on global mean temperature by year waters down the real risk. We talk about that and then talk about Arctic sea ice melting, and perhaps some people aren’t believing it because the more extreme warming in the north isn’t given enough emphasis in public statements. Other facts that could make a difference – thawing of tundra and the temperature extremes that make that possible, and the methane release consequences. Is the rise in temperature systematically different in day vs night? In certain seasons more than others?

    Some of these things can be rather directly observed, while for global mean temperature, you must trust the climatology establishment which many people (never mind their reasoning) don’t.

  5. Also , w.r.t. “2C in NH”, it seems to me the constant emphasis on global mean temperature by year waters down the real risk.

    I agree. It’s a simple metric and ignores a great deal of complexity. On the other hand, we can relate it both to the emissions and to the impacts, so – I think – it does have value.

  6. semyorka says:

    Pretty much every record year will be an el Nino year (2014 sort of breaks this rule).

    Even if we return to the predominant la Ninas we seen in the 2000s

    This clips about 0.1c-0.15C of off global temperatures. That will take a decade of current warming out but the energy accumulation is global not just local to the Pacific and the warming in the high Northern latitudes will continue at pace.
    In fact the February 2016 temperatures seem to be as much about those high northern latitudes as the Pacific’s fading el Nino.

    The GWPF are not trying to do “science” they are just sticking out a PR press release to give their mates in the media and house of commons something to argue with. Its just meme generation.

  7. semyorka says:

    Perhaps going beyond where I should but I often suspect that many of our friends in the “alternative science” community accept a lowish climate sensitivity but not a crazy low one, something like 2-2.5C per doubling. They just think it will not be all that big a deal and they are more about producing these memes to delay what they see as precipitous action than actually build a solid scientific case. It is my view that they feel that as the world warms and no “bad things” happen the sense of urgency will leave the issue.

    That said there are some real headbangers among them with all manner of fragrant science (Goddard, Ball, TallBloke etc)

  8. semyorka,

    Perhaps going beyond where I should but I often suspect that many of our friends in the “alternative science” community accept a lowish climate sensitivity but not a crazy low one, something like 2-2.5C per doubling. They just think it will not be all that big a deal

    It seems to be a combination of “it will be low” or “it won’t be bad”, or some combination of the two.

  9. Why would a PhD in astrophysics mean insight into all scientific subjects?

    We know from this history of science that even well established scientists can react badly to ideas that conflict with their world view, or come from sources they feel obliged to reject.

    Chandrasekhar always believed that Eddington’s attack on him had some underlying racial bias, but it may of course simply have been the radical implications of his ideas. Lenard’s attack on Einstein was definitely anti-semitic.
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-2-pro-nazi-nobelists-attacked-einstein-s-jewish-science-excerpt1/

    Matt Ridley is a great writer regarding genetics and his biography of Francis Crick is one of my favourite scientific biographies. But does he understand the well established basics of the greenhouse effect? Clearly not. He is deeply confused, as revealed in …
    http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/06/matt_ridley_on.html
    The ultimate source of his antagonism to climate science is unclear, but he seems to have a belief in maintaining fossil fuels as a driver of development, and hates anything that does not appear to be optimistic!

    What about Freeman Dyson’s belief that CO2 increases will be good because of an asserted fertiliser effect? He is simply (and lazily) repeating tired zombie arguments …
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ann-reid/freeman-dyson-offers-up-a-smorgasbord-of-climate-change-misconceptions_b_7259170.html
    This is long way from quantum electrodynamics and a long way from the evidence (hello Professor Dyson, have you seen the Keeling Curve’s inexorable rise? If ‘greening’ of the planet was supposed to be saving us, what shape would the curve look like?).

    I think human’s are complex and contradictory. We can be bright in one area and dumb in others. Expecting someone with a PhD to thereby bring an all knowing, all seeing insight, without blindspots, without bias, without hopes & fears …

    You’re having a laugh!

  10. Why would a PhD in astrophysics mean insight into all scientific subjects?

    I, of course, agree.

    We can be bright in one area and dumb in others. Expecting someone with a PhD to thereby bring an all knowing, all seeing insight, without blindspots, without bias, without hopes & fears …

    Indeed. I do think, however, that there might be some expectation that those who’ve been exposed to research at a PhD level have some understand of the basic scientiifc process, also of how research is conducted. Also, someone with a background in physics should have some understanding of the basic processes associated with AGW.

  11. anoilman says:

    Meanwhile we continue to wait for them to provide evidence for their beliefs;

  12. anoilman says:

    …and Then There’s Physics says:
    March 4, 2016 at 8:40 pm
    Indeed. I do think, however, that there might be some expectation that those who’ve been exposed to research at a PhD level have some understand of the basic scientific process, also of how research is conducted. Also, someone with a background in physics should have some understanding of the basic processes associated with AGW.

    My experience is decidedly opposite. There’s all kinds of people out there who are relatively clever, but lacking in various ways. The ability to earn a Phd doesn’t confer much other than the ability to earn a Phd within a narrow field. Fitness for work, the ability to progress with it, or even talent isn’t really obvious until much later. Some people just aren’t cut out for the real world.

    We’ve also seen some physicists willing to debase their values for money, and even offer methods hide direct payments so as to appear independent. Here’s another GWPF backed academic;
    Lawson told the Independent newspaper that he stood by his advisor. “We have a large number of people on our advisory council,” he said. “They’re not part of the staff of the GWPF. They’re distinguished academics. Happer is a distinguished academic.”

    He also claimed the GWPF had a “very thorough peer review process … in many ways better than the standard peer review system in most academic magazines.”

    And here’s what this academic says behind the scenes;
    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2642410-Email-Chain-Happer-O-Keefe-and-Donors-Trust.html

  13. climatehawk1 says:

    On Donors Trust, highly recommended reading: Jane Mayer’s “Dark Money.” In-depth look at the organized effort (and largely successful) effort to re-orient the U.S. political system to benefit the wealthy.

  14. climatehawk1 says:

    Oops, I should add, “Dark Money” includes a chapter entitled “Fossils,” specifically focused on climate change.

  15. Hal Morris says:

    On Donors Trust, highly recommended reading: Jane Mayer’s “Dark Money.”

    I second that; I think it’s the most thorough treatment to date of secretive shenanigans and money dominating the American political process. One thing she says w.r.t. global warming is that acc to polls, a substantial majority of Republicans thought climate change was real and serious as of 2003. She may get some points that Naomi Oreskes didn’t get; quite a bit on the mechanics of how the Tea Party was concocted.

  16. Just out: Tamino has a great analysis of all the many ways in which global warming is changing the planet. Those, like the GWPF, who seek to muddy the waters are both extremely stupid and immoral, whatever their backgrounds and qualifications.

  17. BBD says:

    I second that; I think it’s the most thorough treatment to date of secretive shenanigans and money dominating the American political process.

    A long shadow.

  18. Ethan Allen says:

    Living fossil …
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil

    “A living fossil is a living species (or clade) of organism that appears to be similar to a species otherwise known only from fossils. Normally the similarity is only a superficial physical resemblance between two different species, one extinct, the other extant. Living fossil is a term mostly used in the lay media, sometimes wrongly to imply a lack of evolution, and scientific investigations have repeatedly discredited claims that these species do not change.”

    Psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists and philosophers are still working on that last part, in this “modern” age of social media misinformation trafficking and individualistic media segregation.

    The S/N ratio can only go down, you get to choose your own truths. Anyone in the world can now publish their own ebook and get it listed on Amazon. Isn’t the “modern” disinformation age marvelous?

    Mind over matter (Controlling pain)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_over_matter#Controlling_pain

    “The phrase also relates to the ability to control the perception of pain that one may or may not be experiencing.”

    This Venn diagram …
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Belief_Venn_diagram.svg
    … is being replaced by this Onion diagram …

    Groups like the GWPF just want to switch the “Environment” label with the “Economy” label.
    Or “Belief” encompasses “Knowledge” encompasses “Truth” IMHO that soft creamy center of “Truth” is getting harder and harder to get to.

    And I blame it all on Twitter and Facebook and Amazon and Google and Wikimedia and … you know … basically all “modern” forms of social media brought to you by very tiny devices you might have.in your pocket or purse.

    To make matters worse …

    Twitter to Expand Tweet’s 140-Character Limit to 10,000
    http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2016/01/05/twitter-to-expand-tweets-140-character-limit-to-10000/

  19. BBD says:

    And I blame it all on Twitter and Facebook and Amazon and Google and Wikimedia and …

    Oil on the wheels, yes. Bu the root cause is and was vested interest (aka ‘money’).

  20. BBD says:

    Re: Hal Morris

    quite a bit on the mechanics of how the Tea Party was concocted.

    John Mashey wrote an illuminating article about the genesis of the Tea Party. He begins by quoting from research by Amanda Fallin, Rachel Grana and Stanton A Glantz, published in BMJ Tobacco Control:

    Rather than being a purely grassroots movement that spontaneously developed in 2009, the Tea Party has developed over time, in part through decades of work by the tobacco industry and other corporate interests.”

    Starting in the 1980s, tobacco companies worked to create the appearance of broad opposition to tobacco control policies by attempting to create a grassroots smokers’ rights movement. Simultaneously, they funded and worked through third-party groups, such as Citizens for a Sound Economy, the predecessor of AFP and FreedomWorks, to accomplish their economic and political agenda. There has been continuity of some key players, strategies and messages from these groups to Tea Party organisations. As of 2012, the Tea Party was beginning to spread internationally.

    Recommended reading, if you are interested in this sort of thing.

  21. Mal Adapted says:

    semyorka:

    I often suspect that many of our friends in the “alternative science” community accept a lowish climate sensitivity but not a crazy low one, something like 2-2.5C per doubling. They just think it will not be all that big a deal and they are more about producing these memes to delay what they see as precipitous action than actually build a solid scientific case. It is my view that they feel that as the world warms and no “bad things” happen the sense of urgency will leave the issue.

    Such people are labeled “lukewarmers”, a species of AGW-denier. Lukewarmers acknowledge the reality of AGW, but don’t expect it to be “catastrophic” to themselves or anyone they care about, and don’t care what happens to other people, especially people who are poor or otherwise unlike themselves. For example, while devastating to the pacific island nations in its path, a tropical cyclone that AGW quite probably made the strongest ever recorded in the Southern Hemisphere isn’t catastrophic if the lukewarmer doesn’t personally know anyone who lost their lives, homes or livelihoods. IOW, lukewarmers deny that catastrophe must be considered from the perspective of the victims.

    While selfish disregard for other people has ample historical precedent, it’s not generally considered respectable. To deflect criticism, and because they at least privately think only bleeding-heart libruls pay attention to what happens to other people, some lukewarmers derisively prepend ‘C’ to AGW. All lukewarmers are CAGW-deniers, though, whether or not they are over-optimistic about their own exposure to AGW’s impacts.

  22. “Such people are labeled “lukewarmers”, a species of AGW-denier. Lukewarmers acknowledge the reality of AGW, but don’t expect it to be “catastrophic” to themselves or anyone they care about, and don’t care what happens to other people, especially people who are poor or otherwise unlike themselves. ”

    Actually not. One of the most vocal Lukewarmers I know ( personally ) is Tom Fuller.
    He is a full blown San Francisco Liberal, especially when it comes to taking care of the poor.
    From his perspective some the the mitigation policies do more harm to the poor ( there is some science that suggests the same ).

    “Such people are labeled “lukewarmers”

    Note the passive voice.

    When lukewarmers label themselves and define what we stand for it’s miles away from what
    the anonymous labelers describe ( they are aweful mind readers )

    You and other would do well to collect the statements of real luke warmers. Fact. they are all over the map, so unless you are lazy its best to engage them one on one.

    Other linguistic observation: if anything and everything is a catastrophe, then nothing is.
    Collecting Billions of dollars in taxes is a catastrophe
    Killing birds with windmills is a catastrophe.

    best of all. stop using terms like catastrophe and just stick to the numbers. The numbers indicate to this lukewarmer that we have to take action.

  23. > stop using terms like catastrophe

    Use an acronym instead, it’s realler than real:

    When I write about CAGW, I am referring to statements (mostly by politicians, lobbyists and NGOs) that predict or imply a real catastrophe happening on this our only planet due to global warming. Sea level rise, dramatic rise in surface temperatures, failure of agriculture or water supplies, dramatically increased number and strength of storm, drought and flood.

    https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/?s=cagw

  24. Fact. they are all over the map, so unless you are lazy its best to engage them one on one.

    I agree, but this creates a problem because some self-professed Lukewarmers are almost certainly anything but.

    best of all. stop using terms like catastrophe and just stick to the numbers. The numbers indicate to this lukewarmer that we have to take action.

    Except we need to use words to explain concepts and I think it’s going to sound rather pathetic if – at some point in the future – the argument becomes:”we all knew that we should have taken action, but some people kept using the word ‘catastrophe'”. There’s also a difference between “It could be” and “it will be”; this distinction is often ignored.

  25. BBD says:

    Steven

    When lukewarmers label themselves and define what we stand for it’s miles away from what the anonymous labelers describe ( they are aweful mind readers )

    And:

    best of all. stop using terms like catastrophe and just stick to the numbers. The numbers indicate to this lukewarmer that we have to take action.

    There’s no there there.

    Championing the lukewarm underdog with no there there is odd.

  26. Ethan Allen says:

    Anyone who DEFENDS themselves as a “lukewarmer” or makes up their own definition for “lukewarmer” is a semantic fool.

    “I’m not a misogynist because … blah blah blah blah … I’m a lukemisogynist.”

    “Misogyny is real, but I just don’t think it will have much of an impact on the future welfare of females.”

    “I’m a lukeracist.” “I’m a lukebigot.” “I’m a lukeenvironmentalist”

    Sticking the prefix “luke” in front of ANY word is sort of like saying … meh.

    You don’t get to define what or who you are.

    The Mote and the Beam
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mote_and_the_Beam

  27. Mal Adapted says:

    Steven Mosher:

    From [Tom Fuller’s] perspective some the the mitigation policies do more harm to the poor ( there is some science that suggests the same ).

    Which mitigation policies would those be, Mr. Mosher? What mitigation policies have actually been put into practice, and shown (by some science) to be harmful to the poor? Might they only be straw men raised by Mr. Fuller to attack?

    Mosher:

    When lukewarmers label themselves and define what we stand for it’s miles away from what the anonymous labelers describe ( they are aweful mind readers )

    You and other would do well to collect the statements of real luke warmers. Fact. they are all over the map, so unless you are lazy its best to engage them one on one.

    I’m so glad you responded to my comment, Mr. Mosher. Anyone who wants to may call himself a lukewarmer, because neither you nor Mr. Fuller are master of the word, however vehemently you claim to own it. Thank you for your concern, but I’ll stand by my definition. I apply it to people who accept the fact of AGW, but deny that it has already had catastrophic consequences for (at a minimum) thousands of disproportionately poor people, or that the longer the world puts off effective mitigation, the more catastrophic it will be for additional millions or even billions of people, still disproportionately poor. Since catastrophe is self-evidently in the eyes of the beholder, what can the CAGW-denier’s motivation be but selfish unwillingness to pay the cost of mitigation?

    By his explicit comments, Tom Fuller qualifies for the label as I’ve defined it. Your own comments have been more ambiguous, and of course I’m unable to read your mind. Perhaps you’d like to claim a different label?

    BTW, I’m pseudonymous, not anonymous. To my knowledge, no one comments on climate blogs as “Mal Adapted” but me. If you’ll accept responsibility for everything said by “Steven Mosher”, I’ll do the same for Mal’s comments. Again, thank you for your concern.

  28. Joshua says:

    ==> Fact. they are all over the map, so unless you are lazy its best to engage them one on one.

    EXACTLY!

    They* are all over the map.

    For example, one minute, some say that they’re concerned about ACO2 emissions and the next they’re constructing arguments as if the higher bands of sensitivity confidence intervals don’t exist Or one minute some say that they respect uncertainty and just aren’t certain about the extend of warming attributable to ACO2, and the next they ignore the YOOODGE (h/t The Donald) uncertainties related to the economics of mitigation.

    Thank you for being so straightforward for once, Steven. Indeed, they are all over the map. Which is the basic problem with lukewarmerism: it’s meaningless because it can be twisted to whatever works rhetorically at any given moment.

    * Recognizing that I’m repeating the rhetorial convenience of using “they” in such a vague manner.

  29. “Which is the basic problem with lukewarmerism: it’s meaningless because it can be twisted to whatever works rhetorically at any given moment.”

    Basic mistake. You are assuming that to have meaning a position or movement has to be reduceable to a single ideology. Further, ANY system of thought can be twisted. Finally, what works is good. The failed rhetoric of alarmism isn’t exactly doing the job now is it.

    Like I said it is best to engage them (those who self identify as luke warmers ) on an individual basis. I realize that is hard.

    For the record. The economics are far more uncertain in my mind than the science.
    And that goes as well for the damages.
    Still. It makes good sense to take action. Like many Lukewarmers I would fully support a huge push on nuclear and a rapid move away from coal.

    You can engage that or you can make generalized statements about “them”

  30. “Mr. Mosher. Anyone who wants to may call himself a lukewarmer, because neither you nor Mr. Fuller are master of the word, however vehemently you claim to own it. Thank you for your concern, but I’ll stand by my definition. I apply it to people who accept the fact of AGW, but deny that it has already had catastrophic consequences for (at a minimum) thousands of disproportionately poor people”

    Actually not. You can’t call yourself a luke warmer. go ahead and try. see how it works.
    Try it for a month.
    I can call myself a martian, and that wont work. Simply because you stand by your definition and assert it’s correctness, doesnt really work now does it?

    catastrophic consequences? Already? Are you talking about the poor people who cant afford energy?

    here is the problem you have. You cannot engage real people.

  31. firstdano says:

    @Ethan Allen March 5, 2016 at 6:19 am

    Hey, that’s my graphic! How’d it get there??!

    Best,

    D

  32. mwgrant says:

    I can call myself a martian, and that wont work.

    Damned right! We know you are a ‘lukewarmer’, aka scum-sucking libertarian benthic invertebrate deeenier….

    Martian, pfffft!

    Hmmm. Hi Mosh.

  33. angech says:

    Richard Erskine ( @EssaysConcern ) says:
    “Why would a PhD in astrophysics mean insight into all scientific subjects?”
    Great.
    Do the words “97% scientific consensus” spring to mind?
    Do you agree with it?
    Your logic would therefore seem to tie you into incredible knots.
    A. If you believe in a scientific consensus, you believe in scientists being right ,
    you believe in scientists having insight into all scientific subjects hence a single scientist should qualify.
    B. But if I agree with you, as most logical people would, we quickly reach an impasse. If one scientist cannot be expected to know, all scientists lack insight into many areas and hence would never be able to reach a meaningful consensus.
    C. Or do you mean this well credentialed scientist, and another ,well, credentialed scientist in Richard Toll do not agree with my [Richard Erskine’s] views so they can know nothing?
    Oh, I get it, the answer is C.
    Sorry to have wasted your time.

  34. angech says:

    “surface warming is very sensitive to relatively small changes in ocean warming.”
    This statement is in my opinion,wrong.
    A wrong interpretation of energy transfers.
    The surface air temperature, lets call it the adjacent air surface temp for the first 6 feet [ Anything you like really as long as it is air and in proximity and a reasonable depth].
    The SAT can vary between 20 degrees over the course of 24 hours.
    The Ocean by only a 6th of that and that only in its very surface layer
    It is impossible for something that is changing 6 times more slowly to ever put energy into into the faster changing entity when warming up or to reduce its rate of cooling when both are cooling down.

  35. angech,

    The SAT can vary between 20 degrees over the course of 24 hours.

    We’re not talking about how much it can vary on short timescales, we’re talking about long-term warming resulting for a planetary energy imbalance. Because most (93% or so) of the energy excess goes into the oceans and only a few percent goes into warming the surface, a small change in the energy going into the oceans can have a large impact on surface warming.

    It is impossible for something that is changing 6 times more slowly to ever put energy into into the faster changing entity when warming up or to reduce its rate of cooling when both are cooling down.

    I don’t think this actually makes any sense.

  36. Do the words “97% scientific consensus” spring to mind?
    Do you agree with it?
    Your logic would therefore seem to tie you into incredible knots.

    How are these somehow comparable? These are two largely different issues.

    A. If you believe in a scientific consensus, you believe in scientists being right ,

    No.

  37. I think this is a good point

    You don’t get to define what or who you are.

    People who have to tell you what they are, are either doing a bad job of making it obvious, or aren’t.

  38. Hal Morris says:

    Angech: “Sorry to have wasted your time.”

    I have no problem with you having nice conversations with your imaginary friends whose minds you can read perfectly – although really engaging real people is interesting too and I recommend it. I can’t say it’s always easy (speaking for myself), but taking the trouble, which can involve pushing away that first exciting insight into what the other person is saying, can be rewarding.

  39. matt says:

    > You and other would do well to collect the statements of real luke warmers.

    Not sure if you consider Fuller a real luke warmer, but here is my contribution – the blurb on the front cover of Fullers latest book (2015).

    “The Climategate files opened up what was happening behind the scenes, and it turned out there was no paranoid fantasy: they really were out to get you.”

  40. Pingback: An unchallengeable strategy? | …and Then There's Physics

  41. snarkrates says:

    Angech, Well, at least with so many blatant logical failures in your posts for all to see, it becomes easier to understand how you have reached the positions you hold.
    Your view of scientific consensus is simply wrong. Scientific consensus is predicated on the idea that there are certain facts, models and tools that are necessary to understand a field of study. If you reject the consensus, you simply won’t be as productive or as influential. In the circles of your fellow scientists, you will cease to matter.

    A scientist from outside the field doesn’t publish in that field (by definition) and so contributes little to the consensus. He or she might have something to say about whether the methods are being applied in a scientific manner, but on the subject matter they will have little to say.

    And this statement: “It is impossible for something that is changing 6 times more slowly to ever put energy into into the faster changing entity when warming up or to reduce its rate of cooling when both are cooling down.”

    Well, it demonstrates you are as clueless about thermodynamics as you are about logic and the scientific method.

  42. Mal Adapted says:

    Steven Mosher:

    catastrophic consequences? Already? Are you talking about the poor people who cant afford energy?

    Now that’s a sufficiently unambiguous statement of CAGW-denial. You qualify as a lukewarmer by my definition.

    Recent record-setting heat waves, “super” cyclonic storms, and intense rainfall events are all credibly attributed to anthropogenic global warming. The burden is on CAGW-deniers to show how the death and dislocation caused by such events are not catastrophic consequences of AGW. Preferably while standing before a crowd of the survivors.

  43. Mal Adapted says:

    Well, that’s what I call excellent customer service 8^}!

  44. I even deleted the comment asking for the correction, so it’s almost as if it never happened 🙂 (just in case there are accusations of covering something up, it was simply correcting the italics in the comment)

  45. BBD says:

    Steven

    here is the problem you have. You cannot engage real people.

    Only according to you.

  46. Willard says:

    > How are these somehow comparable?

    Why do you ask, AT? It’s just a way to peddle in “but C13.”

  47. angech writes:

    >The SAT can vary between 20 degrees over the course of 24 hours.
    The Ocean by only a 6th of that and that only in its very surface layer
    It is impossible for something that is changing 6 times more slowly to ever put energy into into the faster changing entity when warming up or to reduce its rate of cooling when both are cooling down.

    ATTP’s response: “I don’t think this actually makes any sense.

    angech is difficult to parse, making his statements almost more relevant to the next comment thread and perhaps what Mosher meant by – An unchallengeable strategy? It’s often difficult to challenge complete gibberish.

    That said, angech sure appears to be saying that, … it is impossible for the ocean to ever put energy into the SATs ..

    Good luck with that theory, angech.

  48. angech says:

    oneillsinwisconsin says: That said, angech sure appears to be saying that, … it is impossible for the ocean to ever put energy into the SATs ..
    No.
    Get your facts right Kevin.
    Never said that.
    Of course the ocean can put energy into the SAT. Whenever it is hotter than the air.
    But.
    I said that if something very large , with a very large capacitance, that changes temperature slowly.
    Known as the ocean.
    Is in touch with something very thin with an ability to change temperature rapidly.
    Known as the air.
    It is wrong to say “surface warming is very sensitive to relatively small changes in ocean warming”.
    If the ocean really , really warms up, by 1 degree The air temperature can only ever go up 1 degree from the ocean influence.
    The air warms up 20 degrees from the sun in the day. That is sensitive.
    I degree from the ocean warming?
    Nah.
    Whether as ATTP the ocean warms up overall an incredible 1 degree in a millennium [large capacitance remember] the sensitive old air can only warm up by one incredibly sensitive degree from the ocean.
    Now it is sensitive to CO2 input but that’s another story.

  49. angech,
    I’m not really sure what you’re getting at and I’m not sure you are either. The emission of GHGs produces a planetary energy imbalance. That means more energy in than out. Most of this excess energy goes into the oceans. Only a small fraction heats the surface. This means that a small change in how much is heating the oceans can have a big impact on surface warming. Hence we don’t expect the surface to warm smoothly.

  50. As others have asked, angech, are you blogging drunk again?

  51. semyorka says:

    Our friends at the GWPF may have to revise their logo if these models for this years ENSO pan out.

    Early days but until this latest forecast we were 50% for a weak la Nina by Octoberish. Now a weak el Nino is the most likely.

  52. jsam says:

    In vaguely related news, why is The Thunderer and the GWPF granting Melanie Phillips any scientific credence after MMR – The Truth.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-171316/MMR–The-Truth.html

    Where is an Academic Advisor when you need him?

  53. jsam,
    I’m guessing, but it appears that they like it when the public are mis- or under-informed.

  54. Hal Morris says:

    It’s a small decline; my guess is it’s due to less bullshit. Look at 2009, far and away the biggest number(s); without a doubt more than half “Climate Gate”.

    The doubters (“Our Product…”) haven’t had much to work with lately, and I suspect the smartest people on the right are starting to say “Let’s lower our profile because we’ll soon be pissing upwind (to mix my metaphors), and start making noises about how the market was going to solve the problem all along — if there’s a problem — not that we want to say there is.

  55. angech says:

    oneillsinwisconsin says:
    “As others have asked, angech, are you blogging drunk again?’
    Like Carrick at Lucia’s, Kevin.
    No,
    I have given Carrick a serve back on his misunderstanding of physics when he said.
    “, thermodynamics is a mathematical science. The underlying equations rule and what they say is, for the Earth to warm, the amount of heat energy absorbed must exceed the amount radiated. Otherwise the temperature is exactly constant.”

    “I would say that for the earth to warm it needs to have an increase in its heat source.
    The energy absorbed would then exceed the energy previously absorbed.
    NB. the amount of heat energy being irradiated as well goes up.
    In fact it equals what is coming in but the earth itself is hotter.
    To be perfectly clear, Your comment violates all 4 rules of Thermodynamics.
    If an object can absorb energy and radiate less, by your definition it would eventually become warmer than the object heating it [impossible] and would be made up of some incredible material [CO2 perhaps] that was only hot inside itself.”

    The fact that heat in equals heat out no matter what the insulating material is escapes most people [I know if you argue with the world the world wins].
    My view is that part of the layer can be warmer than another due to its makeup but there is no “build up of energy” or energy imbalance.
    If the air is hotter to raise the TOA, then other parts of the system will be cooler. This is not to deny an increase in heat in the air but the air is not the heat or energy of the planet only part of it and in overall balance or equilibrium with heat coming in going out at the same time.
    Obviously the components radiating the heat out are never in equilibrium temperature wise with each other

  56. angech – You write: ““I would say that for the earth to warm it needs to have an increase in its heat source.” If you’re not drunk blogging, then you have no excuse. You simply don’t understand physics. That’s just wrong. Flat out, indisputably, wrong. Take up ‘Go Fish’ – it may be more your speed.

    The alternative is that 200 years of physics is incorrect and there is a Nobel in your future. There aren’t enough LOLs in the world to follow that thought.

  57. Ethan Allen says:

    Someone here, not saying who, mind you, really needs to take a basic course in … wait for it … thermo … wait for it … D-Y-N-A-M-I-C-S!

    Looks at self, its been awhile, I need an update too.

  58. angech,
    This is right

    thermodynamics is a mathematical science. The underlying equations rule and what they say is, for the Earth to warm, the amount of heat energy absorbed must exceed the amount radiated. Otherwise the temperature is exactly constant.

    If you think this is wrong, you really do need to go back to basics.

  59. Andrew Dodds says:

    Well, personally, I think that Angech is right, and to prove it I’m going to walk to the South Pole wearing a t shirt and shorts.. after all, the temperature of the air in contact with my skin depends only on my internal heat generation.

  60. dikranmarsupial says:

    “If the air is hotter to raise the TOA, then other parts of the system will be cooler.”

    This is the obvious non-sequitur. If the upper atmosphere warmed due to a radiative imbalance, caused by an increase in GHGs, then the whole of the Earth system would be warming, starting from the surface and later reaching the upper atmosphere. The former does not imply the latter. Would warming the atmosphere raise the TOA significantly anyway?

  61. Pingback: Il modello econometrico del clima – OggiScienza

  62. JCH says:

    I wanna go with Andrew Dodds. Sounds like a cool adventure.

    If an object can absorb energy and radiate less, by your definition it would eventually become warmer than the object heating it [impossible]

    Equilibrium is impossible.

  63. Pingback: Ondanks pieken en dalen gaat de opwarming gestaag verder | Klimaatverandering

  64. Pingback: 2016: A year in blogging | …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