Reblogged this on <a href="http://marplescope.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/sagans-baloney-detection-rules/" rel="nofollow">Marplescope's Blog</a>.
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by marplescope
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Ragnaar
New study by Jennifer Francis,
“…when sea ice melts, the dark ocean underneath absorbs much more energy from the sun during the summer, which warms the water more than usual. When fall arrives and cold air moves in again, all the energy stored in the water gets released into the atmosphere, which, in turn, causes the air above the water to warm up more than usual. This warming has the effect of pushing the jet stream northward.”
I had read that the solar uptake mostly netted back to zero. I suppose I could see some volume expansion of the polar air. Let’s say the jet stream reaches on average Minnesota in the dead of Winter. That’s half way to the equator, 6000 miles. Are we pushing the jet stream another 60 miles South? 6 miles? I suppose this local warming effect would’ve be somewhat lost to the TOA. It’s trying to store energy in a place that seems to emit it.
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by Rud Istvan
Goeff, I have no quibble with your interpretation. But have always interpreted it somewhat differently, at perhaps a larger ‘mental model’ scale. You asked for examples. Beyond initial geophysics of ore deposits. There are several in The Arts Of Truth. Supposed Enfamil contamination is the intro example in chapter 1.
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by Rud Istvan
Yup. But now sadly lacking in political and regulatory discourse. So help redesign same.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Ragnaar
Danny Thomas
Fenton et al did a paper on Mars, and then it was used by politicians to make a case for uncertainty and natural variability. And Dr. Curry may have been asked about it while testifying. The Mars ‘connection’. I like the idea of looking at Mars. If all else is equal, it was the Sun on Mars.
Here’s a take on it:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars-basic.htm
Where you can read, we don’t know enough to say what caused the change on Mars. The uncertainty monster. However the apparent simplicity of Mars appeals to me. I like natural detectors. Lake temperatures, vegetation, glaciers. Things that broadly record weather. I do not think we are ready to leap from changes on Mars to parallel changes on Earth, inditing the Sun. Albedo is the bounce. How much shortwave radiation (energy) from the Sun bounces right back out the system. This does not rule out a surface bounce that then bounces back to to surface off of a cloud back to Earth. Fenton’s study dates were perfect if you believe 1977 to 1999 was a warm regime here on Earth.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Ragnaar
“Note, none of these centers are predicting, yet, (a) strong, super or monster (El Nino). I’m not as smart as those others [predicting the super and the monster], so right now I am steering away from “monster,” and looking forward to what we learn about prediction, the climate as a whole and, of course, how we communicate our science.” http://www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyRood/comment.html?entrynum=305
↧
Comment on Week in review by markx
Heh…. at last we get an inside view of the climate model engine rooms:
“….doubling CO2 is like adding 1% to the sun’s energy…”
NOW we know how it is calculated. :-)
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by Rud Istvan
Steven, you should almost never engage like this–‘dope’. You acuse here above Andrew of being a dope, a mere ad hom. Cited in this thread as proof of how you often engage in suchnunfortunate ways. Previously you called me a statistical ignoramous for a FACT comment about BEST Antarctica that you objected to. At least with repect to me, you were and remain sadly dopey wrong, and could have found that out before posting your ad hom denigration. Maybe next time checkout academic and professional credentials first before loosing your ad
Do try better. You posts like this make you the ‘dope’. Yet we (well, at least I) sense you can possibly do much better than just being just another dope, making sensible BEST contributions to the climate discourse. Please take the dope chip off your shoulder, and just engage CAGW here.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Danny Thomas
Thank you. I’ll read more on this later.
After reading this: http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-11-06/melting-arctic-sea-ice-doubles-chances-harsh-winters-other-parts-world
Which had a link leading me to this: (don’t support Francis’s viewpoint): http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/01/08/embarrassed-global-warming-alarmists-sink-to-comedic-lows-with-polar-vortex-excuse/
and within this (deflecting), (about UFO’s) to this: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1104/1104.4462.pdf
I’m going to bed.
Thanks for not commenting on my little joke.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by aaron
Very interesting and entertaining. A lot to read, I only read to The Bottom Lines, time for bed.
I think you made a typo or error, pre industrial CO2 is generally considered 280ppm, 180ppm I think is the end of the ice age.
I’ve though many similar things before, see my comment earlier in the thread:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/11/07/week-in-review-34/#comment-645789
Danny, I meant a decrease in the emissions growth rate. We seem to be approaching a linear growth rate.
Sinks are growing. With emissions rates growing, sinks have grown so much that concentrations growth is almost linear.
I would think it is largely an increase in biomass, but not primarily vegetation. Think of the oceans, how much old plant growth is there? I imagine much is consumed by animals…
The oceans are huge, there is a lot of plant mass which reproduces quickly, is short-lived and may be growing because of warming and CO2 (and keeping ocean surface CO2 lower than equilibrium with the increase atmospheric concentration). This mass is likely consumed by animal life rather quickly. Fish also breed very quickly, so both CO2 and energy may be sequestered in large increases in ocean biomass, and waste sink and transports it to the deep ocean to decay (some of Trenberth’s direct deep ocean heating :) )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_(ecology)#Ocean_biomass
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by ROM
The light weight reply to the the question of the “Luther” of the future;
Luther was the end product of a whole transformation of society of the times that had been under way for a century or so previously but had always been severely repressed by the religious based elite.
Luther broke the nexus with the 1500 year old historical debris of the Roman Empire.
In breaking that hold Luther through his 95 theses broke the hold of the religion based elite and opened new windows for western European thinking.
He could have only done so when the times and pressures on the old guard were reaching a point where something was going to crack and break open.
Luther was the trigger and today we in the west are still benefactors of that period of which Luther was the final trigger for that immense European societal change from which the new free thinking religion free paradigm allowed science to prosper and led to the advance of the western civilisation’s influence across the world.
Today the equivalent for a goodly part of the global peoples would be a “Reformation” for the Islamic faith and the final repudiation of the dream of an all powerful elitist Caliphate running everything under the flag of the Star and Crescent.
So you will have to ask the Islamics that question as they haven’t had their Reformation as yet nor is there any sign that such an Islamic “Reformation” is even possible.
↧
Comment on Week in review by D o u g C o t t o n
Typical Rob Ellison – doesn’t understand thermodynamics – quotes “authorities” who also don’t understand thermodynamics and Ellison never answers a fairly straight forward question or two.
So that’s checkmate and he’s lost the argument totally and utterly unless and until he can explain why there’s 33 degrees of warming. After all, my comment was pointing out the huge errors in the typical IPCC authors’ arguments, and all he can do is reference such authors. What a joke.
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by mosomoso
Maybe put “define terms so people are agreeing or arguing about the same things” at number one.
Do I “hate climate change” (an expression actually used in an article linked on previous post)? Do I “believe in global warming”? Why not ask me if I’m for baby kingfishers, or believe in sunrise, or I’m against rain?
I can’t answer those questions in any sensible fashion, especially when they are posed in nonsensical and crudely manipulative fashion, quite often by people pretending to scientific specificity.
I don’t think definitions have to be exquisite in their precision. Barely adequate would do, and in the climate debate would be a big advance. But I wouldn’t want to hear such slob terminology as “conservatives don’t hate climate change” in a pub let alone in a (groan) science communication, especially one which is just being nice to me so I’ll swallow my daily warmie pill.
Don’t need a terminological masterpiece. Just adequate clarification of terms will do.
(Speaking of clarification, I actually am for baby kingfishers in all possible senses. Also gnocchi.)
↧
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by Raving
The internet continues its decline into rubishness. It is gummed up with greedy merchants eager to milk the cash cow of intellectual property. It is terrorized by unstoppable snooping which snuffs expression and leave vulnerable to real tangible documented liability.
Everything done is monitored. Everything expressed is immediately available to scrutiny challange and redress. Everything is copyrighted. Everyone is selling and abusing the essential meaning and value of ‘information’.
It’s over. The internet is dead … Instead of transmitting, disbursing and diseminating packets-of-information … The internet sought to transmute those sublimely efficient information-vesicles of replication and distribution into the most quanta of gold dollar coins.
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by Rud Istvan
GHG do have a radiative effect via omnidirectional scattering. Just basic laws of physics. If you deny those, you lose–including all credibility. See essay Sensitive Uncertainty in new ebook Blowing Smoke.
BUT, the magnitude of the effect is highly uncertain owing to feedbacks. If you deny that, you also lose all credibility. Like Naomi Oreskes, now at Harvard, already has. Which is why Harvard will not get another buck from me until they repent. Repent big time.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Ragnaar
Danny Thomas
I’d expect Forbes to disagree with Francis when possible. Earlier I linked this: “One of the most important and mysterious events in recent climate history is the climate shift in the mid-1970s [Graham, 1994]. In the northern hemisphere 500-hPa atmospheric flow the shift manifested itself as a collapse of a persistent wave-3 anomaly pattern and the emergence of a strong wave-2 pattern. The shift was accompanied by sea-surface temperature (SST) cooling in the central Pacific and warming off the coast of western North America [Miller et al., 1994]. The shift brought sweeping long-range changes in the climate of northern hemisphere.” https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kravtsov/www/downloads/GRL-Tsonis.pdf What I find interesting is the wave-3, wave-2 shift, which I assume shifted back about 1998-2001. I might guess that some small part of what Francis is seeing overlaps with the assumed current wave-3 (3 lobes) pattern that I think Tsonis et al found important enough to lead off their paper’s introduction.
↧
Comment on Week in review by D o u g C o t t o n
The huge mistake in the cited reference which <b>Rob Ellison</b> depends upon is on their page 78 where they write <i>"The same temperature appears in both equations, since thermodynamic equilibrium dictates that all components of the system have the same temperature."</i>
<b>The content of my book proves beyond doubt that isothermal conditions are not the state of thermodynamic equilibrium in a gravitational field or any force field.</b>
If they were then the Ranque Hilsch vortex tube would not work in the way we observe, and the base of the Uranus troposphere would be far, far colder.
↧
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by kim
Tom, the limiting factor is all those styrofoam peanuts.
=====================
↧
Comment on Climate Dialogue: influence of the sun on climate by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #155 | Watts Up With That?
↧
Comment on How urgent is ‘urgent’? by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #155 | Watts Up With That?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
