“I’m flattered to make the list and even more flattered that whoever constructed it had no actual dispute with what I say but just some general disapproval about the way I say it. Classic.”
I don’t know, but I thought your theory was that the ocean surface itself provides the majority of the earth’s greenhouse effect. Is that not the case?
I could look it up now that google is back in effect on this blog.
The Chief fixes the formula with the non-standard usage of calling out E as a power instead of an energy. Chief is not too talented when it comes to math, and this is about all he can handle.
If you think this is only the “start” of such a campaign you haven’t been paying attention.
Anthony does science. You do not have to be an accredited academic to do science.
But it’s obviously ok for the alarmists to have a go at him as a non-expert. After all, they have their own experts, who have been mobilized by no less than Ban-ki Moon and Rajendra Pachauri during Oscar week this year.
*
The UN climate effort, managed by the same office, has broader ambitions. “You have power and influence to send to millions and billions of people around world,” Ban told his Los Angeles audience. “To make planet Earth environmentally sustainable is a political and moral imperative.”
*
Leonardo DiCaprio, Thom Yorke, Will.i.am, Cate Blanchett, etc, etc. Congrats on all your prolonged TV appearences showing your advanced knowledge of all things climate. Listen and learn, people, listen and learn!
Anthony Watts isn’t a scientist in the same way that Benjamin Franklin wasn’t a scientist. When he found that the paint on Stevenson screens had been changed to be out of spec, Mr Watts didn’t apply a correction from a model of the different emissivity, he put up some screens and painted them with different finishes to see what happened. When he became concerned that siting might be a problem, he set up a huge volunteer force to _go and look_.
When Steve McIntyre was told that tree rings needed heavy equipment and lots of money to update he went out and did it between Starbucks coffees.
Compare and contrast with the reaction of real scientists when faced with the WWII blip, or the lack of a tropospheric hotspot, or a decline in tree ring widths when they should have been increasing according to the theory. Real scientists smoothed the blip away, real scientists inferred the hotspot by measuring high level winds and playing with numbers, real scientists hid the decline rather than amend the theory. And they smeared the temperature signals into gumbo to 1200 km and declared that the poor siting didn’t matter.
Tell me, Dr Curry, which sort of scientist do you trust? The real ones or the really real ones?
JF
.”
Harry Dale Huffman
A crackpot who doesn’t believe in greenhouse gas theory and tries to disprove it by looking at the atmospheric data from the planet Venus focusing on a certain Venus altitude compared to an equivalent Earth value.
Better known for other theories involving aliens and why the shape of the Australian continent looks like an upside-down sheepdog.
The SkyDragons
Treehouse coalition of crackpots who reject electromagnetic radiation and photon absorption physics and in particular the greenhouse gas theory. Claes Johnson represents the science side of Sky Dragons, while funds are raised from gullible evangelicals by a defrocked schoolmaster posing as a barrister lawyer and/or eponymous National Review John O’Sullivan, doing . Acolyte Doug Cotton spams the blogs with SkyDragon-inspired FUD. The eight (8) SkyDragons actually collaborated on one book and innumerable Amazon reviews touting it.
Oliver K. Manuel
Provincial crackpot professor known for his “Iron Sun” thesis who appears with equal frequency in d-list journals and on police blotters in the Ozarks. Still on probation and last seen wearing radio locator anklet. This is creepy stuff.
Spartacusisfree (aka mydogsgotnonose)
Sockpuppet engineer who claims that the radiative properties of CO2 don’t apply to the atmosphere
:
There is absolutely no experimental proof of any CO2-AGW [IR band absorption at TOA does not count because it can be explained by a combination of self-absorption of thermal IR and band blocking at the earth’s surface by GHGs in self-absorption. If I’m right, the latter means no CO2-AGW is possible.
…I became a ‘denier’ after I concluded there were 5 errors in IPCC physics. I may be mad, bad and deluded, but I want a second option because I’m a scientist who believes no-one.
Joe “Joe’s World” LaLonde
Crayon-toting skeptic who believes elementary models , however absurd, can be validated by sufficient annotation. Below is the evidence of his handcrafted handiwork, with penciled-in annotations of the Earth’s rotational velocity at different latitudes.
As if it meant anything.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/lalonde-joe/world-calculations.pdf
Stefan “TheDenier” Mikitch
Australian crackpot and apparent Gulag escapee who wants to have everyone locked up that disagrees with him.
Under no circumstances should you argue with him that methane is lighter than nitrogen and oxygen gas (he believes it is heavier and that is why it stays underground and doesn’t rise) and he created a webpage called “METHANEGATE”. Caution : he just might just try to track his opponents down.
Herman Alexander Pope
A very retired scientist from a NASA research lab , HAP channels Chauncey Gardner from the Peter Sellers “Being There”. With nebulous mantras like:
“When the Arctic is liquid, Earth is cooling
When the Arctic is ice, Earth is warming
This is the Thermostat of Earth”
or
“Comparing two different Curve Fits of temperature data does not have anything to say about my Theory. No one should care if an astronomically based curve fit is better or worse than a general circulation curve fit. Actual Ice Core Data supports my Theory. Every time it gets warm and opens the Arctic, it then gets cool. Every time it gets cool and the Arctic closes, it then gets warm. “
On the Crackpot Index scale, HAP gets 20 points for naming his simple theory after himself, “Pope’s Climate Theory”. He also gets the maximum possible bonus, 50 points for claiming a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions, aside from claiming that the future climate will be the same as the past
M.A.Vukcevic
Another iron curtain survivor, Vukcevic mildly claims that all climate changes are due to natural variations from solar activities. Creates very elaborate slides, but the curve fits are in the eye of the beholder.
Fred H. Haynie
Retired good enough for government work EPA scientist evangelizing a DIY theory that excess CO2 in the atmosphere is not caused by anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuels.
Oliver K. Manuel
Provincial crackpot professor known for his “Iron Sun” thesis. Still on probation and appears with equal frequency in d-list journals and police blotters.This is creepy stuff.
Girma Orssengo
A persistent Australian commenter who relentlessly posts a single graph which purports to show little global warming over the last 150 years. The important point is that Girma knows how to lie with graphics, using all of the visual tricks that presentation experts like Tufte warn laypeople about. Girma’s favorite trick is to cherry pick and massage the data, compressing it enough, that to the naive reader, the temperature trends appear flat. Unfortunately Girma is impervious to suggestions and he persists on pefecting his lying-with-graphics skillset. The sad fact is that Girma is also a research scientist who publishes peer-reviewed articles in another field.
Tony (climatereason) Brown
A skeptic who tries to imply that a historical record of subject qualitative anecdotal evidence can overturn the objective quantitative statistical evidence of the paleoclimatologists. The historical painting displayed is by a medieval Flemish artist and was offered as evidence that Europe was cooler at one point. The Swiss Alps or Italian Dolomites in the background is evidence for a metaphorical change in climate associated with the period known as the Little Ice Age. You see, Brown claims the painting was of a lowland area in Belgium, while the shape of the mountains suggest the Dolomites. And thus, voila, allegorical proof for significant natural temperature variation!
Eventually, when someone figures out how to deal with subjective qualititative anecdotal data, using qualitative reasoning perhaps, then historical reconstructions will make some great strides. As it is, everyone is familiar with the “in our day” stories: “When I was a kid, it was fifteen miles to school. Uphill. Both ways. In the snow. And we liked it !!”. That describes the problem — skeptics can use uncalibrated data to make any point they want, and untrained readers will fall for anecdotal arguments.
David Postma
A skeptic who claims that the energy balance models for solar insolation are wrong, mainly because a factor of ½ is missing from the conventional model. This is a Capricorn One kind of crusade that Postma carries, as he likely thinks this mistake has lead to a big coverup which involves every scientist that has ever solved the first order radiative energy balance equations.
Arno Arrack
A skeptic who thinks that all global warming is just a shift of warmer ocean circulation into the Arctic region, thus generating a natural climate change. His research papers consist of pages and pages of circumstantial narrative evidence, which is generally typical of theories that can’t be tested. He also wrote a book, called “What Warming?”, for which the basic research was rejected by both Nature and Science journals. He goes on to whine about this awkward turn of events in the foreword to the book and then references Lysenko! Huge points on the Crackpot Index for that remark!
Nasif Nahle
A scientist bent on disproving the warming trend in vitro with steampunk spectrographic gear . http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Experiment_on_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf
Chief Hydrologist
An Australian civil engineer who invokes chaos and complexity theory to suggest that nothing can be done to predict future AGW.
Says he chose his screen handle based on a Simpson’s character who transformed from a hydrologist into a criminal mastermind (and is fittingly the brother of Sideshow Bob). He claims omniscient powers:
“I can look at sea level pressure at the poles and predict winter storms, I can look at sea surface temperature in the Indian Ocean and predict seasonal rainfall in Australia and Africa, I can look at sea level pressures in the Pacific and predict seasonal to decadal influences in rainfall over much of the world. What can you do? Absolutely nothing at all because you understand nothing at all – you apply a method to data that you don’t understand. It is about as dumb as a computer. You are a lard arse know nothing loser. ”
Sock-puppet handles include Captain Kangaroo and Dionysus
Joachim Seifert
More intelligible postings include :
“1 Ich habe eine Katze
2.Ich habe einen Hund
3. Ich habe einen Vogel
4.Ich habe einen Fisch…”
His oracular pronouncements are believed to relate to solar variations , but to find out you must purchase his pamphlet in the original German from Amazon: ISBN number, 978-3-86805-604-4
Stephen Wilde
Solicitor behind Climate Realists website. Pushes a theory on how the sun could control the Earth’s climate by changes in thermospheric ozone levels causing the jet streams to move and modify average global temperature. Expresses indignation at refusal of scientists believe a legal-defense-like verbal argument fitted to circumstantial evidence.
Latimer Alder
Makes up for lack of an alternate theory by creating a sociopathic consensus of sockpuppets:
•. Latimer Alder
•. Sterling English
•. Your Average Joe
•. Joe Sixpack
May actually exhibit multiple personalities
Nicola Scafetta
A Duke PhD with a theory that asks “Does the Sun work as a nuclear fusion amplifier of planetary tidal forcing? A proposal for a physical mechanism based on the mass-luminosity relation”. Something this complicated probably won’t cut it.
Philip Haddad
An occasional commenter who pushes the theory that the only warming is due to the burning of fossil fuels itself. He is one of the types, a retired PhD chemist with too much time on his hands, writing futile editorials to small-town newspapers.
Myrrh
Ye olde Englishe skeptic who emulateth Robert Hooke in ye third person with such words as fisics to ridicule climate scientists.
So firft Myrrh is saying that the greenhouse gases water/carbon dioxide cool the Earth by taking away the heat from the surface of the Earth through the Water Cycle and it is thif cycle which has been expunged from the AGW world to pretend that greenhouse gases warm the Earth.
Doc Martyn
A biological researcher who believes that past global warming was caused by space dust.
Maintains his nutritional research establishes his climate science credentials.
Peter Lang
Not the skilled American acoustic guitarist, but an Australian with a fixation on nuclear energy as a solution to climate science.
“nuclear allows fuel transportation (and the energy used in doing so) to be reduce by around a factor of 20,000 with current technology and up to a factor of 2 million in future technology (that’s 20,000 to 2 million times less coal ships passing through the Great Barrier Reef)”
His fallacious argument is that AGW caused by CO2 is a hoax, but nuclear technology will save humanity independent of that revelation. See List of fallacious arguments — strawman.
He doesn’t have a theory,but represents the dozens of commenters who think that climate science is in the hands of progressives intent on controlling the world.
Captain Dallas
Retired mechanical engineer with expertise in thermo who serves a fine gibberish salad at http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/, where he goes through imaginative gyrations in second-order theorizing, yet it doesn’t really go anywhere. Responded to one quatitative challenge by claiming his PC expired when applied to heavy caculatons.
His bonefishing blog is his redeeming feature
Well Webster, You used calculated the diffusion rate into the oceans. Use the same math, turn the sun off and plot the temperature decay.
You should consider the thermodynamic boundary layers or stratification layers if you prefer, say 17C for surface mixing, 10C for intermediate thermocline, 4 C for the upper abysmal and 2 C for the deepest oceans.
If you are up for it, plot the NH, tropics and SH, wadda ya get?
Now reverse the process. Is warming of the oceans uniform? Would there be internal delays?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fRUWp63gTrg/UF3NCD35l9I/AAAAAAAADw4/yRGHGSfAr9I/s1600/Eastern+Pacific+bottom+temperature+with+EPICA+CO2+and+Solar.png
The oceans have oscillations with a crap load of energy Webster, the atmosphere can only contain so much of that energy. If it takes 1000 years for one tenth of a degree change in the deep ocean temperature with an 80Wm-2 change in solar forcing, how long would it take with 3.7Wm-2?
Can someone define “scientist” for me. “Academic” certainly isn’t in the definition.
Spence said:
“If you are saying that climate scientists (who?) do not believe the system is Markovian, then you are implicitly accusing them of incompetence or worse based on the statistical methods they use. Because the standard textbook methods most certainly have that assumption built into their core.”
Spence confuses statistics with statistical physics. Climate scientists are not incompetent, they just model according to the physics, not according to the statistics. So for example, we can propose that the rate of sequestration is Markovian, but it is Markovian on many different time scales including that of a diffusional scale, which corresponds to the various pathways for sequestration. This leads to a response that is not even close to exponentially damped. It is in fact fat-tailed.
This also works for heat diffusion on a global scale.
I am not alone in this, I just understand what climate scientists such as James Hanson, David Archer and those who have contributed to the BERN model have done. You read up on this model, and perhaps you will understand what those very competent scientists are doing. It certainly is more comprehensive than what you and Tomas are proposing, which is empty rhetoric without even a toy model to show for it.
Those 15,000 signatures on that petition remind me of some recent history where the consensus, scientific and common, held that blacks and women were mentally and morally inferior to whites and men, respectively; so, therefore, the blacks and females should be relegated to second class citizenship status.
If one believed otherwise, he/she was just a “nigger lover” and a wimp.
Julian
I dont know if you saw my reply to your comment a couple of days ago where you were bemoaning the fact that no one appears to be investigating the interesting matter of oil coverage in the arctic that you recently raised.
Cambridge Uni does not reconvene for another week so this might be a good time to contact Peter Wadham. Alternatively Cambridge University runs an open forum wherebyscience questions are answered by Scientists. Just google ‘Cambridge Naked Scientists.’
I would suggest either of these would be a good place to start, it may well be that there is already research being conducted
tonyb
FOMBS – ‘Using a new measure of coupling strength, this update shows that these climate modes have recently synchronized, with synchronization peaking in the year 2001/02. This synchronization has been followed by an increase in coupling. This suggests that the climate system may well have shifted again, with a consequent break in the
global mean temperature trend from the post 1976/77 warming to a new period (indeterminate length) of roughly constant global mean temperature.’ Swanson and Tsonis 2009
As I say – I am a catastrophist in the sense of Rene Thom rather than a denialist. As an environmental scientist – I am certainly aware of the need to limit POP’s. But you are a twit of monumental proportions heading down a path of stupendous incomprehension in overweening arrogance, ignorance and smugness. That you are certain it is simple and that you have got it absolutlely right is a psychopathology of groupthink and it will end badly as these things always do.
How do you progress? Review your assumptions and grow and learn. I am happy to be of assistance.
“There is never a true equilibrium because there is never a “true” forcing constant. “
Cap’n doesn’t believe that it gets colder when the sun goes down at night. I am beginning to think that he is deeply delusional in how he thinks about science. He treats scientific ideas more like a canvas or mixing bowl, where he can toss his latest word salad in.
Consensus is the inverse of science.
I believe that is the school newspaper at which Manuel is some sort of adjunct professor or was one. The charges are real.
The only conspiracy theory is whether somebody high-jacked his name and is pranking everyone. I kind of doubt that though.
Bart
These fingerprints of human-induced climate change are surely falsification tests of the CAGW-hypothesis. Great, wonderful ! Where I can find (a) quantitative predictions of them in advance of a measurement (b) predictions for all of them (as currently known) and correlations between them and (c) demonstration that natural variation can’t also produce them ? Remember to prove (c) you must show you understand measurements of natural variation over a fair time scale (the earth has been around for some time). For a science -is-settled case (a) (b) and (c) must hold unfortunately for you to make the case. One can always make a fair argument if only some are satisfied but this isn’t what is being done here. BTW – this is how we do it in physics. The bar is not being set artificially high for climate science.
Regarding Steve M., as I mentioned I’ve read his complaints, the original papers, the replies and the reports of the great and the good. I also understand PCA analyses and (critically) understand why its terribly wrong to run an algorithm which gives a signal from noise without addressing this in a paper. If one of my students did this in a project he/she would fail. I’m sorry if this offends you but this is the way that it is. Similarly, if the student made a claim that the result is insensitive to the different datasets when it clearly is then again, that would be a fail. I don’t care less if this hockey stick a small part of the whole picture. It is a highly visible part which the community chose to promote. They can’t then be upset when people lose confidence in them when they not only promote but defend such flawed work. One could add that deleting data from graphs to show a tidy picture when a tidy picture doesn’t exist (and then to defend it when the practice is exposed) is also a good way for somoene to lose confidence in a field’s ability to do science to the highest possible standards.
I find your comment about my job a little curious. I mentioned it at the start and then again after someone commented about it. I mention it again only because you now comment. Or is that you don’t like me comparing practices in different fields ? I would have thought that input from someone with direct experience of model testing in the physics would have been useful, not least if I can point out the differing standards. As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, a big issue for me is how this field responds to criticism. An everything-is-fine,science-is-settled, look-at-our-”consensus” approach is a curious way to put out a scientific message for such a complex field. It invites criticism.
This ones pretty spectacular.
The missing heat was always there – in the short wave. http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=CERES-BAMS-2008-with-trend-lines1.gif
It is found in the oceans as it should be if the warming was all short wave.
@tempterrain
BAGW – just off the top of my head.
Less need for domestic heating in colder climes. Southern England to have climate of the Loire Valley. Reduced airplane flights as people can do sunny staycations in Northern Europe, , Fewer cold related deaths among the poor and/or elderly. Longer growing seasons for crops…more food in ‘temperate’ climes. UK wine industry thriving even more etc etc
re your HAGW
IPCC did not forecast 1 metre of sealevel rise..they forecast up to 0.59m (Table SPM3)
And I keep on trying to frighten myself about such a small rise, and I can’t. I spent Saturday afternoon in Central London watching the tide flow in and out of the Thames. The range at London Bridge – right in the heart of the City – is about 4.4m today. By Friday it will be 6.0m.
http://easytide.ukho.gov.uk/EasyTide/EasyTide/ShowPrediction.aspx?PortID=0113&PredictionLength=7
Lets be clear what this means. On Friday, over a period of 395 minutes, the effective sealevel in the centre of one of our great cities will change by 6.0m. The average rate of change is about 15mm/minute. And we will cope. We’ve known about tides since man first encountered the sea many hundreds of millennia ago. We know how to use them to sail, and how to build sea walls and other infrastructure. They are known issues. They are predictable and we can plan for them.
So lets now add to our unremarkable and entirely normal signal of 15mm/minute the extra due to global warming a la IPCC. Remember that this is 590mm/100 years. In mm/minute units the additional rate is therefore 590/52560000 = 1.12 x10^-5 = 0.000012 mm/minute. And this too, is predictable and we can plan for it.
Please try to persuade me – with real practical examples – that a 0.6m sealevel rise in 100 years is going to be anything more than a minor inconvenience – and can be sensibly accommodated within the normal pattern of sea defence work.
Answers detailing Tuvalu will be rejected. There are even fewer Tuavluans (10,544) than can be accommodated in many League 2 football grounds on a Saturday afternoon. Fewer than there are polar bears (c 25,000). For the special case of Tuvalu, we can make special arrangements if the sealevel rise pans out as predicted.
Ahem peterdavies, I took the global warming test andd scored 10 ; )I have become an avid reader of the graphs and commentaries, some of which I understand.
Thx peter fer the tech support which I read after me nephew got me back on line.
Beth
