Comment on Nullius in Verba by Chief Hydrologist

February 11, 2012, 2:19 am

≫ Next: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Girma

≪ Previous: Comment on Letter to the dragon slayers by Pete Ridley

Smile when you say that pardner – it’s a shibboleth. Then again – it was you I ws teferring to as self taugh – and the teacher is a moron. You bring T&G here and expect that it is either new or interesting. It would be very surprising if photons weren’t randomly emitted in all directions at once by multiple molecules. But it is not surprising that you sell ad nauseum the biggest pile of horse manure it has been my misfortune to see – well since yesterday – but that’s another story.

I wouldn’t know where to start with any rebuttal – so I am not going to even bother. You haven’t got the sense God gave you when you were born yet you come in hijacking threads for no other purpose but sharing your long winded, bombastic and falacious thought bubbles. They are not even ideas – they are random compilations of barely digested verbiage. You are so full of crap that I can barely string enough perjorative terms together to describe it.

I am not going to bother talking to you about energy in all forms and the second law in particular. You wouldn’t know the second law if you fell off it. If you haven’t figured out how it works already. I can’t help you. You are probably congenitally unable to process higher order concepts. You have in fact the IQ of an amoeba and probably the looks as well.

Yours sincerely

Robert I Ellison
Chief Hydrologist

↧

Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Girma

February 11, 2012, 2:26 am

≫ Next: Comment on Consensus or not (?) by DirkH

≪ Previous: Comment on Nullius in Verba by Chief Hydrologist

Max

Could you please explain the following calculation of your?

Let’s say IPCC projected warming of 0.2C per decade for the first decades of the new century. This is a projection of 0.4°C warming over the first two decades.

The 11-year period 2001-2011 showed cooling of, let’s say 0.1C.

The 9-year period 2012-2020 must now show warming of:

(20*.02 + 0.1)/9 = 0.5/9 = 0.0556°C per year or 0.556°C per decade, in order for the 20-year projection to have been correct.

Right?

↧

Comment on Consensus or not (?) by DirkH

February 11, 2012, 2:27 am

≫ Next: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Girma

≪ Previous: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Girma

Now that the consensus is broken you don’t want your consensus anymore? Unfortunately,

You made it;

You OWN it.

And I will keep calling the IPCC consensus climate scientists the IPCC consensus climate scientists, just to be as specific as possible in naming the enemy. And I do mean that seriously; they are the enemy of honest science. Here in Germany, people like Marotzke and Latif, and of course Schellnhuber and Rahmstorff do their best defending the consensus against the marauding hordes of skeptics; and it’s fun to watch them go down. I want them fired.

The consensus came home to roost. And it was good.

↧

Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Girma

February 11, 2012, 2:40 am

≫ Next: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Chief Hydrologist

≪ Previous: Comment on Consensus or not (?) by DirkH

Max

How about doing it like this.

There was no warming in the first decade of the 21st century. (http://bit.ly/yeqsz0 )

For IPCC’s projection of 0.2 deg C per decade to be correct, at the end of the second decade of the 21st century, the increase in temperature should be about 0.4 deg C. All this increase should occur in the second decade of the 21st century. As a result, to satisfy the IPCC’s projection, we should see a global warming rate of 0.4 deg C per decade for the period from 2010 to 2020.

Do you agree?

↧

Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Chief Hydrologist

February 11, 2012, 3:01 am

≫ Next: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Markus Fitzhenry

≪ Previous: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Girma

@webby

I said I would be friends. We have been fitting floods to pdf’s for a long time. It is a similar process. It is used for calculating 1,000 or 10,000 year floods – where data doesn’t exist. You can look up the functions anywhere.

http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view&current=logpearson.gif

There is no real reason why wind speed should not have a skewed distribution. With complexity , however, we are looking for both extreme events and changes in regime. Extemes are dragon-kings that may not be captured by traditional power distributions. Thus my calculated 10,000 year storm may not be.

The change is regimes is more subtle. In Australia we have 20 to 40 year hydrological regimes in which the average summer rainfall in the wet regime is 4 to 6 times the average in a dry regime. This doesn’t show up in a frequency distribution but is a critical issue for water resources planning for instance. So you can neglect complexity – but in the real world in can bite you hard on the bum.

Robert I Ellison
Chief Hydrologist

↧

Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Markus Fitzhenry

February 11, 2012, 3:33 am

≫ Next: Comment on Nullius in Verba by Jim Cripwell

≪ Previous: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Chief Hydrologist

“”but in the real world in can bite you hard on the bum.”"

Ouch!

↧

Comment on Nullius in Verba by Jim Cripwell

February 11, 2012, 4:31 am

≫ Next: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Chris Ho-Stuart

≪ Previous: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Markus Fitzhenry

ceteris non paribus makes this ridiculous claim

“ceteris non paribus | February 10, 2012 at 1:58 pm |

Jim Cripwell,

On the one hand we have the Royal Society, and all the other national and international scientific bodies of the planet, thousands of peer-reviewed publications, and great heaps of supporting empirical evidence, almost all of which is public.”

I tried to engage him on the claim of “great heaps of supporting empirical evidence,”, but he does not seem to have any sort of science or numbers to back up this nonsense.

The fact of the matter is that there is almost no empirical evidence to support the hypothesis of CAGW. Specifically the IPCC, using non-validated models, and other dubious scientific methodology, has a chain of estiamtions, which goes something like this.

1. Estimate the change in radiative forcing for a doubling of CO2.

2. Estimate the no-feedback climate sensitivity for this change in radiative forcing; i.e change in surface termperature.

3. Estimate the amount this change in surface temperature is magnified by feedback mecahanisms.

At NO stage in this 3 stage process is there any empirical evidence at all.

I challenge ceruri non paribus to come up with some sort of scientific references to back up his nonsensical claim that there are “great heaps of supporting empirical evidence” to support the hoax of CAGW.

↧

Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Chris Ho-Stuart

February 11, 2012, 4:35 am

≫ Next: Comment on Nullius in Verba by Peter317

≪ Previous: Comment on Nullius in Verba by Jim Cripwell

If I may chip in, again…

Girma, your intuition that the trend for 2000-2020 is unlikely to be as high as 0.2 C/decade is sound. I agree it is unlikely to be that high.

It’s just that giving a formal mathematical basis for that likelihood is not particularly simple.

For myself, I’ve suggested that 2005-2025 is likely to be below 0.2; and specifically somewhere from 0.15 to 0.2, but that’s a quick guess not a calculation, based on rough consideration of decadal scale variability/

As for the trend extending the 15 years Leake was looking at from 1997; I’ve hacked my spreadsheet to look for parallel cases in the past, where a low 15 year trend has developed into a high 20 year trend.

The biggest such jump is back mid-century.

Trend 1942-1957: -0.185
Trend 1942-1962: -0.026 http://bit.ly/ycGDSO

Trend increases by 0.159; except it’s from really negative to slightly negative, rather than being from flat to strongly positive.

Another slightly smaller increase (by 0.113) on positive trends is this one

Trend 1962-1977: -0.027
Trend 1962-1982: 0.087 http://bit.ly/zIiyKU

However, one thing I think — and on this I certainly agree with Chief Hydrologist — just looking at trends alone isn’t all that useful. Knowing the physical causes for things is a better basis for looking at what may happen.

Chief cites interesting work by Swanson and Tsonis, which proposes a physical basis for a lull extending out to roughly 2020. Furthermore, their proposal also highlights the two “jumps” I list above. This all constitutes a physical reason for suspecting the 20 year trend won’t be up to 0.2. They do predict the same underlying non-periodic warming trend will continue to be the main factor through this century; their model is that the internal variation is greater than the IPCC projection would suggest. This also implies GREATER climate sensitivity, not smaller. You need more sensitivity to get a big response to these internal factors. They make this point explicitly in their work.

Be that as it may, their proposal, if it pans out, would almost certainly result in the IPCC prediction failing over the immediate future out to 2025.

Cheers — Chris

↧

Comment on Nullius in Verba by Peter317

February 11, 2012, 4:39 am

≫ Next: Comment on Nullius in Verba by Peter317

≪ Previous: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Chris Ho-Stuart

So we either abandon any hope of rational discussion on any subject, or we assume people’s views are reached at through reason until we have actual evidence to the contrary.

Yes, but we don’t bet the farm on it until it’s been thoroughly tested.

↧

Comment on Nullius in Verba by Peter317

February 11, 2012, 4:53 am

≫ Next: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by JCH

≪ Previous: Comment on Nullius in Verba by Peter317

Holly, have you ever wondered why the only deluded people around are those who disagree with your viewpoint?
Do you actually understand what this particular thread is all about?

↧

Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by JCH

February 11, 2012, 4:57 am

≫ Next: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Chris Ho-Stuart

≪ Previous: Comment on Nullius in Verba by Peter317

Why are you doing your figuring with HadCRUTCH3? We are on a planet not measured by HadCRUTCH3. The region measured by HadCRUTCH3 is of little interest.

Use GisTemp.

↧

Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Chris Ho-Stuart

February 11, 2012, 5:10 am

≫ Next: Comment on Nullius in Verba by cui bono

≪ Previous: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by JCH

JCH, I am inclined to agree that HadCrut3 is not quite as good; but you don’t get a whole heck of a lot of difference with GISS. My spreadsheet uses both, plus the NCDC series, plus the two satellite series for the lower troposphere — UAH and RSS.

I steer clear of the lower troposphere data (RSS and UAH) as that really is measuring something different, and because it has greater associated uncertainties. But it’s a handy second comparison.

For the surface record, any of GISS, HadCrut3 and NCDC would be okay by me; so I just use what other people have been using already.

HadCrut4 is due soon. I expect that to bring HadCrut more into line with measurement of the full globe, as GISS is doing.

↧

Comment on Nullius in Verba by cui bono

February 11, 2012, 5:11 am

≫ Next: Comment on Nullius in Verba by Martha

≪ Previous: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Chris Ho-Stuart

Jim,

(1) and (2) seem to be generally estimated at ~ 1.1C, with general agreement (maybe +- 50%)?

(3) is the real bugbear. Just take the figure from (1) and (2) and multiply by 3. This seems to have been invented ex nihilo by the warmists in order that the AGW theory match the real world data.

Well, now the theory is not matching the data (ie: real world warming << model predictions). So I would also be interested in a defence of (3). It is still used in the AR5 FOD – "Therefore, although carbon dioxide is the main control knob on climate, water vapour is a strong and fast
30 feedback that amplifies any initial forcing by a factor of typically three." (ch 8).

Can anyone defend a multiplier of 3 without an excess of handwaving?

↧

Comment on Nullius in Verba by Martha

February 11, 2012, 5:14 am

≫ Next: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Girma

≪ Previous: Comment on Nullius in Verba by cui bono

Curry, Montford and Lindzen’s nostalgia for a concept of truth and independence that they believe is captured in the history of the Society is touching at some level, but amounts to mythmaking. There was and always has been plenty of politics and patronage involved.

“on the word of no one”

The Royal Society’s motto and foundational philosophy was to view science as something apart from society, with unchanging knowledge. It introduced the idea of scientific patronage and the writing of blank cheques to beneficent elites. There’s also the matter of the refusal to admit women scientists: women were prevented by statute from being fellows of the Royal Society until 1945. That is thirty years after the rest of society gave women the right to vote.

For those who believe the Society is now acting in ways it should not, I suggest it has admirably dragged itself up to 2012 and is increasingly more informed by a a socio-historical understanding of the activity of science and the role of scientific knoweldge in modern society.

An uncritical appeal to the symbolism and nostalgia of the past, including mottos and ideals that amount to intellecutal, social and historical myths (even lies) is understandable but unrealistic. At the very least, Curry, Montford and Lindzen should recognize the need to be politically informed about both the past as well as the present.

↧

Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Girma

February 12, 2012, 3:51 am

≫ Next: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Chris Ho-Stuart

≪ Previous: Comment on Nullius in Verba by Martha

Chris

The temperature trend over the last 40 years has been about 0.16 C/decade.

This 0.16 deg C per decade is a cyclic warming rate, as there was the same warming rate from 1910 to 1940. The only persistent warming rate is only 0.06 deg C per decade, as shown here => http://bit.ly/Aei4Nd

Assuming the current warming rate continues into the future may lead to incorrect conclusion if it were done in the 1940s => http://bit.ly/x6dzC2

The global warming IS NOT 0.16 deg C. It is only 0.06 deg C per decade!

↧

Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Chris Ho-Stuart

February 12, 2012, 4:03 am

≫ Next: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Chris Ho-Stuart

≪ Previous: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Girma

Anteros, I’m sorry I missed your question to me about Hansen’s thoughts on long term sensitivity.

The distinction he draws between slow and fast feedbacks is fine and serves as a widely recognizable characterization of what he is describing.

The value of about 3 for the standard “Charney” equilibirum sensitivity is also unexceptional; it’s just background to the discussion, referring to the current best available rough estimate.

The longer term sensitivity he means needs feedbacks that are slower than the response of the ocean to come up to an approximate thermal equilibrium. They are a proposed gradual response to the new higher temperature reached after the Earth comes into energy balance again.

The value he proposes, of 6 degrees, on the other hand, is not generally accepted. Nor is it easily rejected or falsified, given the time scales. The testing of those ideas needs to be more indirect (which is okay in principle) but will need much better modeling. For my own part, I don’t think a single number makes a lot of sense; since the magnitude of the kinds of response being considered is unlikely to be even approximately linear, I think. But going into my reasons would be another topic; and I’m not really an expert anyway.

↧

Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Chris Ho-Stuart

February 12, 2012, 4:21 am

≫ Next: Comment on Nullius in Verba by Steve Milesworthy

≪ Previous: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Chris Ho-Stuart

Vaughan, the equilibrium sensitivity is not used to project temperatures to 2100; for the reason you mention. We don’t expect 2100 to be in equilibrium.

To see the IPCC projections to 2100, refer to AR4 technical summary section 5. In all cases, the projections are simply based on models.

Some people, mostly non-experts I think who are misusing the concepts, may use sensitivity to project temperature in that way; but in the literature I think the major use of equilibrium sensitivity is as a diagnostic for comparing or characterizing models.

For example, Hansen’s work in 1988, which has been discussed here, is universally recognized, in Hansen’s own retrospectives also, as “running hot”. The model has a sensitivity that is rather higher than the more advanced models in use today. That’s an example of a straightforward use of sensitivity as a model diagnostic.

Cheers — Chris

↧

Comment on Nullius in Verba by Steve Milesworthy

February 12, 2012, 4:27 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by Markus Fitzhenry

≪ Previous: Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Chris Ho-Stuart

I listened to the Q&A and didn’t hear any “dismissing” of climate sceptics.

So unless there was another bit I missed it sounds like there is some poisoning of the well going on here.

May *did* discuss the importance of including dissidents where science was uncertain, but also he pointed out that where the public were getting the wrong end of the stick of the state of science due to a preponderance of “dissident” publicity, the media preference for dissident views and the preference of people to accept dissident views, that bodies such as the RS should *consider* getting involved to rebalance the argument towards the science.

↧

Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by Markus Fitzhenry

February 12, 2012, 4:32 am

≫ Next: Comment on Nullius in Verba by Peter317

≪ Previous: Comment on Nullius in Verba by Steve Milesworthy

“Peter317 | February 12, 2012 at 6:49 am |
You appear to be assuming that ‘natural’ deviations are always in the direction of cooling. Besides which, once any particular event has happened, its probability has already, by definition, become unity – so its prior likelihood of occurring is no longer meaningful.”

Increasing isolation has reduced cloud cover. Earth has warmed a total of 1.2K in 360 years. Of isolation 99.6% accounts for temperature, natural forcing of .04% being the increase in the Suns isolation. Happy Days.

↧