is the start of a hilarious joke, yet Eli lacks a punch line. Sophie Yeo writes of a dinner thrown by Nick Lewis
Twelve scientists and sceptics have met privately to discuss how to suck the venom out of the climate change debate.Eli enjoys British arch expressions well put, but hilarity ensues
It was one of science’s strangest social events to date.
Some of the best known names in the climate debate – including Mail on Sunday journalist David Rose, blogger Anthony Watts, and Met Office scientist Richard Betts – shared salmon and civilities at a dinner party last month.Sou writes daily of Willard Tony's lack of self awareness and Eli's suspicion is that Tamsin Edwards must be a distant descendent of Emile Coue, still, in the face of world class competition David Whitehouse brings the house down in a quote fed to Yeo
“Both sides are really fed up with the outrageous alarmists who are not representing science properly. Both don’t like those who shout about it and call people names and take a polarised point of view,” says David Whitehouse from the sceptic thinktank The Global Warming Policy Foundation.Eli, Eli is simply not up to dealing with this, so the Bunny outsources to Paul Krugman writing about Nick Lewis' ilk
for example, whether the rise in the airborne fraction of CO2 has been caused by humans. Still, Krugman is right and he is right when he continuesWhen the going gets tough, the people losing the argument start whining about civility. I often find myself attacked as someone who believes that anyone with a different opinion is a fool or a knave; as I’ve tried to explain, however, that’s mainly selection bias. I don’t spend much time on areas where reasonable people can disagree, because there are so many important issues where one side really is completely unreasonable.
Perhaps in this context a word change or two but given the cottage industry in trying to beat back the numerous bad faith arguments made in denial of our changing our only planet and its climate not for the better, the Rabett might point out, why yes, bad faith arguments are everywhereRelatedly, obviously someone can disagree with my side and still be a good person. On the other hand, there are a lot of bad people engaged in economic debate — and I don’t mean that they’re wrong, I mean that they argue in bad faith.
Illustration looking glassed from Stephen Kade Illustration blog
"there are a lot of bad people engaged in economic debate"
ReplyDeleteMore selection bias.
After all, who debates economics more than economists?
Retards. Especially anonymous ones like you.
ReplyDeleteAs honest brokers might be wont to say, economists don't debate, they share their mutually incompatible assumptions among themselves.
ReplyDeleteWhat remains is sold to Leibnizians.
David Rose is a bad man maligning his moral superiors. That's Bob the Builder there, FFS, second from the right, yellow hard hat. He's okay, is Bob. My little boy (also called Bob, on occasion) thinks very highly of Bob. Bob's not an alarmist, a retired banker or - far worse - an economist. He's a builder.
ReplyDeleteBob knows the world needs ever more poorly insulated flammable stick condos.
ReplyDeleteWonderful, self-congratulatory positioning here: we're all so reasonable, so ready to discuss what's happening (if anything is) and whether something might, someday, really need to be done. Why, we're ready to discuss it ad infinitum, even to the end of days-- and we promise to be surprised, shocked even, when it finally arrives, that no one who counted (like us) ever decided to actually act.
ReplyDeletePretending that people such as Watts are tractable is a form of denial in itself.
ReplyDeleteSee Watts' own remarks in the Guardian item, then go look at Watts' blog, where on the same day of publication he joins the loonies as described by GWPF's Whitehouse by demanding Ben Santer to admit that warming of the climate isn't happening.
As usual, coherency and internal consistency is not a priority. The disconnect is bad enough to smell of crazy.
"When the going gets tough, the people losing the argument start whining about civility."
ReplyDeleteQuote that to Victor Venema and the anonymous superstar who writes "And Then There's Physics". They love civility over actual substance.
Star Struck
ReplyDeleteStop whining.
You have to realise these were running gags throughout several series...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XusxpT0WHd4
seemed appropriate
"rise in the airborne fraction of CO2 has been caused by humans"
ReplyDeleteShouldn't that be "rise in the concentration of CO2"? "Airborne fraction" is usually used to represent the ratio of the change in concentration over the emissions of CO2 over a several year period (usually about 40 percent, give or take). While there has been a small upward trend in the airborne fraction (though, yes, the contrarians like to claim that a roughly constant airborne fraction clearly implies that climate change is harmless, or something), it is the change in concentration that is a) obvious, b) clearly human-caused, c) called into question by people like Curry, Spencer, Salby, and Essenhigh, thereby d) calling into serious question the scientific judgment of said scientists (all of whom have repeated their doubts even in the face of a lot of attempted education, and none of whom seem to have spent any time actually talking to carbon cycle experts).
-MMM
Nic Lewis must be one hell of a carver-
ReplyDeleteThe Guardian reports those attending had difficulty agreeing on whether they had dined on beef or salmon ?
Ha. Beef denial.
ReplyDeleteMMM
ReplyDeleteSo the atmospheric fraction is the fraction of the anthropogenic emissions of CO2 resident in the atmosphere, *not* the fraction of the atmosphere composed of CO2 from all sources including natural. Or have I mangled this?
Yes. Atmospheric fraction = atmospheric concentration. Increase from 280 ppm in last 100 years belongs to us
ReplyDeleteThanks Eli.
ReplyDeleteIn case anyone else is curious, I found this SkS article helpful in resolving my terminological confusion.
How about this, in America, a creationist and a science denier walked into a well appointed and cushy Florida State University office suite and a big paycheck.
ReplyDeleteOnly in America, land of the retarded.
Do I have to wear a suit If I get invited to one of those dinners? Or are jeans and an Iditarod leftover sweatshirt dressy enough?
ReplyDeleteWhether it was beef or salmon, it was tartare.
ReplyDeleteFernando
ReplyDeleteWear the bottoms of your trousers rolled.
And be quiet when the mermaid sing.
Of course the denialists are arguing in bad faith. Putting extra energy into the atmosphere is going to warm it. How can it not?
ReplyDeleteA survey of the table at the end of the meal revealed that the views of scientists and sceptics on the level of “transient climate response” – or how much the world would warm should levels of pre-industrial CO2 be doubled – differed only by around 0.4C, recounts journalist David Rose.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how garbled this part is. The definition given does not match the "transient" part and IIRC Watts amongst others has stressed that he believes the no-feedback warming of CO2, but not the IPCC estimate of the full climate sensitivity. So I have to wonder how much they do in fact agree.
If you take the Yeo piece at face value Watts et al come over as a sincere and knowlegable. *rolls eyes*
"For the sceptics, the motivation for the meeting centered on shifting the perception of them as 'denialists' to proficient scientists who can contribute to the debate."
ReplyDeleteSalmon, beef? Appears to have been a multi-course baloney-fest.
John Puma
As MM has pointed out, Eli has confused "airborne fraction" with concentration,.
ReplyDeleteThe airborne fraction has risen very little (if at all0.
From wikipedia: "The airborne fraction is a scaling factor defined as the ratio of the annual increase in atmospheric CO
2 to the CO
2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.[1] It represents the proportion of human emitted CO
2 that remains in the atmosphere. The fraction averages about 45%, meaning that approximately half the human-emitted CO
2 is absorbed by ocean and land surfaces. There is some evidence for a recent increase in airborne fraction, which would imply a faster increase in atmospheric CO
2 for a given rate of human fossil-fuel burning.[2] However, other sources suggest that the "fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades".[3][4]
Changes in carbon sinks can affect the airborne fraction."
Jeffrey Davis
ReplyDeleteThe survey results was for those present and sitting at the table (I presume). My guess is the invitee list was prepared to create a positive atmosphere and avoid a stressful evening. This means the 0.4 degree TCR difference is quite reasonable.
I suspect the larger differences arise in issues such as the attribution of extreme weather (the White House has gone nuts over this issue in recent months), and whether the proposed use of renewables makes any sense.
There are other minor tactical issues, such as Climategate, the use of global warming as a cover to push extreme left wing and right wing political positions, model reliability, and whether we should use the Pragmatic Precautionary Principle (as I would advocate) or the plain Precautionary Principle which involves digging a deep pit and lowering yourself in it to avoid future tornadoes.
"There are other minor tactical issues, such as Climategate, the use of global warming as a cover to push extreme left wing and right wing political positions..."
ReplyDeleteEvery day's a facepalm day with Fernando.
Fernando,
ReplyDeleteRose's "how much the world would warm should levels of pre-industrial CO2 be doubled" is not some transient response, but describes the climate sensitivity, i.e. the equilibrium temperature change. The IPCC range is between 1.5°C and 4.5°C, with a "best" value of 3°C. Do you honestly think that Anthony Watts, David Rose and the other pseudo-skeptics put that most likely value at 2.6°C?
"Do you honestly think that Anthony Watts, David Rose and the other pseudo-skeptics put that most likely value at 2.6°C?"
ReplyDeleteDavid Rose reports agreed climate sensitivity of around 2.6C. Now there's something with which to take the piss out of that useless hack.
Every day's a facepalm day
ReplyDeleteFICS induced dementia seems to be spreading faster than Ebola.
Bluegrue, did they use TCR or ECS. I always use TCR because it's not as iffy.
ReplyDeleteWatt seems to like the direction science is taking. He linked Curry's analysis of climate response from the CMIP5 data. That yielded 1.6 to 1.7 best estimate of TCS. Maybe the cognoscenti are realizing TCS market prices are down?
I used to like 1.6 TCR because a climatologist friend told me that's what he thought.1.6 TCS sounds really nice. When the models get re calibrated they'll drop to 1.4-1.5 TCS.
So what's your point? Do you think everybody is an ax wielding extremist? In 30 years there won't be any difference between either side.
Fine if you want to talk TCR, however Rose names TCR but explains ECS. As I think it more likely to mix up the abbreviations than to not understand the definition he is giving himself, Rose must be talking ECS. And on ECS Watts and reality are miles apart.
ReplyDeleteSo either Rose does not know what he is talking about (mistaking TCR for ECS) or he is deliberately obfuscating the stance of many pseudoskeptics in order to make them look reasonable. That's my point.
Airborne Fraction: Gloor et al:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/10/9045/2010/acpd-10-9045-2010.html
Knorr:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/knorr2009_co2_sequestration.pdf
Eli says,
ReplyDelete"Yes. Atmospheric fraction = atmospheric concentration."
No, that is not correct.
BBD,
It's not your "terminological confusion." It's Eli's.
As a chemist who taught at a university, he should know better but rather than admit he is wrong, he changes the word from "airborne" to "atmospheric" as if no one will notice (and as if that makes a difference)
The AF is the ratio between the estimated emissions of ACO2 [human CO2] and the estimated amount of ACO2 staying in the atmosphere.
ReplyDeleteA constant AF is like the principle of a constant in an increasing total: say ACO2 is 40% of all CO2 [as per the constant ACO2 AF found by Knorr] which is 100, so ACO2 is 40 and natural CO2 is 60; when all CO2 is 200 ACO2′s 40% will be 80 so natural CO2 will be 120, an increase of 60; at 300, ACO2 is 120, natural CO2 is 180 and so on; natural CO2 must be contributing to the increase in total CO2. FWIW.
That's misleading. 100% of the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is a RESULT of human emissions, whether any individual molecule came from some other source or sink in the carbon cycle is irrelevant. If humans were not emitting carbon dioxide, there would be no dramatic rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Try to keep your nomenclature honest.
ReplyDeleteOK, how do you explain a constant AF then if ACO2 is responsible for all the increase in atmospheric CO2.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said:"Eli says,
ReplyDelete"Yes. Atmospheric fraction = atmospheric concentration."
No, that is not correct."
PPM is a concentration unit. Atmospheric CO2 is 400 ppm by volume. PPM is merely the fraction multiplied by 1 million, so that one does not need to count up the leading zeroes in 0.000400, since missing one means you are off by a factor of 10. Hard to mistake 400 for 40 or 4000.
Rib Smokin' Bunny
how do you explain a constant AF then if ACO2 is responsible for all the increase in atmospheric CO2.
ReplyDeleteYou could start by making a superficial effort to familiarize yourself with the carbon cycle, I'm not about to educate someone like you who is obviously willfully ignorant of the subject and merely quoting wiki pages verbatim. I'm not opposed to correcting your dishonesty though.
Good luck!
Rib Smokin bunny
ReplyDeleteLook at where this began:
"whether the rise in the airborne fraction of CO2 has been caused by humans"
When MMM tried (and failed) to point out to Eli that "airborne fraction" (defined here) is NOT the same as concentration, Eli simply changed the wording a little "atmospheric fraction = atmospheric concentration"
and you are trying to defend that?
I think that is a correction. That would be about as much effort as I would want to put into a bunch of dictionary quoters and wiki page cut and paste denier hacks. Already this conversation has drifted into denier misinformation territory.
ReplyDelete"dictionary quoters and wiki page cut and paste denier hacks"
ReplyDeleteHang on champ; I referred to the Gloor et al and Knorr papers above in respect of the AF; no wiki there; read the papers as I did before you go into orbit.
What do you think of climate ombudsmen, Eli?
ReplyDeletehttp://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/a-meeting-of-minds/#comment-33526
I admit that this may go against the pillars of ClimateBall.
Hang on champ; I referred to the Gloor et al and Knorr
ReplyDeleteRight, and you still can't figure out the anthropomorphic origin, result and responsibility for the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration in recent geological times.
Ok, then you've moved on from cut and paste to regurgitation. Now you need to start reading this stuff and making a superficial effort to understand some of it.
Since you demand to be educated and are unable to educate yourself, let me explain it to you as briefly as I can. The atmosphere, the oceans and the biosphere and land to a much lesser extent, are reservoirs for an out of equilibrium pulse of carbon dioxide produced entirely by humans in recent geological times.
ReplyDeleteJust because that carbon dioxide is moving in and out of those reservoirs continuously does not mean a fraction of the excess carbon dioxide added to those reservoirs is 'natural' as you have claimed in overt dishonesty. The fact remains that humans have produced an out of equilibrium CO2 environment in the atmosphere and the ocean that is creating a temperature (energy) imbalance at the top of the atmosphere that is raising the temperature (adding energy) to the atmosphere and the oceans, and the oceans are acidifiy by absorbing some of that out of equilibrium carbon dioxide. When this happens in a spacecraft cabin, you die, when it happens on a planet, the planet surface and the fluids and materials it contains warms, the oceans acidify and the entire hydrological cycle of the planet is disrupted, including the soil.
Make of that what you will.
Tartare? Methoughts it was chicken.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIf it has "drifted into denier misinformation territory", it is because Eli refuses to correct anything that is wrong or even acknowledge his very basic mistakes (here, for example)
He did correct it, he just associated the atmospheric fraction with the anthropomorphic fraction, since ALL of the additional carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere beyond the pre-industrial equilibrium values are a result of human industrial activities involving the combustion of carbon, regardless of where each individual carbon dioxide molecule comes from.
ReplyDeleteThe degeneration into denial came from assigning a 'natural' label to some of those CO2 molecules.
You just don't have the intellectual skills and the familiarity with the processes involved to recognize that.
I know that sounds harsh, but that is my assessment of your skills and intellectual capacity.
"he did correct it"
ReplyDeleteThomas apparently does not know what a correction is because the original post still says "whether the rise in the airborne fraction of CO2 has been caused by humans"
But I nonetheless consider it a badge of honor to have a crackpot who believes he is Einstein-reincarnated weighing in on my skills and intellectual capacity. :)
It wasn't a post, it was a comment, resulting in a whole slew of comments not related to the post and inevitably argued in bad faith, ultimately degenerating into denial.
ReplyDeleteThat is the denialist modus operandi. You're just too stupid to be able to see that's what it is. But since this post is about 'scientific' cartoon characters, you guys seem to fit right in.
Airborne fraction due to human emissions. There is a modifier in there somewhere. The airborne fraction itself is 100% of the airborne fraction. Eli has Humptey Dumptey's word on that.
ReplyDeleteFernando Leanme: "...the use of global warming as a cover to push extreme left wing and right wing political positions..."
ReplyDeleteOutstanding! This from the guy who says linking to a peer-reviewed article on how much money fossil-fuel interests have contributed to the AGW denial industry is conspiracist thinking.
Fernando, you've missed your calling. You should be a politician!
I am shocked by the failure of the illustrator to find seats for us all at Ronald McDonald's table.
ReplyDeleteStephen Kade must surely be the man who paints what may be seen by peering through the giclée window glass of Thomas Kinkade's glowing cottages.
The bottom line is "how fucking DARE you at this late date compare mainstream scientists and the people who publicize their consensus to fringe denialists and delayers and shills as if they represented "the two sides!???" Presumably equal.
ReplyDeleteWhosoever lies down with a PR firm will rise up with a flea in their ear.
ReplyDeleteThey should be so lucky
ReplyDeleteMal adapted, peer reviewed on that field doesn´t mean very much. I just proved it by publishing my own paper about Obama´s speech in the UN. I assume you read it? Look up
ReplyDelete"Qualitative Analysis of President Obama´s Speech at the UN" by me and Dr. Abruzzo.
marion delgado, of course we are all equal. This isn´t the Middle Ages.
ReplyDeleteAlso please take note of who controls the USA Congress, and the British, Australian, Spanish, RUssian, Chinese, Indian, and Qatar governments. Given the political nature of the friendly competition, it seems the other side is winning. Isn´t this depressing?
Fernando
ReplyDeleteAlso please take note of who controls the USA Congress, and the British, Australian, Spanish, RUssian, Chinese, Indian, and Qatar governments. Given the political nature of the friendly competition, it seems the other side is winning. Isn´t this depressing?
Can you be more explicit about this very sweeping statement?
Who controls the governments you list exactly?
What do you mean by "the other side" specifically?
Thanks.
Who controls the governments I list? A bunch of oligarchs who don´t share much other than their desire to stay on top.
ReplyDeleteWho is the other side? The oligarchs. It has nothing to do with oil companies. Or do you think oil companies control Putin? Putin is siloviki, he controls everything.
What about the British regime? Is it controlled by Royal Dutch Shell? Of course not.
The conspiracy theories I read here show a complete disconnect from reality.
I tend to speak of vested interest distorting democracy rather than *simply* oil companies. And vested interests consume very large amounts of energy. So I would say that you are strawmanning, yet again.
ReplyDeleteYou don't understand the Russian economy though. It's 78% fossil fuels, much of which is for export. Putin may be in charge, but he isn't *able* to act against so vast a national economic interest. Nor would he wish to. So you can consider that a happy relationship with shared goals rather than puppet and puppet master.
* * *
Once again, you attempt to dismiss the documented evidence - matters of fact - showing the influence of FF industry funding on the creation and funding of an organised denial network, mainly in the US.
That is denialism, pure and simple, and since you have done it yet again, I am going to call you a denier, once again.
Why are you denying matters of fact? You already admit that vested interest is subverting democracy all over the world, so why not acknowledge the specific role played by the FF industry?
Your position is, as so often, intellectually incoherent.
At the risk of adding further distractions for Fernando to evade BBD's well-pointed questions, I'd just like to ask Fernando in which illustrious peer-reviewed social science journal his incisive critique of Obama's speech was published.
ReplyDeleteBecause after a ten-minute internet search, all I came up with was a little internet vanity blog titled 21st Century Social Critic... I don't know about anyone else but I'm getting the impression the reviewers might have had a very slight conflict of interest.
This is silly. Russia has become China. The oligarchs exist at the sufferance of Putin and the payoffs they provide. If you doubt Eli go ask Mikhail Khodorkovsky or Boris Berezovsky. Oh wait you can't ask Boris, he dead.
ReplyDelete“Do you actually think there’s a group of people sitting around in a room plotting things?” For some reason that image is assumed to be so patently absurd as to invite only disclaimers. But where else would people of power get together – on park benches or carousels? Indeed, they meet in rooms: corporate boardrooms, Pentagon command rooms, at the Bohemian Grove, in the choice dining rooms at the best restaurants, resorts, hotels, and estates, in the many conference rooms at the White House, the NSA, the CIA, or wherever. And, yes, they consciously plot – though they call it “planning” and “strategizing” – and they do so in great secrecy, often resisting all efforts at public disclosure. No one confabulates and plans more than political and corporate elites and their hired specialists. To make the world safe for those who own it, politically active elements of the owning class have created a national security state that expends billions of dollars and enlists the efforts of vast numbers of people.” - Michael Parenti
ReplyDeleteEli: "The oligarchs exist at the sufferance of Putin and the payoffs they provide. If you doubt Eli go ask Mikhail Khodorkovsky or Boris Berezovsky. Oh wait you can't ask Boris, he dead"
ReplyDeleteExactly. Russia is ruled by Putin and the Siloviki, the oligarchs only stay alive if they follow orders. I call it fascism.
Did I tell you I met Khodokorvsky before he became the darling of democracy? Menatep and Yukos were extremely crooked and corrupt. Typical oligarch, they broke so many laws they were easy to put in chains at Putin´s whim.
Ms Delgado: When it comes to global warming there aren´t such meetings of large oil multinationals. Large corporations don´t allow representatives of other companies in their boardrooms when they talk real business.
ReplyDeleteNegotiations between companies are usually carried out in a large conference room, with a large table which sits about 20 people, but the room seldom has more than 10 at a time. When the negotiations are three or four way it gets extremely complicated, and we have side meetings outside. At least that´s the way I have seen it when I was involved in those activities.
And Fernando continues his argument by yada, yada, yada.
ReplyDeleteI´m not "argumentating". I´m describing what I have seen. I suspect many of you believe in conspiracy theories because you haven´t been inside like I have. If you want to start a conspiracy theory you may wish to limit it to something like the Koch Brothers and a few friends. Being a private outfit does have its advantages when it comes to privacy. But large corporations like ExxonMobil can´t really behave like you describe.
ReplyDeleteFernando sees things differently than other people. He's special.
ReplyDelete"I suspect many of you believe in conspiracy theories because you haven´t been inside like I have."
ReplyDeleteGiven your earlier reference to Climategate, you appear not to have learned very much about much at all regardless of you having been on the "inside".
"We all know how it works. The lunches, the hospitality, the quiet word in your ear, the ex-ministers and ex-advisers for hire, helping big business find the right way to get its way. In this party, we believe in competition, not cronyism." -- David Cameron, ex-Director of Corporate Affairs at Carlton Communications and UK Prime Minister.
ReplyDeleteFernando
ReplyDeleteI suspect many of you believe in conspiracy theories because you haven´t been inside like I have.
You might be surprised Fernando. I retired when I was 45. Think about that before posting more crap about what a business superstar you are (as well as climate polymath, geopolitical analyst to the Stars and all-round smartest guy in the room).
You come across as a delusional prat much of the time and intellectually dishonest nearly all of it
Fernando:
ReplyDelete"Mal adapted, peer reviewed on that field doesn´t mean very much. I just proved it by publishing my own paper about Obama´s speech in the UN. I assume you read it? Look up
"Qualitative Analysis of President Obama´s Speech at the UN" by me and Dr. Abruzzo."
No, I didn't read it. Having sampled your oeurve here and elsewhere, I'm not highly motivated to. In any case, I think calling a post on "21stcenturysocialcritic.blogspot.com" equivalent to an article published in Climatic Change, a refereed journal with a current impact factor of 4.6, is disingenuous.
Fernando, try thinking of Cuba as Russia without oil, and reduced to drinking mojitos by a dearth of Coca-Cola.
ReplyDeleteI commend to Mr. Leanme the story of McArthur Wheeler:
ReplyDeletehttp://awesci.com/the-astonishingly-funny-story-of-mr-mcarthur-wheeler/
You guys sure devote a lot of time replying to Fernando, a fellow you obviously have a very low opinion of.
ReplyDeleteJust an observation.
Carry on.
Hey hypocrite, you sure do spend a lot of time here, a place you obviously have a very low opinion of.
ReplyDeleteJust a fact.
J. Bowers
ReplyDeleteWhat an odd comment.
Facts are based on evidence.
One can see all of the replies (by you and others) above to Fernando and it is clear that many of those commenting hold a low opinion of him.
But perhaps you would like to explain (not to me, but to the others here) how you have somehow divined that I "sure do spend a lot of time here, a place [I] obviously have a very low opinion of".
Not I, but the others might find your evidence-less "fact" determination technique useful.
Carry on.
Dear Anon.
ReplyDeleteSince you lack the courtesy to use a consistent pseudonym, others can suppose what they like about your commentary and you have no basis on which to complain.
You go by the name Anonymous, so I suggest you recap your posting history on Rabett Run.
ReplyDeleteJ. Bowers:
ReplyDeleteAm I the author of every "Anonymous" comment unless "proven" otherwise?
Also, is evidence required before a claim of "fact" (like the one you made)?
Or does the claim of "fact" come first and then a hunt for the evidence?
Thanks
BBD:
Perhaps you can point to where I 'complained' about others supposing what they like about my commentary.
I merely pointed out that "Facts are based on evidence" and that what Bower's claimed as "fact" was actually a supposition (based on the "Anonymous" moniker which anyone can adopt?).
Perhaps you disagree with the latter statement?
Now, I would say that I have spent too much time here.
Carry on.
Dear Anon.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you can point to where I 'complained' about others supposing what they like about my commentary.
Here:
But perhaps you would like to explain (not to me, but to the others here) how you have somehow divined that I "sure do spend a lot of time here, a place [I] obviously have a very low opinion of".
That is a complaint that you have been incorrectly identified as some one or other Anonymice here.
As I pointed out in response, since you have chosen not to identify yourself with a consistent pseudonym you have eschewed the right to whine about identification.
This is or should be self-evident.
Stop wasting time with your tedious bollocks.
Anon needs to comment here on a daily basis or I think he'd go mad. You're the only Anon to have commented today, and it's so very late in the day for Anon not to have commented. Sorry, but that's what you get when you can't be bothered typing just a word in a field. If you think Anon here gets a hard time you should try being an Anon at Comical Tony's. He just hates them apparently.
ReplyDeleteRussell, only a former slave like me understands what slavery feels like. For those of you who think cubans drink mojitos and have other such quaint ideas I recommend:
ReplyDeletehttp://generacionyen.wordpress.com/2014/10/07/there-will-be-14ymedio-for-a-very-long-time-gentlemen-of-state-security/
http://translatingcuba.com/a-strange-foreign-policy-14ymedio-fernando-damaso/
Reference the comment by anonymous I get the feeling some of you are starting to like me. The tone of the insults has improved a lot. I think you are starting to get the idea that I'm not from another planet.
A ray, so you think big bad oil companies collude to make renewables uneconomic? That's like suggesting rats collude to encourage sewage and garbage in Liberia.
ReplyDeleteFernando
ReplyDeleteReference the comment by anonymous I get the feeling some of you are starting to like me.
I've already had to point out that you come across as a delusional prat once. Don't make me do it again.
Fernando,
ReplyDeleteYou really have a childish idea of how things get done. It would be amusing if it weren't so sad.
Conspiracies don't happen in board rooms. They happen on golf courses. They happen at parties. Corporations don't buy politicians anymore. They lease them.
BBD, so let me imagine your conspiracy theory:
ReplyDeleteThe chairmen of four large oil companies get together in a golf course using their aides as caddies and conspire at the tee? They discuss what? How to donate money to republican senators who support the oil industry? Or is it even murkier, they conspire to give money to Judith Curry and the Climate Audit bloggers to cause "climate denial?
(Chuckles).
Mal adapted, reference the article at 21stCenturySocialCritic you really should read it. After all I read all the papers you link (well, at least I skim through them).
ReplyDeleteBut if you don't like the way I made fun of Obama at the UN then read this one, this is the result of serious research:
http://21stcenturysocialcritic.blogspot.com.es/2014/10/the-ebola-hotspot-history-of-he.html
ReplyDelete"We all know how it works. The lunches, the hospitality, the quiet word in your ear, the ex-ministers and ex-advisers for hire, helping big business find the right way to get its way. In this party, we believe in competition, not cronyism." -- David Cameron, ex-Director of Corporate Affairs at Carlton Communications and UK Prime Minister.
Tenaciously denying matters of fact in the face of correction is stupid and wrong, Fernando.
ReplyDeleteI can't stop you doing it but I'm always happy to point out that it makes you look like a dishonest nutter.
Well-documented matters of fact.
ReplyDeleteFollow the money.
Come on guys and gals, thus far you have shown me nothing to prove a conspiracy. What you discuss is the normal daily routine used to influence politicians and decision makers.
ReplyDeleteThe enviromental lobbies do the same thing. And the Israel lobby, and the cuban lobby, and ethanol manufacturers, and weapons manufacturers. Why do we go to war? They are driven by lies, fake information, and spin. Who benefits when we invade Iraq? I sure don't.
Maybe it's time you lose your virginity. This isn't a conspiracy. It's done openly or they do such a shoddy job covering it up it's easy to figure out. But if I try to mention it what do I get? Silence. Or insults. Allah Moses and Jesus know I get trashed when I tell you it's all a big lie. Conspiracy my behind.
Fernando Leanme: "Mal adapted, reference the article at 21stCenturySocialCritic you really should read it. After all I read all the papers you link (well, at least I skim through them)."
ReplyDeleteThe difference is that I didn't write those papers. I linked to them because of the quality of the research and documentation, and because they were published in venues with high credibility by established critical standards.
You "published" a post on a blog that has no more claim to credibility than, say, WUWT. I have no reason to expect your post is of higher quality than your comments on RR, ATTP and elsewhere. If you don't acknowledge the difference between your own material and the material I've linked, then there's no point in discussing it further.
Fernando,
ReplyDeleteYes, lobbyists do the same thing--except other lobbyists are not in the business of getting leaders elected who are in denial of physical reality. The other similar episodes include: tobacco, asbestos, lead hazards...
If you recall, those did not end well. Moreover, those did not have global implications. Reality's a bitch, and she bats in the bottom of the inning.
FL
ReplyDeleteCome on guys and gals, thus far you have shown me nothing to prove a conspiracy.
WTF? What? You are the one who introduced the idea of conspiracy. You, Fernando Leanme.
Everybody else has been talking about well-documented matters of fact which you tried for weeks to wave it away as a "conspiracy theory".
And now, now you've had some well-documented matters of fact shoved up your arse you try this childish little stunt?
You aren't worth talking to.
Fernando, do you really think it takes a CEO to buy a Congress critter? Hell, you can find them on aisle 6 in the Dollar store.
ReplyDeleteBowers, the existence of a mechanism to make campaign donations doesn't automatically mean there's a conspiracy to encourage cement consumption. You attribute the immaturity and extremely high cost of renewables to a conspiracy. This is considered a delusion. Studies show these are treatabable, but you must learn about reality first.
ReplyDeleteLet me repeat: the real problem is that renewables dont work. It doesn't help when people on your side lose credibility with climate panic and the cherry picking and distortion of data. Need to get credibility first. So far the IPCC can't peg the 10 year forecast. That's a big problem.
@-FL
ReplyDelete"Let me repeat: the real problem is that renewables dont work."
Thats ALL renewables, everywhere and forever presumably. (sarc/off)
It is probably unwise to base future policy on the belief that solar power generation for example will always be uneconomic compared with coal, oil or fracked gas. Equally foolish to expect energy storage at all scales to remain as limited and expensive as it is at present.
Of course if youi mearly meant that renewable at present dont work because the energy generation industry places cost before long term safety you are correct.
@-"So far the IPCC can't peg the 10 year forecast. That's a big problem."
Could you explain why this a big problem for making policy with regard to climate, but economists who have a far worse record making projections that are much further from reality are still accorded authority as the 'best guess' we have about economics and are a key factor in determining policy?
izen
Fernando: "Let me repeat: the real problem is that renewables dont work."
ReplyDeleteHmmm. There are a lot of very smart people with a lot of money betting you are wrong.
Your problem is utter ignorance and overconfidence. Again, I commend to you the work of Professors Dunning and Kruger.
Anonymous, some of us do try to make sure we don´t start something we can´t finish. Right now we have no assurance whatsoever that we can lick the renewables´s high cost and lack of efficiency. This means a policy to build solar plants and wind is sheer lunacy.
ReplyDeleteA better option may be something as simple as a set of tax schemes to encourage people to move into apartments and closer to work. This could be applied over a long period of time, say 50 years, so the existing housing stock can be abandoned without too much pain. This would also allow new building to be done safely above sea level increases.
I would also suggest geo engineering RESEARCH to figure out how to remove CO2 from the ocean and onto the sea floor should be a top priority.
It never hurts to be careful just in case this global warming scare turns out to be real.
"Let me repeat: the real problem is that renewables dont work."
ReplyDeleteWho to trust: Some Cuban exile with a massive chip on his shoulder, a stake in fossil fuels and an ego the size of a small planetoid, or the Rockefellers? Torn, I am. Torn.
"There are a lot of very smart people with a lot of money betting you are wrong."
ReplyDeleteYes, people do like to bet. They "bet"on the juicy subsidies. Are you too young to know about the ethanol industry bets made based on the $0.54 per gallon subsidy which caused nutritional defficiencies in the third world, and also yielded immense profits to the Archer Daniels Midland Corporation and a few corporate farms?
I don´t support betting on the future of the world economy. And I definitely don´t support half baked ideas to subsidize this or that when I know it is likely to turn into a huge scam. We can´t afford it.
Ahhh. So it is more likely that geoengineering research will yield ways of "removing CO2 from the ocean and onto the sea floor" than it is to lead to low cost utility scale batteries.
ReplyDeleteAnd global warming is a "scare" and probably not "real".
FL is a waste of time.
Anonymous: "Could you explain why "So far the IPCC can't peg the 10 year forecast. That's a big problem." is a big problem for making policy with regard to climate?"
ReplyDeleteMe (being extremely patient): Climate model failure to make a 10 year prediction is a big problem because the proposed policies are based on climate model projections. If you want to discuss paleoclimate and dump the model discussions and papers, I suppose you can wave hockey sticks. See how far you get walking into that mine field.
By the way, did you read about this?
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/bill-shorten-says-labor-wants-to-tackle-carbon-pollution-but-rules-out-return-of-carbon-tax-20141011-114nmp.html
Quoting from the paper:
"We will not have a carbon tax, the Australian people have spoken and Labor is not going to go back to that," Mr Shorten told reporters in Sydney on Saturday.
Fairfax Media earlier reported Mr Shorten had confirmed Labor would take a carbon price, although not a tax, to the election."
It looks like the words "carbon tax" became dirty words in Australia.
Jesus, Mohammed and Moses! I never wrote anywhere global warming wasn´t real. The issue at hand is anthropogenic emissions and their impact on the climate. Do I have to use a ruler on your hand to teach you to use the right terms?
ReplyDeleteWill geoengineering research yield something useful? I don´t have the foggiest idea. I sure hope it does, because thus far what I get from you guys is pathetic.
You got no real practical solution, your guys are already publishing papers calling for the 2 degree limit to be abandoned, China just told the rest of the world to stick global warming, and for some reason the USA wants to have a little conflict with Russia over what used to be part of Russia for so many years.
Meanwhile we got Ebola, more stupid wars, and people reproducing like gerbils.
Did you read my post about the American colony in Africa? Most of the problems we got are of our own making. And we have never done much to fix them. Go read it.
Bowers, so the tax system is a mess and you want to make it messier?
ReplyDeleteHow much do you think you can pile on before the whole edifice collapses? Or do you think that BS about wind power being able to replace natural gas turbines is real? Go study engineering for a few years, and come back to see me so we can have a real discussion.
Au contraire, mon cher. Subsidies and grants are very straightofrward and taxable. Tax expenditure is a mess. And I personally believe your argument from authority is misplaced. How's that heat transfer in your swimming pool going?
ReplyDeleteFL
ReplyDeleteDo I have to use a ruler on your hand to teach you to use the right terms?
From the same idiot that wrote:
It never hurts to be careful just in case this global warming scare turns out to be real.
GFY.
Bless. FL complains that the models won't give a 10 year prediction. You do realise that they don't use crystal balls to tell them in advance about the emissions trajectory, how the sun is going to behave, volcanic eruptions etc. Only the charlatans and the deluded make predictions, so your complaint is more telling about you than it is about the models.
ReplyDeleteTurbo, you seem to miss that if the prediction is made using X baseline and then something changes in the inputs (such as the change in methane emissions we saw when the USSR collapsed), or a volcano eruption cools the planet then this is easy to explain - the model doesn´t really lose credibility if an unpredictable input alters results.
ReplyDeleteWhat really bugs the general population, and makes the models lose credibility is their inability to make much of a prediction even if they have the right inputs. Why don´t you check and see if they can match a hindcast using the actual data? I believe they don´t do so very well when projecting backwards 50 years. So if they cant project backwards then how can they project forward and get credibility?
Which reminds me of a slightly different subject. I bet you guys didn´t notice the CMIP3 ensemble sucked in part because the methane concentration forecast was lousy? You got to pay attention to the details, or the models go bananas. THis is already happening to RCP8.5, it´s baloney, they need a much better story line.
There you go again saying prediction. The only people who complain about the models are the ignorant and the deniers. Not that they are not intended to give short term projections e.g the 10 years that you desire. Also when you see a plot of the output of the models it is generally an average of a number of models and/or runs. That way the short term battalions tend to get swamped. Another point that escapes the uninformed is that the 30 year projections that are being compared to today's reality are from models that were state of the art 30 years ago. A lot of improvements have been made since then.
ReplyDeleteRemind me again how it's possible to forecast methane emissions when we're in uncharted territory... permafrost, Arctic, facing losses etc?
ReplyDeleteevidently that´s not good enough.
ReplyDeleteTry a hindcast of the climate over the last 100 years, and then come back to see me.
Turbo, how can i predict methane emissions? Hell I can use a ruler and extrapolate current emissions, if anybody really knows what they happen to be. Until they develop microsensors to put in termite behinds those figures are baloney. The best solution is to predict using concentration. And if you are wrong, then why, just tell them you got the wrong concentration but the model would have predicted the weather quite well with the right concentrations.
ReplyDeleteYou are making up excuses. You are in denial, my friend.
evidently that´s not good enough.
ReplyDeleteEvidently you are a time-wasting troll, Fernando.
Nothing will ever be good enough for the troll. That's how trolls work.
This garbage about "the models" can stop to. It is an argument from ignorance.
ReplyDeleteThe models are not designed to provide accurate predictions of the next decade of climate. They are designed to explore the likely behaviour of the climate system under sustained forcing over multi-decadal and centennial scales.
Stupid denier blethering about the models "failing" can be dismissed. You cannot fault a model for not doing something it was not designed to do in the first place.
Fernando, like most deniers, hasn't got a clue which makes him easy to fool.
Try a hindcast of the climate over the last 100 years, and then come back to see me.
ReplyDeleteHere. With and without anthropogenic forcings.
Boring.
ReplyDeleteYup.
ReplyDeleteFernando, anybody else says something interesting with references, you ignore and repeat yourself. Other people exist, and other information exists. If you'd follow all the knowledge and information offered to you, you might actually learn something and become useful to yourself and to others.
ReplyDeleteAs noted, boring ...
FERNANDO, :
ReplyDelete" Until they develop microsensors to put in termite behinds those figures are baloney. "
The direct measurements of termite CH4 emissions made thre years ago put the baloney ball squarely in your court-
Here's the abstract of Ye Olde Termite Behind Review Article
Methane emissions from termites - landscape level estimates and methods of measurement
Jamali, Hizbullah; Livesley, Stephen J.; Hutley, Lindsay B.; Arndt, Stefan K.
EGU General Assembly 2013, held 7-12 April, 2013 in Vienna, Austria, id. EGU2013-1223
Termites contribute between <5 and 19% of the global methane emissions. These estimates have large uncertainties because of the limited number of field-based studies and species investgated, as well as issues of diurnal and seasonal variations. We measured methane fluxes from four common mound-building termite species diurnally and seasonally in tropical savannas in the Northern Territory, Australia. Our results showed that there were significant diel and seasonal variations of methane emissions from termite mounds and we observed large species-specific differences. On a diurnal basis, methane fluxes were least at the coolest time of the day and greatest at the warmest for all species for both wet and dry seasons. We observed a strong and significant positive correlation between methane flux and mound temperature for all species. Fluxes in the wet season were 5-26-fold greater than those in the dry season and this was related to population dynamics of the termites. We observed significant relationships between mound methane flux and mound carbon dioxide flux, enabling the prediction of methane flux from measured carbon dioxide flux. However, these relationships were clearly termite species specific. We also determined significant relationships between mound flux and gas concentration inside mound, for both gases, and for all termite species, thereby enabling the prediction of flux from measured mound internal gas concentration. However, these relationships were also termite species specific. Consequently, there was no generic relationship that would enable an easier prediction of methane flux from termite mounds. On a landscape scale we estimated that termites were a methane source of +0.24 kg methane-C ha-1 year-1
Alan Robock's account of sipping mojitos with Fidelito appeared in Nature in 2011
Russel, that assumes a single paper about what comes out of trillions of termites´s behinds is accurate.
ReplyDeleteSusan, I do read what´s offered (well, I skim it). But reading it doesn´t mean I have to agree with it. Or that it means what others think. Sometimes I consider it irrelevant. Sometimes I consider it insufficient. Did you like my latest paper? It´s called "Human Adaptation to Climate Change Stressors".
BBD, why would you pick the older forecast from 2007? if you think the CMIP3 effort was the best, then why don´t you write a comment and label it "CMIP3 is much better than CMIP5, and that´s why I like to show it?"
ReplyDeleteSee? You can put together hundreds of models runs, and yet you don´t know which model run is for real. This is why you had to toss away the most recent set used by the IPCC.
FL
ReplyDeleteBBD, why would you pick the older forecast from 2007?
Because I had the link to hand. Here's CMIP5 from AR5 WG1.
If you wanted to see these results, you could have got off your lazy and dishonest arse and found them yourself, but no.
This is why you had to toss away the most recent set used by the IPCC.
No, you have to impute nefarious intent on my part instead.
This is troll MO all over. Show the troll evidence it doesn't like and instead of conceding the point, it sets up a diversion.
You are contributing nothing here except an ever-increasing pain in the arse, Fernando. I think I speak for most here in saying that your departure would be hugely welcome.
Folks, it's not that hard to figure out why Fernando comments here. Paraphrasing Plato,
ReplyDelete"A wise man speaks when he has something to say; Fernando speaks because he has to say something."
The irony here is thick enough to cut with a knife.
ReplyDelete- Jim
It seems you do miss the point. For example, the CMIP5 graphs linked above show the actual temperature is starting to range outside the model esemble´s spread. The graph isn´t up to date, but even when cut off it shows the problem.
ReplyDeleteThe problem, as I mentioned before, is that your buddies have expressed extreme confidence in these models. And the public can see the trend is falling outside the predicted range.
So what´s your response? "The models aren´t supposed to be used to predict short term trends". I knew that. So what? Regular folk will tell you that if you can´t forecast worth beans for 10 years then they don´t believe your 100 year forecast.
So how do you get around this problem? You have to acknowledge the climate oscillates. But this kinks the story. When temperatures were rising in the 1980´s and 1990´s the climate oscillations weren´t mentioned nor used in the political propaganda.
So now the oscillation runs contrary to the trend (the opposite of the late 20th century, when it enhanced the warming trend). Politically you find this extremely hard to swallow. You have had a really hard time as the current flatish surface temperature trend continues year after relentless year.
You lose a lot of credibility if you don´t come straight, acknowledge the models need to be recalibrated, and this likely means the world won´t get as hot as you had predicted. It´s not a big deal, take your medicine and go on with life.
It seems you do miss the point.
ReplyDeleteNot at all, Fernando. The point is that you are a dishonest troll.
Anyone who doesn't grasp that oscillations cancel out over a few decades and cannot drive centennial trends is too stupid to understand climate anyway, so there is no helping them.
You lose a lot of credibility if you don´t come straight, acknowledge the models need to be recalibrated
Are you stupid or are you doing this on purpose? The models aren't designed to "predict" accurately a decade ahead so why the fuck would they need to be "recalibrated"?
Just go away, Fernando.
(Sigh). BBD, it would really help if you stop insulting me. The oscillations are important for two reasons:
ReplyDelete1. They influence the climate model calibrations (if the models are calibrated without the last decade worth of temperature they will tend to run hot).
2. They influence the politics because it´s fairly easy to show you something like this
http://21stcenturysocialcritic.blogspot.com.es/p/rcp45-cmip5-projections-versus-real-data.html
Please take note the slide was prepared using the RCP4.5 CMIP pathway. In other words, Curry is trying to implement a practice whereby the RCP4.5 is accepted as a more useable pathway. Think about the implications.
Just ignore the little twit. Defocus the text and don't read it, there is nothing there anyways. Try to defeat the urge to respond.
ReplyDeleteThomas Lee, that´s what I call willfull blindness. What´s really sad is that if the model calibration is tweaked then it yields much better results, it´s more believable, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe next change is a reduction in anthropogenic attribution of ongoing global energy uptake. However, it doesn´t get rid of the problem. It just means it could be more manageable.
FL:
ReplyDelete"They influence the climate model calibrations (if the models are calibrated without the last decade worth of temperature they will tend to run hot). "
In your own words, tell us how NASA GISS Model E is "calibrated" using historic temperature data.
Still boring...
ReplyDelete" Eli's suspicion is that Tamsin Edwards must be a distant descendent of Emile Coue' ."
ReplyDeleteEven if she's not, the dinner party's state of terminal amour propre amounts to Coueia, a word the English language has long needed as a repository for its surplus vowels.
How could that be. We gave them all to the Finns.
ReplyDelete