tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post1783769698875730322..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: So David Rose, Tamsin Edwards, and Tony Watts Walk Into Nick Lewis' BarEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger135125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-35681341379394169972014-10-15T23:48:30.066-04:002014-10-15T23:48:30.066-04:00How could that be. We gave them all to the Finns....How could that be. We gave them all to the Finns.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-74105088773126183952014-10-15T21:21:03.261-04:002014-10-15T21:21:03.261-04:00" Eli's suspicion is that Tamsin Edwards ..." Eli's suspicion is that Tamsin Edwards must be a distant descendent of Emile Coue' ."<br /><br /><br />Even 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.THE CLIMATE WARShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02578106673226403151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-28996908298373060412014-10-15T20:51:04.859-04:002014-10-15T20:51:04.859-04:00Still boring...Still boring...David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-87233148113123062792014-10-15T20:47:46.321-04:002014-10-15T20:47:46.321-04:00FL:
"They influence the climate model calibr...FL:<br /><br />"They influence the climate model calibrations (if the models are calibrated without the last decade worth of temperature they will tend to run hot). "<br /><br />In your own words, tell us how NASA GISS Model E is "calibrated" using historic temperature data.<br />dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-84527992099371198962014-10-15T10:39:05.283-04:002014-10-15T10:39:05.283-04:00Thomas Lee, that´s what I call willfull blindness....Thomas 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. <br /><br />The 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. Fernando Leanmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16085680730729620836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-35100202911471082692014-10-15T10:28:01.810-04:002014-10-15T10:28:01.810-04:00Just ignore the little twit. Defocus the text and ...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.Thomas Lee Elifritzhttp://cosmic.lifeform.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-68401224689356767222014-10-15T10:06:09.283-04:002014-10-15T10:06:09.283-04:00(Sigh). BBD, it would really help if you stop insu...(Sigh). BBD, it would really help if you stop insulting me. The oscillations are important for two reasons: <br /><br />1. They influence the climate model calibrations (if the models are calibrated without the last decade worth of temperature they will tend to run hot). <br /><br />2. They influence the politics because it´s fairly easy to show you something like this<br /><br />http://21stcenturysocialcritic.blogspot.com.es/p/rcp45-cmip5-projections-versus-real-data.html<br /><br />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. Fernando Leanmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16085680730729620836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-29669157534405194472014-10-15T07:35:37.499-04:002014-10-15T07:35:37.499-04:00It seems you do miss the point.
Not at all, Fern...<i>It seems you do miss the point. </i><br /><br />Not at all, Fernando. The point is that you are a dishonest troll.<br /><br />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. <br /><br /><i>You lose a lot of credibility if you don´t come straight, acknowledge the models need to be recalibrated</i><br /><br />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"?<br /><br />Just go away, Fernando. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-12809771021354849102014-10-15T05:59:19.863-04:002014-10-15T05:59:19.863-04:00It seems you do miss the point. For example, the C...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. <br /><br />The 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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. Fernando Leanmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16085680730729620836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-65205061640856142022014-10-14T16:22:30.444-04:002014-10-14T16:22:30.444-04:00The irony here is thick enough to cut with a knife...The irony here is thick enough to cut with a knife.<br /><br />- Jim<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-50222835345694096312014-10-14T14:29:07.211-04:002014-10-14T14:29:07.211-04:00Folks, it's not that hard to figure out why Fe...Folks, it's not that hard to figure out why Fernando comments here. Paraphrasing Plato,<br /><br />"A wise man speaks when he has something to say; Fernando speaks because he has to say something."<br /><br />Mal Adaptedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06123525780458234978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-62081178732864490822014-10-14T14:22:23.248-04:002014-10-14T14:22:23.248-04:00FL
BBD, why would you pick the older forecast fro...FL<br /><br /><i>BBD, why would you pick the older forecast from 2007?</i><br /><br />Because I had the link to hand. <a href="http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig9-8.jpg" rel="nofollow">Here's CMIP5 from AR5 WG1.</a><br /><br />If you wanted to see these results, you could have got off your lazy and dishonest arse and found them yourself, but no.<br /><br /><i>This is why you had to toss away the most recent set used by the IPCC.</i><br /><br />No, you have to impute nefarious intent on my part instead. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-28659081059107514102014-10-14T09:43:01.750-04:002014-10-14T09:43:01.750-04:00BBD, why would you pick the older forecast from 20...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?" <br /><br />See? 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. Fernando Leanmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16085680730729620836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-55502293103843069392014-10-14T09:35:08.465-04:002014-10-14T09:35:08.465-04:00Russel, that assumes a single paper about what com...Russel, that assumes a single paper about what comes out of trillions of termites´s behinds is accurate. <br /><br />Susan, 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". Fernando Leanmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16085680730729620836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-31240590294424607022014-10-13T21:44:21.494-04:002014-10-13T21:44:21.494-04:00FERNANDO, :
" Until they develop microsensor...FERNANDO, : <br />" Until they develop microsensors to put in termite behinds those figures are baloney. "<br /><br />The direct measurements of termite CH4 emissions made thre years ago put the baloney ball squarely in your court- <br /><br /><b> <a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013EGUGA..15.1223J" rel="nofollow"> Here's the abstract of Ye Olde Termite Behind Review Article </a></b><br /><br />Methane emissions from termites - landscape level estimates and methods of measurement<br /><br />Jamali, Hizbullah; Livesley, Stephen J.; Hutley, Lindsay B.; Arndt, Stefan K.<br />EGU General Assembly 2013, held 7-12 April, 2013 in Vienna, Austria, id. EGU2013-1223<br />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<br /><br /><br />Alan Robock's account of sipping mojitos with Fidelito appeared in<i> Nature</i> in 2011 THE CLIMATE WARShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02578106673226403151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-33804370845075352172014-10-13T21:25:04.628-04:002014-10-13T21:25:04.628-04:00Fernando, anybody else says something interesting ...Fernando, 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.<br /><br />As noted, boring ... Susan Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16935228911713362040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-7200964801280834152014-10-12T18:45:21.243-04:002014-10-12T18:45:21.243-04:00Yup.Yup.BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-62957037872087574902014-10-12T17:11:47.243-04:002014-10-12T17:11:47.243-04:00Boring.Boring.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-13825341308793343472014-10-12T14:09:31.090-04:002014-10-12T14:09:31.090-04:00Try a hindcast of the climate over the last 100 ye...<i>Try a hindcast of the climate over the last 100 years, and then come back to see me. </i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-4-1-2.html" rel="nofollow">Here.</a> With and without anthropogenic forcings. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-44758454048370249282014-10-12T14:06:13.999-04:002014-10-12T14:06:13.999-04:00This garbage about "the models" can stop...This garbage about "the models" can stop to. It is an argument from ignorance.<br /><br />The 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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Fernando, like most deniers, hasn't got a clue which makes him easy to fool.BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-35424944158944233942014-10-12T13:44:51.286-04:002014-10-12T13:44:51.286-04:00evidently that´s not good enough.
Evidently you ...<i>evidently that´s not good enough. </i><br /><br />Evidently you are a time-wasting troll, Fernando.<br /><br />Nothing will ever be good enough for the troll. That's how trolls work.BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-58027233462314671412014-10-12T12:21:55.607-04:002014-10-12T12:21:55.607-04:00Turbo, how can i predict methane emissions? Hell I...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. <br /><br />You are making up excuses. You are in denial, my friend. Fernando Leanmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16085680730729620836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-57746368343006311252014-10-12T12:19:27.493-04:002014-10-12T12:19:27.493-04:00evidently that´s not good enough.
Try a hindcast...evidently that´s not good enough. <br /><br />Try a hindcast of the climate over the last 100 years, and then come back to see me. Fernando Leanmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16085680730729620836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-91581078316491736182014-10-12T11:59:44.324-04:002014-10-12T11:59:44.324-04:00Remind me again how it's possible to forecast ...Remind me again how it's possible to forecast methane emissions when we're in uncharted territory... permafrost, Arctic, facing losses etc?turboblockenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-46629291080550842412014-10-12T11:55:02.003-04:002014-10-12T11:55:02.003-04:00There you go again saying prediction. The only peo...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. turboblockenoreply@blogger.com