tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post3641749734611678817..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Beneath ContemptEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-5342817009170191752015-04-11T08:57:24.097-04:002015-04-11T08:57:24.097-04:00Hank: "People who get facts so wrong are pecu...Hank: "People who get facts so wrong are peculiarly prone to finding ways to be in charge of human affairs."<br /><br />IMHO, that's because there are so few people who get facts right, and those that do find ways to avoid being in charge.<br /><br />'Until kings are philosophers or philosophers are kings, cities will never cease from ill.' (Plato, duh). Good luck with that 8^(! <br /><br />I'm just glad I don't have offspring. Mal Adaptedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06123525780458234978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-80808041428021750222015-04-10T23:09:06.782-04:002015-04-10T23:09:06.782-04:00How can a theoretical physicist get this so wrong?...How can a theoretical physicist get this so wrong? <br /><br />Is it because theoretically, facts are just distractions?<br /><br />This reminds me of the nuclear engineer who's convinced himself that CFCs can't bother the ozone layer because there's such a teensy weensy amount of them and besides logic tells him they only move downward not upward.<br /><br />People who get facts so wrong are peculiarly prone to finding ways to be in charge of human affairs.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-8625532472689320642015-04-10T14:42:20.129-04:002015-04-10T14:42:20.129-04:00As Bob Dylan put it:
And it’s a Harde, and it’s a...As Bob Dylan put it:<br /><br /><i>And it’s a Harde, and it’s a Harde, it’s a Harde, it’s a Harde<br />And it’s a Harde rain’s a-gonna fall</i><br /><br />toby52Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08658697422961922139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-42124441419123589252015-04-10T12:22:47.626-04:002015-04-10T12:22:47.626-04:00Russell is like Eli with a goatee.Russell is like Eli with a goatee.Pinko Punkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18364861806920841462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-74946742663022846192015-04-10T00:37:06.219-04:002015-04-10T00:37:06.219-04:00Eli has a hashtag for these things
#Kooninisms
F...Eli has a hashtag for these things<br /><br />#Kooninisms<br /><br />Feel free to tweetEliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-40836024165716479122015-04-09T23:40:51.496-04:002015-04-09T23:40:51.496-04:00Regardless, it's vital to keep in mind that ev...Regardless, it's vital to keep in mind that even should ECS prove to be on the high side of 3°C the Earth's mean surface temperature will still be <i>much</i> less than that of the Sun. (One never knows what physically correct but entirely stupid point may be raised next; best to be prepared.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-48638601121450515682015-04-09T17:15:01.763-04:002015-04-09T17:15:01.763-04:00There's no apologizing for apologetics-- by n...There's no apologizing for apologetics-- by now, Steve knows a lot, lot better than this.THE CLIMATE WARShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02578106673226403151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-27034507971415191572015-04-09T17:05:17.117-04:002015-04-09T17:05:17.117-04:00ATTP: The line Eli drew shows that the change fro...ATTP: The line Eli drew shows that the change from the ice age to today is smaller than the change from 380 to 760 ppm. The ice age was a rather different time.<br /><br />As to Harde, he got bollixed the water vapor profile in the atmosphere because he did not account for warm vapor encountering cold air and raining out, thus the water vapor at high altitudes in his model were too large and the role of CO2 downplayedEliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-84476028882754602612015-04-09T16:03:02.820-04:002015-04-09T16:03:02.820-04:00Is the problem denialism, or is it stupidity? I ca...Is the problem denialism, or is it stupidity? I cannot discern a difference. True, the man does not know what he is talking about. What does that say about the quality of opinions published in the WSJ?<br /><br />The earth's atmosphere masses about 5E18 kg. So a "small" part per million of that is 5E12 kg, which I estimate to be ~ 1E5 aircraft carriers or 2E12 bunnies. Small is relative, it seems. I wonder if Koonin would care to ingest a "physically small" microgram of polonium-210?<br /><br />John Palkovichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08839241538045673154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-82539610494385361402015-04-09T15:34:56.651-04:002015-04-09T15:34:56.651-04:00ATTP, what you measure depends on the skin depth o...ATTP, what you measure depends on the skin depth of the radiation you measure the brightness temperature with<br /><br />There is very little new under Steve"lights out" Koonin's cinder of a sun.<br /><br />http://rabett.blogspot.com/2015/04/beneath-contempt.html<br />EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-57258724374298999362015-04-09T15:32:50.839-04:002015-04-09T15:32:50.839-04:00Earth's radius is 6,371 kilometers. The highes...Earth's radius is 6,371 kilometers. The highest mountain, Mount Everest, is roughly 9 km. That is only 0.14% of Earth's radius. How can we ever hope to accurately measure anything so small? It would require extreme precision measurements.Lars Karlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158469980966810882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-85656195763615364792015-04-09T14:52:44.322-04:002015-04-09T14:52:44.322-04:00Victor,
Indeed and Isaac Held did try to explain t...Victor,<br />Indeed and Isaac Held did try to explain this idea to Steve Koonin. <br /><i>But that's one point. The other one is spatial structure. And these things, again,are implicit in various fingerprinting studies.<br /><br />And the first point is sort of implicit in studies where people take simple models and just vary the parameters all over the place and see<br />what they can do.<br /><br />Where do you expect low-frequency variability to emerge in the coupled climate system? It's going to emerge at high latitudes because, where you have memory on these multidecadal time scales is in the deep ocean. And where is the deep ocean coupled efficiently to the surface? It's in subpolar regions. That's where the ocean is least stratified. The tropics are just too strongly stratified for those time scales. You look at where models predict their lowest-frequency variability.<br /><br />There was a nice paper by Del Sole looking at the models. And he finds a pattern in all the models that have the largest integral time scale or decorrelation time. They are at high latitudes, especially the northern North Atlantic. This plot doesn't go to the Southern Ocean, but you would see high variability in the Southern Ocean as well.<br /><br /><b>And that's just the opposite of<br />what you see in reality. In fact, in a forced response, you expect to see an orthogonal pattern</b>, more or less, because those are the regions that are coupled strongly to the deep ocean.<br /><br />You basically have big heat capacity. So, you have the smallest response to the forcing-- so, <b>it shouldn't be that hard to separate internal variability from forced patterns. They tend to have the opposite structures.</b></i><br /><br />My bold. Probably one of the clearest explanations of how fingerprinting works.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-17990761690095061912015-04-09T14:52:02.423-04:002015-04-09T14:52:02.423-04:00Earth's climate does not cycle around absolute...Earth's climate does not cycle around absolute zero, it cycles around the freezing point of water, 273 K. We are only 15 K above that. The depths of an ice age are only 5-6 K colder in Ts (mean global annual surface temperature), or about a 2% change on Koonin's favorite scale. A change of 1 K in Ts can move agricultural growing belts by hundreds of miles.<br /><br />The man simply does not know what he is talking about.Barton Paul Levensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07630802738456749652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-21758530908741413692015-04-09T14:13:10.443-04:002015-04-09T14:13:10.443-04:00And finally, because life at the 1% level is rich,...<i>And finally, because life at the 1% level is rich, the models have to get many small phenomena right to confidently isolate and project the response to anthropogenic effects. Indeed, if the anthropogenic perturbation weren’t small, the detection/attribution discussion would be much more convincing than it is</i><br /><br />For the attribution of climate change the 1% is not even used. Attribution is performed by comparing the spatio-temporal patterns of the various possible causes of climate change. A clear difference between an increase in insolation and greenhouse gasses is, for example, that the stratosphere cools when you increase greenhouse gasses.<br /><br />I am a physicist myself and there was just a call in Nature for physicists and mathematicians to help work on climate problems. That is a great idea, but please collaborate with climate scientists to make sure that you do not make such rookie mistakes and make an embarrassment of yourself and of your field of study.<br /><br />If climate change did not have policy implications both Koonin and Curry should be smart enough to see themselves how bad their own nonsense is. It is frightening what ideology and personal dislikes can do to a scientist. I hope I will never go down that road. Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-24279716278682709142015-04-09T13:56:24.260-04:002015-04-09T13:56:24.260-04:00Second, it means that natural variations can easil...<i>Second, it means that natural variations can easily overwhelm human influences, at least on multidecadal scales (witness the current stasis in global mean surface temperature). </i><br /><br />Putting a temporary damper on long-term warming is not what I would call overwhelming the human influances on multidecadal scales. I'd reserve that kind of language for when natural variability causes 20 or so years of <i>cooling</i> instead of somewhat cancelling out the warming for about 10 years. <br /><br />Koonin seems to be mighty surprised that people are going gaga over very tiny changes to a system, like increasing the overall GHG effect by 1%. I'm not sure he'd be so amused if the atmosphere around him were altered to contain 1% hydrogen cyanide. <br /><br />Heck, if the air is modified to contain proportionately as much HCN as it did CO2 prior to the Industrial Revolution, ~270ppm or <i>less than one third of <b>one tenth of</b> one percent</i>, we'd all be dead in a matter of minutes. <br /><br />It seems to me that only shallow thinkers are thrown off into incredulity by the fact that small absolute chances are considered to have important relative consequences.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15712416782270566112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-45823310396270881732015-04-09T13:54:40.762-04:002015-04-09T13:54:40.762-04:00" An even simpler indication of the percentis..." An even simpler indication of the percentish influence is to note that a 3 C mean human body temperature increase on a base of 310 K is also about a 1% effect.<br /><br />The physical smallness of pathogen infection influences, which comes as a surprise to many non-medical expert scientists, has profound implications for medical diagnosis and treatment. First, it means precision observations are required to see the effects of a fever. Second, it means that normal healthy variations can easily overwhelm influences of infections...."Lars Karlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158469980966810882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-35896004213876738872015-04-09T12:32:14.770-04:002015-04-09T12:32:14.770-04:00Eli,
Actually, I was going to add that I think the...Eli,<br />Actually, I was going to add that I think the effective temperature of the Moon is 271K, but that's because the albedo is about 0.1, so it does indeed confirm the basic argument that you're making. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-45288493166176547202015-04-09T12:21:12.820-04:002015-04-09T12:21:12.820-04:00ATTP, you are most welcome to steal it.ATTP, you are most welcome to steal it.Lars Karlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158469980966810882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-59809972814565546532015-04-09T12:18:54.309-04:002015-04-09T12:18:54.309-04:00Lars,
I think you should post your "sun going...Lars,<br />I think you should post your "sun going out comment" on Climate Etc. Brilliant. I might have to steal it. <br /><br />Eli,<br />I must admit that I still don't fully understand the graph included in the post. I remember being confused when you first wrote about the Harde paper, and I think I still am. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-7493706466154535402015-04-09T12:02:33.100-04:002015-04-09T12:02:33.100-04:00No wonder Judith likes this guy.No wonder Judith likes this guy.Lars Karlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158469980966810882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-48530578850931407432015-04-09T12:01:41.305-04:002015-04-09T12:01:41.305-04:00I like the continuation to the part you cited too...I like the continuation to the part you cited too:<br /><br /><i>"... An even simpler indication of the percentish influence is to note that a 3 C mean global surface temperature increase on a base of 288 K is also about a 1% effect.<br /><br />The physical smallness of anthropogenic influences, which comes as a surprise to many non-climate expert scientists, has profound implications for climate understanding and modeling. First, it means precision observations are required to see the climate response. Second, it means that natural variations can easily overwhelm human influences, at least on multidecadal scales (witness the current stasis in global mean surface temperature). And finally, because life at the 1% level is rich, the models have to get many small phenomena right to confidently isolate and project the response to anthropogenic effects. Indeed, if the anthropogenic perturbation weren’t small, the detection/attribution discussion would be much more convincing than it is (see, for example, the APS Workshop transcript). Of course, since CO2 is an enduring perturbation to the climate system, at least on the scale of centuries, its effects may eventually grow large enough to clarify the situation."</i><br /><br />What an insight! The effect of a doubling of CO2 is small compared to the effect of the bloody sun going out. No sh*t Sherlock!Lars Karlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158469980966810882noreply@blogger.com