tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post5054632046606152367..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Revenge is a Dish Best Eaten ColdEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-82948316975903523142011-07-08T14:14:46.991-04:002011-07-08T14:14:46.991-04:00Forbes isn't a sucker, Forbes is an enabler.Forbes isn't a sucker, Forbes is an enabler.daveynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-12850430946040446952011-07-08T13:46:30.476-04:002011-07-08T13:46:30.476-04:00Dhogaza,
Sometimes they flirt with the line, ot...Dhogaza, <br /><br />Sometimes they flirt with the line, others they just simply jump right across it. Have the bunnies seen this latest crap/lies/distortion/misinformation from Michaels?<br /><br />http://blogs.forbes.com/patrickmichaels/2011/06/30/global-warming-and-global-food-security/<br /><br />Lucky for the denialists like Chip and Pat, there is a sucker born every day and Forbes is now that sucker. And that smile on Pat's face in the op ed header shows that he knows that all too well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-44917773406314407392011-07-08T11:06:07.292-04:002011-07-08T11:06:07.292-04:00And "laywerly" was a typo, though given ...And "laywerly" was a typo, though given that I'm not under oath, I'd say it's hardly important ...dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-77510484921469201172011-07-08T11:04:22.267-04:002011-07-08T11:04:22.267-04:00"Actually, it's a rather honest attempt.&..."Actually, it's a rather honest attempt."<br /><br />Chip's love for laywerly parsing of IPCC wording opens the door to discussion as to just how dishonest an attempt can be while meeting the standard of "rather (but not entirely) honest".<br /><br />Chip can go first ...dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-78393565439356631102011-07-08T09:18:14.822-04:002011-07-08T09:18:14.822-04:00Michaels & Knappenberger also ignore the fact ...Michaels & Knappenberger also ignore the fact that the very paper they point to which shows a very high BC forcing (Ramanathan & Carmichael), actually shows a _larger_ net negative forcing from all aerosols together than the IPCC shows.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-32098657014434979152011-07-08T09:04:33.809-04:002011-07-08T09:04:33.809-04:00I've always read "Most of the observed in...I've always read "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures" in the sense that if you didn't have an increase in GHGs over the past century, most of the observed warming would not have existed. Yes, this means that in some cases, several substances could individually be responsible for "most of the observed warming". Maybe it could have been worded more clearly, but this is the first time I've heard anyone raise Chip's definition as a possible interpretation. If I have a trillion dollar deficit, and I just spent a trillion dollars on wars overseas, are those wars responsible for the deficit? Or do I have to take into account that I also spend 600 billion dollars each on Medicare, Social Security, debt financing, domestic defense spending, and other discretionary spending, in which case my trillion overseas war spending is responsible for 1/4 of the deficit? But that doesn't make sense, because if I hadn't gone overseas, the debt wouldn't exist, whereas if it was responsible for 1/4 of the deficit, eliminating the wars should only eliminate 1/4 of the deficit. And yes, one could also argue that Medicare and Social Security together were responsible for the deficit, and that would also be true, because eliminating them would eliminate the deficit. <br /><br />I also think John N-G very ably pointed out that Chip's interpretation just doesn't fly for another reason, because it depends on how you breakout other forcings (like whether you separate black carbon, or include it in aerosols). <br /><br />-MAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-78885869931376427852011-07-08T01:45:47.484-04:002011-07-08T01:45:47.484-04:00"Actually, it's a rather honest attempt.&..."Actually, it's a rather honest attempt."<br /><br />That would be very funny if it were not so disingenuous. I can't speak for Chip, but Pat would not know honesty if it slapped him in the face.<br /><br />Keep tinkering fellas....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-16771536761693241682011-07-07T23:55:27.965-04:002011-07-07T23:55:27.965-04:00Eli,
"Chip and Pat's is a rather dishone...Eli,<br /><br />"Chip and Pat's is a rather dishonest attempt leaving the impression that CO2 forcings overpredict warming..."<br /><br />Actually, it's a rather honest attempt.<br /><br />-ChipChip Knappenbergerhttp://www.worldclimatereport.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-62391113438428448672011-07-07T21:25:27.210-04:002011-07-07T21:25:27.210-04:00Eli says,
"Chip and Pat's is a rather di...Eli says,<br /><br />"Chip and Pat's is a rather dishonest attempt...."<br /><br />Stating the obvious, but always nice to hear someone call them on their sophistry and deception. I suppose Soon's fudged polar bear paper had a typo in it too ;)<br /><br />Desperate times for denialists, but we are very familiar with their tricks and lies after all these years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-91944190343813812702011-07-07T21:19:43.256-04:002011-07-07T21:19:43.256-04:00What the eff does Chip and Pat's exploits have...What the eff does Chip and Pat's exploits have to do with Lu's drivel?<br /><br />Or are we talking analogies, that is: Lu's drivel = Pat and Chip's drivel? Or is that Soon's drivel = Pat and Chip's drivel?<br /><br />Oh, has Pat found his error bars yet? ;) LOL.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-89004323496949138592011-07-07T21:15:08.933-04:002011-07-07T21:15:08.933-04:00Ah yes, we pass from the Michaelsonian eraser to t...Ah yes, we pass from the Michaelsonian eraser to the if pigs were horses cows would fly school of argument. It's summertime and the parsing is excellent. As Hank and everyone else who doesn't buy what Chip is selling, has said, their is a huge difference between blather that CO2 increases predict more warming than has been observed, and that CO2 increases BY THEMSELVES predict more warming than has been observed IN THE ABSENCE of other negative forcings WHICH HAVE BEEN OBSERVED. The observed warming is consistent with the observed sum of both negative and positive forcings <br /><br />Chip and Pat's is a rather dishonest attempt leaving the impression that CO2 forcings overpredict warming, the second is a fair summary of what has happened.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-35816337852346640352011-07-07T20:29:01.867-04:002011-07-07T20:29:01.867-04:00You can also add negative forcing agents; the perc...You can also add negative forcing agents; the percentage of the observed temperature increase contributed by CO2 may well be more than 100%, nowadays -- given that you understand negative numbers and what Spencer said about the First Law. Do you?Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-72805147218039753982011-07-07T20:01:13.557-04:002011-07-07T20:01:13.557-04:00Guys.
The IPCC started the game by claiming that ...Guys.<br /><br />The IPCC started the game by claiming that “most of the observed increase in global average temperature” blah, blah, blah. Presumably, then, you can parse the “observed increase in global average temperature” into its constituent parts which contribute some percentage of the observed increase. I appreciate your desire to want to tally up all the various forcings, both positive and negative and then arrive at some net forcing value which then links to the total temperature change. The rules to that game are pretty clearly laid out in IPCC’s Table of forcing changes (e.g. AR4, Figure SPM.2). But that is not the question we are answering. The question we are answering, and which the IPCC seems to have opened for discussion, is what factors contributed what percentage to the observed temperature. If CO2 were the only positive forcing agent, and temperatures were increasing, then by definition, it would seem, CO2 contributes 100% to the increase, regardless of whether its concentration doubled, tripled, or increased by 2%. Add in all the negative forcings you want, but as long as the temperature increases, CO2 (as the only positive forcing in my example) is responsible for 100% of the increase—no matter what the quantitative value of that increase is. But, add another positive forcing agent, and the percentage of the observed temperature increase contributed by CO2 must drop below 100%.<br /><br />Now, some may suggest, but not I, that this is a silly game we play and that this is of no useful scientific value. In which case I would say, well, the IPCC started it and tries to make hay from it. So, it seems fair to play along. Perhaps next time, they should think up a better wording to describe the situation (and better reflect the concept that you all propose, if indeed that is what they are trying to describe).<br /><br />-ChipChip Knappenbergerhttp://www.worldclimatereport.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-13914442558676233652011-07-07T16:57:41.183-04:002011-07-07T16:57:41.183-04:00Eli calls spinach, and a tasty dish of Michaels st...Eli calls spinach, and a tasty dish of Michaels stew it is. As has been pointed out to him numerous times, all you can measure is the temperature and the energy flows in and out of the system. If you look at the changes in temperature and want to relate it to the changes in energy flows, you can't separate them out, this little Joule from CO2 increase, and that one from solar insolation.<br /><br />That he and Chip even try that game is an insult.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-52213513564216797712011-07-07T15:06:12.295-04:002011-07-07T15:06:12.295-04:00Ah, Chip says it was a typo.
Someone then asks, wh...Ah, Chip says it was a typo.<br />Someone then asks, what about the several other problems raised by Vaughan Pratt: <br />http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/19/michaels-controversial-testimony-part-ii/#comment-13748<br />Here is the relevant part:<br />> [H]is whole methodology for computing bias is flawed [.]"<br /><br />Chip says people should read E'n'E for the answer.<br />Vaughan says Stanford doesn't subscribe.<br />Then the arithmetic question is dropped. <br /><br />I'd suggest Chip and Michaels review Spencer on the general question of how you need both addition and subtraction to get a good answer:<br /><br />"Since the temperature of an object is a function of both energy gain AND energy loss, the temperature of the plate (or anything else) can be raised in 2 basic ways: (1) increase the rate of energy gain, or (2) decrease the rate of energy loss. The temperature of everything is determined by energy flows in and out, and one needs to know both to determine whether the temperature will go up or down. This is a consequence of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics involving conservation of energy."<br /><br />http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/<br /><br />The energy conservation laws are not in the US Code; perhaps Congress doesn't need to reach that question. Some (not I) would argue that the US need give no deference to foreign laws in making policy decisions.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-58717046432717207842011-07-07T12:53:27.502-04:002011-07-07T12:53:27.502-04:00Hank,
Vaughn Pratt's comment that you referre...Hank,<br /><br />Vaughn Pratt's comment that you referred to over at Climate Etc. was rather far ranging. As to the specific numbers that Pat used in his testimony, I responded that it was a simply typo in Pat's testimony. As I pointed out, Pat’s calculations are laid out in his E&E paper and confirm Vaughn Pratt's numbers. So, I wouldn't say that there wasn't a response given.<br /><br />-ChipChip Knappenbergerhttp://www.worldclimatereport.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-57683489742417532902011-07-07T12:10:42.053-04:002011-07-07T12:10:42.053-04:00Back into the vicinity of the topic, student opini...Back into the vicinity of the topic, student opinions vary: http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=647357Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-21217682727571906352011-07-07T10:29:05.701-04:002011-07-07T10:29:05.701-04:00Wow: Vaughan Pratt says Michaels _was_ sworn in, ...Wow: Vaughan Pratt says Michaels _was_ sworn in, and got it wrong. <br /> http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/19/michaels-controversial-testimony-part-ii/#comment-13539<br />Is that the post Michaels and Chip never responded to? <br /><br />That would make sense; the advocate will ignore anything that can't be argued, and hope that question is not raised again, leaving it out of the record.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-75826452943112166532011-07-07T04:35:03.404-04:002011-07-07T04:35:03.404-04:00Didn't John Nielsen-Gammon address Chip Knappe...Didn't John Nielsen-Gammon address Chip Knappenberger's questions <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/19/michaels-controversial-testimony-part-ii/#comment-13015" rel="nofollow">in an exchange between them both at Climate Etc</a> last year?J Bowersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-33101546759967987112011-07-07T01:34:04.224-04:002011-07-07T01:34:04.224-04:00In that blog post, Chip links back to this thread:...In that blog post, Chip links back to this thread:<br /><br />http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/18/michaels-controversial-testimony/<br /><br />Pat Michaels never replied to Vaughan Pratt.willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-27686522181974501772011-07-07T00:09:50.784-04:002011-07-07T00:09:50.784-04:00Naw Hank, think of it as another Hanson scenario e...Naw Hank, think of it as another <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/10/rtfwr-or.html" rel="nofollow">Hanson scenario eraser</a> gambit. Pat has form in these things.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-48077592715807655182011-07-06T23:06:44.043-04:002011-07-06T23:06:44.043-04:00> Michaels conveniently forgets to mention sulf...> Michaels conveniently forgets to mention sulfate aerosol effects<br />> when discussing atmospheric warming<br /><br />"advocacy science" <br /><br />"Santer/Schmidt/Nielsen-Gammon/Curry cried “foul!” claiming that we have committed a sin of omission by not factoring in the negative climate forcing contributed by sulfate aerosols." <br />-- CK at masterresource, cited above<br /><br />No, CK, they didn't say "sin of omission" -- a religious notion. <br /><br />The foul is not playing by the rules of science--omitting some of the numbers so your arithmetic sums to the answer you wanted to get.<br /><br />"On a purely computational level, there is a rather large difference between:<br /> Starting from evidence, and then crunching probability flows, in order to output a probable conclusion. (Writing down all the signs and portents, and then flowing forward to a probability on the bottom line which depends on those signs and portents.)<br /> Starting from a conclusion, and then crunching probability flows, in order to output evidence apparently favoring that conclusion. (Writing down the bottom line, and then flowing backward to select signs and portents for presentation on the lines above.)"<br />http://lesswrong.com/lw/ju/rationalization/<br /><br />In sworn testimony, that would be omission in law:<br /><br />"omission n. 1) failure to perform an act agreed to, where there is a duty to an individual or the public to act (including omitting to take care) or is required by law. Such an omission may give rise to a lawsuit in the same way as a negligent or improper act."<br />http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/omission<br /><br />As advocates, you aren't doing science.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-82430750861747498992011-07-06T15:17:13.678-04:002011-07-06T15:17:13.678-04:00Eli,
The IPCC opened the door to parsing the quan...Eli,<br /><br />The IPCC opened the door to parsing the quantity “observed warming.” We stepped through. I laid out the logic we used in the link in my last comment. This keeps my ducky dry. Other logic could be applied as well, as I also describe in the aforementioned link, and to which you seem to subscribe. This wets my ducky.<br /><br />FWIW, the IPCC’s statement that “It is <em>likely</em> that increases in greenhouse gas concentrations alone would have caused more warming than observed because volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols have offset some warming that would otherwise have taken place” is a much better construction than is “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is <em>very likely</em> due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” and much less contentious.<br /><br />-ChipChip Knappenbergerhttp://www.worldclimatereport.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-16012637377201877262011-07-06T14:52:51.844-04:002011-07-06T14:52:51.844-04:00Hi D McC,
You are worrying that the Waterloo pres...Hi D McC,<br /><br />You are worrying that the Waterloo press office would promote QBL's work. Don't worry. I have sent them an email to ask for stopping the promotion of QBL's work. We are safe!Molazinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-88532157928518044562011-07-06T14:02:23.978-04:002011-07-06T14:02:23.978-04:00Dear Chip,
That's like really, really weak. ...Dear Chip,<br /><br />That's like really, really weak. Temperature, or as your friend RPSr. likes to say energy content, aka internal energy, are the sum of heat flows, that warm and cool the system. <br /><br />So let us look at the infamous bathtub. Yr. employer says, to measure the height of the water in the tub we only need to look at the water flowing INTO the tub, and not the amount that drain out.<br /><br />OK. Whatever floats your rubber ducky.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.com