Climategate 2

I'm away from my desk, so this is just a placeholder until I can get home, get hold of the files, and make some comment.

Comments

[BBD]

Jonas N

The atmosphere and its climate is not a simple scalar entity, whose properties are ruled by equally scalar and additive forcings, and even less so that one of forcings in turn controls one of the others slavishly.

Oh really? Read Lacis et al. (2010). I thought you might know rather less than you pretend. Now I'm certain.

And I ask again (since you opinions are of no relevance), what body of published work supports your ideas?

>>manwithastick

Don't jump the gun. You might also wish to read the Lacis paper before you get too carried away.

[BBD]

That picture is what you describe, it is the Gore/kindergarten version of the 'explanation', and it is contradicted by your link.

Where?

[Jonas N]

BBD (progress, if at all, is very slow with you)

I'll repeat:

Both weather and the climate and how they work, what controls it, what makes it fluctuate, what determines and limits thos fluctuations up and down are are far far more complicated matters than a simple scalar understanding of 'forcings' and 'sensitivity'

If you claim the opposite, you are way out of your depth. And if you actually would know what you bring up here as 'explanations' you would certainly not make many of the strange statements about various things and terms that come up.

The kindergarten version of 'the core science' you describe goes like this:

'The absorbtion/re-radiation of IR by the (extra) CO2, causing the H2O levels to increase, thereby creating a large positive feedback'

You even claimed that this was shown empirically:

"Empirical evidence of RF from CO2 causing atmospheric fraction WV to increase with measured proportional increase in DLR"

Re UHI: I did not make any claims, other than that the issue is nowhere settled, and that BEST did not address the key questions. You made such claims, and when asked about it you essentially derailed ..

[BBD]

Jonas N

You can repeat yourself all you like.

Still no references, I see, even on the second time of asking. No surprise there.

Let's get something straight. Nobody cares about your opinions one way or the other, however often you repeat them. You are just another 'sceptical' blow-hard with an inflated idea of your own importance.

The following holds:

- Increased RF from CO2 will warm the atmosphere

- Atmospheric WV content will increase, with a concomitant increase in DLR

- This is positive feedback from CO2 (also see Lacis et al. 2010)

Here are some of the studies you should have read and will need to show are in error for your views to have any credibility:

Santer et al. (2007) Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf

Global Cooling After the Eruption of Mount Pinatubo: A Test of Climate Feedback by Water Vapor
Brian J. Soden, et al. Science 296, 727 (2002); DOI: 10.1126/science.296.5568.727

http://atoc.colorado.edu/~dcn/ATOC6020/papers/Soden_etal_727.pdf

Soden, Brian J., Isaac M. Held, 2006: An Assessment of Climate Feedbacks in Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere Models. J. Climate, 19, 3354–3360. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3799.1

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3799.1

No doubt there will be more blustering but it makes no difference. Your opinions are worthless unless supported. Unless you can do so, no further response is required.

[Jonas N]

BBD, you are repeating the kindergarten 'explanation', and seem not even to understand what that 'explanation' entails .. athough I explained it to you.

Are you even aware of that those 'large positive feedbacks' aren't to be found in the temperature record of late? That this is whats so frustrating to the believers?

I am fully aware of that much 'climate science' approaches the issue with that rudimentary model/description understanding of it. And this in it self is not even the problem.

The problem is when you start believing that your rudimentary description is also the reality.

In yoru case, it seems that you are barely past the the kindergarten description, and seem to believe that a link (to a friendly publication) also shows that 1) the use of that descripition makes it reality, and that 2) a seemingly reasonable fit of one (limited) set of data, also confirms the causality implied.

This is wrong in both instances, as should be obvious to any physics gradstudent trying to measure something experimentally. But then again, that is also what is wrong with many of those coming from soft sciences (not real science), who are clueless even about the necessity to always distsinguish cause and effect. And that goes both for quite a few of the climate scientists, and for many many of the climate scare supporters ...

I don't know your backgraound BBD, but I would definitely not expect any professional experience regarding making measuring and/or understanding phenomena and effects in the physical world.

In 'gender studies' they too believe that they clearly can see the effect ... and are certain that the 'explanation' therfore must be what they were looking for ..

No wonder the loopy left is som dominant among the believers ..

[Jonas N]

Lokk BBD

you really don't need to spend any time linking stuff you haven't read/wouldn't understand, or making proclamations about what 'the core science' says, when you don't even have a clue to what the assumed hyptheses, the objections, the criticisms, the missing parts and questionable and debated areas.

You come across just like one more of the support troops, picking up links at Skeptical Science and other devoted propagandablogs, copy-pasting them, together with whatever was claimed there.

I've come across far too many of those. And exactly like you, when one actually reads the links, they show something quite different. And when that is pointed out, or just the obvious objections are detailed, there comes the nastiness, name-calling etc.

Previously, I had higher thoughts of you. But now the AGW-groupie pattern has evolved twice in exactly the same manner ... So, no, you really don't need to repeat the kindergarten version, or that there are friendly publications saying that it is a good description of reality.

We already know that ..

[BBD]

Waffle, waffle, waffle.

No doubt there will be more blustering but it makes no difference. Your opinions are worthless unless supported. Unless you can do so, no further response is required.

[Jonas N]

BBD, you're the one not adressing, and probably not knowing the topic ..

How would me reading to you what your link actually contained and showed, be 'not supporting my opinion' ... You gave the link your self. Together with your uninformed opinion, which was not supported therein.

This is very typical for the AGW-groupies, again and again demanding that somebody else should have said what was just said. And the reason is because they have no method of determining what is substance, what is not, what is claimed, what is hypothesized, what is tentative, what is speculation and merely wishful thinking. They demand that an authority tells them. And furthermore, only authorities they approve. And the hope to find such at RealClimate, SkepticalScience and the like ...

Need I just repeat 'energetically insignificant' .. as a perfect example of being completely off base?

[Jonas N]

Look BBD, it is really very simple. Here you claimed that those emails didn't retracthing from the 'core science'

Which was uninformed, and wrong. When I detailed to you what that 'core science' actually is, and what the debate is about, you only repeated a very simple version of how you understand 'the core science'.

You've done that a couple more times now. Providing links, that nowehere settle the core questions, which you additionally seem loftily unaware of, although following this debate for quite some time ..

Even simple pointers seem to just fly over your head .. and then you demand I provide references as proof ('support') for what you missed. . that's quite funny.

[BBD]

Back it up.

[Jonas N]

Easily backed up, BBD

Here is the quote that shows you have absolutely no clue at all:

Empirical evidence of RF from CO2 causing atmospheric fraction WV to increase with measured proportional increase in DLR:

"our measurements show that the downward surface flux from H2O has doubled to 200 W/m2. The water increase causes a reduction of the fluxes from the other greenhouse gases. These measurements show that the greenhouse effect from trace gases in the atmosphere is real and adds significantly to the radiative burden of the atmosphere. The greenhouse radiation has increased by approximately 3.52 W/m2 since pre-industrial times."

Evans & Puckrin (2006)

Note that so great in the increase in RF from WV that it over-prints the fluxes from other GHGs. Unequivocal evidence of positive WV feedback.

Nov 23, 2011 at 1:32 PM | BBD

And here is the link to Evans and Puckrin 2006

You two sentences are nonsense on three counts:

1) The large difference of H20 between summer and winter is due to the temperature difference (between summer & winter), nothing else.

2) CO2-levels hardly changed at all during those six months. There is no change in any CO2-forcing during that time span. And of course, then there can't be any positive feedbacks detected either

3) You notice that H2O 'overprints' the CO2 signature, but (later) said they were additive.

Point 2) is the killer! Where you absolutely give it away, that you where just waffling with your:

"Empirical evidence of RF from CO2 causing atmospheric fraction WV to increase with measured proportional increase in DLR"

And mind you: I pointed this out before, several times, but you were unable to take it in. Probably still are!

There are more pointes I could make, but they probably fly over your head too:

4) Even if there had been a difference in CO2 during the observed timespan, you can still not deduct that any changes in H2O were caused thereby! Which is easily noted by the fact that in the data H2O differs a lot from year to year (all by it self).

5) They give three-figure numbers for the increase in downward flux of 3.52 W/m2 compared to preindustrial levels (which nowhere have been measured with that precision)

6) To arrive at a positive increase in GHG downward flux (of 3.52) they explicitly have to remove the most potent and important GHG, water vapor itself. Compared to their own data H20 flux was much more in preindustrial times. Summing up their total contributions (averaging of the year), their data says that today, there are about ~7 w/m2 less downwelling flux.

7) And if that were taken seriously, and compared to what actually has changed (the CO2-level) it would not even imply a negative feedback from CO2 (less warming than pure radiative properties in a controlled lab). It would mean that CO2 causes a net cooling!

Point 7) is of course gibberish, but taking your logic, the paper you linked shows exactly that: When CO2 levels are increased (over decades) the downward flux from H2O decreases far more than any increas CO2 it self can contribute. But as you (might?) know: Correlation is not causation.

But all this shows, that there is not much beef in the claim that any increase in GHG flux has occured since then. (Their data shows the opposite actually)

[BBD]

Jonas N

A sure sign of a commenter who is dishonest is when they deliberately ignore key parts of the exchange in order to make fake 'points'.

I corrected the mistake you have continuously harped on about two days ago.

Here it is again:

You could be forgiven for wondering. The dangers of posting in haste. Let me try again:

The point is that the summer doubling of DLR flux is caused by the increased fraction of WV in the warmer atmosphere. So heat the atmosphere with increased RF from CO2 and you will also get an increased fraction of WV and proportionally increased DLR.

This was supposed to usher in Lacis et al. (2010) - perhaps now it all makes more sense?

Your comments on the Lacis paper?

Nov 23, 2011 at 6:16 PM

But we are not talking about Evans & Puckrin now. I invited you to explain why and how Lacis et al. (2010) is wrong, and then why Santer et al. (2007), Soden et al. (2001) and Soden and Held (2006) are in error (Nov 24, 2011 at 3:19 PM). You need to do so in order to bolster your claim that:

Very few argue that there is no effect at all. Most certainly I don't. But that is not at all the topic. The topic is rather whether CO2 has the potency of controlling the entire climate system. And that question is very speculative, and support for it is dwindling.

You seem to be still on the level that CO2 as a GHG, when its level is increased, also must (and that's the key word) imply that all GHGs must increase at the same time.

The 'consensus' AGW-theory even assumes that it must(!) imply that even other GHG-levels must increase and follow as 'slave parameters'.

You have not done so because you cannot do so.

Your excitable commentary since is a transparent and unsuccessful attempt to distract from the fact that you have no support whatsoever for your ideas (whatever they are - it is not actually all that clear).

This brings us back to the essential problem - see again my comment at Nov 24, 2011 at 3:19 PM.

I repeat: nobody cares about your opinions one way or the other, however often you repeat them. You are just another 'sceptical' blow-hard with an inflated idea of your own importance and nothing to back it up.

No doubt there will be more blustering but it makes no difference. Your opinions are worthless unless supported.
- You have blustered, as I knew you would.

- You have not provided ANY supporting references - because you can't, as none exist.

- You have been serially insulting because that's all you've got and you need to paper over the emptiness with something.

- As a distraction technique, it fails miserably.

The only reason I have bothered to respond - for the last time - to you is that I want to demonstrate to any other readers just how weak your argument actually is. It is important that people notice the absolute lack of supporting evidence and the aggressive, blustering tactics used to distract from this.

What you are doing here is as far away from science as you can get. Yet you have the gall to claim that the science is bogus and dishonest.

[Ian Summerell]

I would like to add my sixpence worth to the comments. The email that had me and my cyber buddy falling around with laughter is from our old friend Prof Jones to Thomas Stocker regarding the Freedom of Information Acts and the IPCC.

Email [2440] from: Phil Jones - to: Thomas Stocker - subject: Re: Data access and IPCC

"I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. Hard to do, as not everybody will remember to do it."

They think that they have the divine right of kings and are above the law. Because they work for the IPCC, governments and world bank they believe that they can delete all the emails to hide their criminal scam. I’d like to remind Prof Jones that someone did not remember to delete the emails. LOL! LOL! [get up off the floor and comment on the Bishop's blog], Prof Jones they are all over the internet NOW! and called Climategate 2.0.

[Bishop Hill]

From Today's Moderator:

BBD, Ian Summerell and others: please take this argument to the Discussion forum. Thank you.
.

[Jonas N]

BBD

"a commenter who is dishonest " !?

That is more than just a little rich coming from someone who claims that missing that the difference showed summer/winter, only depended on the hasty posting

they deliberately ignore key parts !?

That is indeed a bit rich from someone almost never addressing what the objections actually are.

I corrected the mistake .. two days ago

Well, you seemed to realize that it it was only summer/winter differences. The key issue, about what part CO2 is causingof the increased temperature, and the even more pertinent key issue about if there such an effect potentiall has any strong and positive feedbacks. Maybe I should here remind you of the phrase:

...deliberately ignore key parts ..!

My impression actually is that you still not have understood what that reference said about CO2 and its effect.

But we are not talking about Evans & Puckrin now

Wrong again! I was very much talking about exactly Evans & Puckrin, because that was the one you first totally misunderstood, and which you (it very much seems) still have not understood the message and implications of. And we know from earlier that you don't understand the topic ('energetically insignificant') but bluster on about things, incapable of explaining even whaout your side meant ...

I invited you to explain why and how Lacis et al. (2010) is wrong

Yes you did, but you also say that you don't understand any of the points I made about the much simpler E&P-paper, which mostly only contained experimental observations. So how do you mean that you would/could understand anything I'd have to say about Lacis? Especially since you are not capable of discussing the topic, and constantly demand that I bring on somebody else (reference/support) to also formulate my points!? What nonsense is that!? If you cannot discuss what a paper says, and more importantly what it doesn't say, what is that 'invitation' supposed to mean?

It is quite obvious that you cannot argue any physics, or arguments based on its laws, are unfamiliar with the whole concept of the scientific method and with logic. And in it self, that wouldn't be a big problem, if you weren't blustering claims here where you don't even understand your own (preferred) side's position.

nobody cares about your opinions one way or the other ..

You are just another 'sceptical' blow-hard with an inflated idea of your own importance and nothing to back it up ..

You have blustered, as I knew you would ..

You have not provided ANY supporting references - because you can't, as none exist ..

You have been serially insulting ..

That's all very very rich coming from a guy who (first) thought that the summer/winter difference was driven by CO2, and still thinks that that difference somehow proves that CO2 is major climatic driver, and on top of that that these measurements should show any large positive feedbacks ..

.. thrown at the person who points out those major misconceptions, and needs to do that repeatedly!

It is very rich coming from a guy who cannot get any of the oposing arguments correctly, and doesn't even understand the arguments on his own side!

Note that it is you who claim that 'reading the science, and what it actually says and what is supported therein' is "as far away from science as you can get" ..

But that's pretty much what I'd expect from an arts major (or similar) who is totally unfamiliar with physical science ...

And usually, namecalling is what they have left once you tell them that and where they were wrong!

[Jonas N]

I think it is good BBD disappeared from Bishop Hill's blog.

His last attempt was a disgrace, and untruthful on so many counts. I am actually surprised that he lingered here for such a long time, pretending to participate in the debate, when he really was and remained so totally uninformed as he displayed above. (And previously about UHI)