Saturday
Jul232011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Non-blogging
Jul 23, 2011 Blogs I'm off on my travels for the next week, so blogging will be non-existent.
Jul 23, 2011 Blogs 
Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Dec 20 - julie
on
Established Fiction Ghostwriters Contribution To Fiction Writing -
Dec 6 - sexdollpartner
on
Established Fiction Ghostwriters Contribution To Fiction Writing
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (104)
Further responses to Andrew's FOI request to Norfolk police have just arrived here:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/uea_payments?unfold=1#incoming-197691
Gents and Ladies..do we have any Ladies blogging here I wonder?
(strictly I exclue female trolls in that bracket, i.e. Ladies)
I happened across a rather elderly movie on More4 this morning. The movie's name was ROPE and starred James Stewart.
The denouement was imminent and one of the characters, Brandon, had murdered a youth and stuffed his body in a large wooden crate. He reckoned he had the right to kill the youth because he, Brandon, was superior in intellect and the youth inferior.
I quote his words:
"Moral Concepts of right and wrong don't hold for the intellectually superior"
Now, doesn't that quote just fit the bill as far as cAGW alarmists think about we sceptics??
Pity that I cannot spell exclood...exclude above.
PW
Re: Peter Walsh
Based on the real life crime of Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb.
The paper by Spencer and Braswell is interesting if correct. It goes back to the discussion there was following Nic Lewis's post at Climate Etc. about sensitivity and empirical observations (see my attempt at a layman's summary on the thread the Bishop had about this). The question addressed by Spencer and Braswell is the same: what happens to heat emitted at the top of the atmosphere when the surface of the earth warms up? If quite a lot of extra heat gets given off, then climate sensitivity is low. Spencer's results suggest that this is what happens.
"Gents and Ladies..do we have any Ladies blogging here I wonder?" , asks Peter Walsh (Jul 29, 2011 at 2:37 PM)
Yep, there are Ladies present, and no, they don't troll ...
@Peter Walsh:
tut tut, Peter - surely you know that hro001 is a lady?
See
http://hro001.wordpress.com/about/
and:
http://www.facebook.com/hilary.ostrov
Viv Evans & Paul Boyce, tks for reply and no I did not know about hro001. Is there an obscure clue in the NdeP hro001 that i have missed. Must put my thinking cap on.
So 2 ladies out of hundreds, so far, maybe we will have to ask the Bish to advertise for more ladies to blog here..?
To Peter Walsh:
Here's another one - so there are at least three of us.
"there are at least three of us"
You don't seem to be counting Phil Jones's Mum. ;)
@BBD
Umm... Real investigations and measurements. Not "thought experiments".
(But thank you for the condescension anyway.)
LevelGaze
I'm not being condescending. Please read the linked material before commenting on it. Thanks.
@BBD
I have read them. I cheerfully admit to having some difficulty with the maths and I wouldn't be able to detect a flaw, were there any, but there is no mention anywhere of a REAL measurement. Just thought experiments. This worries me. Even Relativity had to be verified by physical measurement.
We're dealing here with brute facts, things that can consistently and repeatably be observed and measured. Who was it who said "If it doesn't show up on a graph it probably doesn't exist"? Maybe Kelvin. For greenhouse theory to be valid the tropical "hot spot" should be detectable. And so far it isn't, even after thousands or millions of measurements.
Cheers.
LevelGaze
The tropical upper tropospheric 'hot spot' is a feature of modelled studies. It may - or may not - exist in the real world and this is an interesting puzzle for the modellers and meteorologists to unravel.
However, it does not, by itself, constitute a sufficient basis for validation or refutation of AGW. Whatever Jo Nova might think.
So I would caution against building an entire argument solely on this basis.
You rightly stress the pre-eminence of empirical measurement. No doubt you would agree that it trumps modelled projections every time. Fine. Forget about the TT hot spot for the moment.
Since we now agree that radiative forcing by CO2 does not invalidate the laws of thermodynamics, then it is necessary to explain what is causing land surface, sea surface and tropospheric T (and OHC) to increase if not CO2.
Remember that this is about energy. There is clearly more energy in the climate system than there was 50 years ago: it is warmer. So, where did that energy come from, and why is it accumulating in the climate system instead of radiating out to space?
There is a very simple and generally accepted answer to that which is consistent with the long-known physical properties of CO2, observations of increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and measurements of increasing T.
Anybody who needs a laugh, hie ye over to WUWT.
Anthony has put up a transcript of the 'drowning-polar-bear' researcher.
After you've finished reading thar, you'll probably cry about the state natural science has sunk to.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/29/inspector-generals-transcript-of-drowned-polar-bear-researcher-being-grilled/
@BBD
"Since we now agree that radiative forcing by CO2 does not invalidate the laws of thermodynamics"
I'm not at all sure that I do agree. What you baldly assert is counter to a couple of hundred years of observation and derived thermodynamics theory. We live in the real world. Has anyone yet seen heat flow from the Pacific into the Atlantic to produce a frozen Pacific and a boiling Atlantic?
"There is a very simple and generally accepted answer to that which is consistent with the long-known physical properties of CO2, observations of increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and measurements of increasing T."
The old axiom states that "Correlation does not prove causation". As I understand it, fine-grained analysis of ice cores implies historically rising T is followed by rising CO2, with an average 800 year lag. THAT is generally accepted.
It could be that the tensions between the "Lukewarmers" and the "Green Dragon Slayers" are now bubbling to the surface, Fascinating. I don't yet know which side I'm on, I'll have to consider further counsel.
Anyway, I'm off to bed now, thanks for your time.
Middle-aged female here.
DR
LevelGaze
No, it isn't. Where do you get this? What I have said about the radiative physics of CO2, and its non-transgression of thermodynamics is clearly and uncontroversially established. See previous links.
The 'Vostok lag' is routinely misunderstood. Milankovitch (orbital) forcing warms the climate system, leading to oceanic outgassing of CO2 and weaker oceanic re-absorption. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 exhibit a lagged rise relative to the initial increase in T. CO2 then contributes to a further moderate increase in T (remember, CO2 estimates derived from the Vostok cores peak at ca 300ppmv).
Warming triggers NH ice-sheet collapse and abrupt freshening of N Atlantic waters which shuts down the THC. This in turn triggers a strong global cooling that increases oceanic absorption of CO2 and decreases biogenic CO2 production. CO2 levels fall. A decent from interglacial (or interstadial) into glacial ensues.
Orbital forcing eventually re-starts the process which repeats as described.
This is somewhat simplified, but will do as an outline sketch illustrating the way in which CO2 is both a consequence of warming caused by orbital forcing and then an amplifier of warming.
I appreciate that linking to lots of paleoclimate studies will not bolster this argument since most of us have neither the time nor the inclination to plough through the reading. However, there is an excellent popular treatment of this - and much more besides - by Richard Alley which I wholeheartedly recommend:
The Two Mile Time Machine
Jul 29, 2011 at 4:01 PM | Peter Walsh
<gasp> Have you not noticed how "ladylike" (as opposed to "gentlemanly", of course) my posts are? ;-)
BBD,
The tropospheric hotspot is not just a feature of the climate models, but an integral part of the mechanism by which global warming is produced by them.
The ladies of the blogosphere
hr001, donna, viv, judithy curry, messenger, DR, martha, susann, climate kate, zbd??, jo abbess, tenny (naumer), joanne, lucia, adelady, amanda, gaythia, verity, jennifer (marohasy), kate (small dead animals), pamela gray,
I am surely missing a great number more.
I commend BBC World Service's One Planet for its latest programme. At 12 minutes there's an interview with Alan Bouquet, ex UEA insider, about Climategate. It is remarkable not for what the interviewer Mike Williams elicited, but for the tone -- it's real journalism, real questioning. No, it's not long enough and yes, it would have been great to nail the bumbly interviewee to the point, but as a first sign of decent journalism making a mark it deserves everyone's support.
Listen for the bit where Bouquet tells us that the opposition to the UEA has 'lots of resources, secretaries and that'.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/p00j2bgs
JF
Shub - you forgot Lucy (Skywalker). http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm
We women ARE interested, I'm not as knowledgable as you lot but you are gradually educating me.
By the way I've just thrown something (fortunately not breakable) at the TV. The BBC is at it again with Pallad Ghosh (spelling?) talking about Steve Jones and agreeing that 'the science is settled'!!!!
Just watched the BBC's Talkback and Jones report was one of the subjects. It will be no surprise that they dragged in Science Reporter Ghosh who said AGW science is proven and there is no doubt! No real surprise but they are still looking after the pension fund!
Julian Flood Jul 30, 2011 at 6:30 AM
Did you also notice that the only explanation for "Hide the Decline" he (or anyone else for that matter) could give is "It was out-of-context" - without explaining what the context was.
Also, how (words to the effect that) it was such a nice laid-back atmosphere - everyone sitting around drinking coffee ..... (and yet how) everyone was so very busy that the FoI requests were very disrupting .......
I suppose sitting around drinking coffee is a full time occupation in climate science.
An absolute farce.
BBD / Levelgaze, no disrespect meant but can you take your spat over to "Discussions". I know Bish is away but that is what the forum was set up for.
HARDtalk - Rajendra Pachauri - Chair, International Panel on Climate Change
The post-Kyoto push for a new global treaty to cut greenhouse gas emissions is stalled, but scientists continue to issue stark warnings about rising global temperatures. Is it time for a radical reappraisal of the international effort to combat climate change? Stephen Sackur talks to the Chairman of the International Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri. After almost 10 years in the post, has he got the ideas and the energy to reframe the climate change debate?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b012t5cc/HARDtalk_Rajendra_Pachauri_Chair_International_Panel_on_Climate_Change/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/p00j2bgs
Julian Flood
Thanks for that Julian. Did he really call Richard Lindzen of MIT a lunatic near the end? There was Lindzen calmly saying he does not mind being called a "Denier" and the next thing Bouquet is saying he is in the 1% (1% again, they never give up on argument from authority do they!) and hence a lunatic!
Its a travesty I tell you!
Another female lurker here.
@ Julian - thanks for posting the link to the World Service interview with Alan Bouquet ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/p00j2bgs ) . Unbelievable and very curious; Alan worked at CRU until just before the emails were leaked, does anyone know on what? His role now seems to be a PR mission to make CRU and Phil Jones look squeaky clean. He came across shifty, his assertion that Trenberth's email ("the fact is that we cannot account for the lack of warming and its a travesty that we can't") was nothing to do with a lack of warming was ludicrous. Kudos to the BBC interviewer for at least asking the questions, but he should have been much tougher. Just how long can the mainstream media fall for this crap?
Orlowski on the Select Committee's Peer Review Conclusions. At GWPF and
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/29/mps_peer_review_unsatisfactory_and_complacent/
Full report
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/856/85602.htm
Among the the written submissions is the treatment of the JGR McLean,de Freitas, and Carter paper here
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/856/856vw33.htm
Shub
- Do carry on believing whatever makes you happy, as per
Pete H
This is an open thread.
Yes, BBD, I hope you know that this is friendly stuff,...but you always lecture others to go "read up stuff", read the references, etc, but I would ask you: think about the words you choose to use. What is it, you think that you want to convey, or hide, when you say that the hotspot is a 'feature'.
In any non-heuristic model - i.e., in a putatively 'physics-based' model - *all* observed model behaviour (i.e., 'features') needs accounting, or else, the *whole* model falls apart. Model-building exercises undertaken without this spirit are failures. I know that may sound harsh for those ears who are engaged in 'building an understanding' of the 'climate system', but that is the sad reality.
A better way to frame the hotspot problem would be say that the present climate models, although striving to represent features seen in reality, are not successful completely, and therefore their outputs need to be understood with caution.
Shub
Since there's no definitive proof from observation that the TTHS exists or does not (although the evidence is strongly suggestive that it does), then all that needs to be said here is what I said to LG: don't base your whole argument on this.
I am in agreement with your last paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allen, R.J. and S.C. Sherwood (2008): Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds. Nature Geoscience, 1, 399-403, doi:10.1038/ngeo208.
Bengtsson, L. and K.I. Hodges (2009): On the evaluation of temperature trends in the tropical troposphere. Climate Dynamics, “Online First”, doi:10.1007/s00382-009-0680-y.
Johnson, N.C. and S.-P. Xie (2010): Changes in the sea surface temperature threshold for tropical convection. Nature Geoscience, 3, 842–845, doi:10.1038/ngeo1008.
Randel, W.J. and F. Wu (2006): Biases in Stratospheric and Tropospheric Temperature Trends Derived from Historical Radiosonde Data. Journal of Climate, 19, 10, 2094-2104, doi:10.1175/JCLI3717.1.
Sherwood, S.C., et al. (2008): Robust Tropospheric Warming Revealed by Iteratively Homogenized Radiosonde Data. Journal of Climate, 21, 20, 5336-5352, doi:10.1175/2008JCLI2320.1 .
Sobel, A. (2010): Raised bar for rain. Nature Geoscience, 3, 821–822, doi:10.1038/ngeo1025.
Thorne, P.W., et al. (2007): Tropical vertical temperature trends: A real discrepancy? Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L16702, doi:10.1029/2007GL029875.
Thorne, P.W. (2008): The answer is blowing in the wind. Nature Geoscience, 1, 347-348, doi:10.1038/ngeo209.
Thorne, P.W., et al. (2010) Tropospheric temperature trends: history of an ongoing controversy. WIRES: Climate Change, in press, doi:10.1002/wcc.80.
Zhang, G.J., and H. Wang (2006): Toward mitigating the double ITCZ problem in NCAR CCSM3. Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L06709, doi:10.1029/2005GL025229.
Shub
Sorry. This is out of date:
Thorne, P.W., et al. (2010) Tropospheric temperature trends: history of an ongoing controversy. WIRES: Climate Change, in press, doi:10.1002/wcc.80.
Should be:
Thorne, P. W., et al. (2011), Tropospheric temperature trends: history of an ongoing controversy. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2: 66–88. doi: 10.1002/wcc.80
My vote for the most manic alarmist post this week
http://www.iaindale.com/posts/climate-change-and-wine-the-death-of-rioja-and-aussie-shiraz
Pharos - Jul 30, 2011 at 10:34 PM
Take a bow son, you got it!
Pharos
Is it April 1st again so soon.
In April this year the third Climate Change & Wine conference in Marbella, Spain drew hundreds of participants.
No its not April 1st, these bozo's actually spent good money on organising this conference.
http://www.climatechangeandwine.com/
Well its 100% beer for me from now on.
Opps, no Beer either
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24011745/ns/us_news-environment/t/beer-lovers-told-beware-global-warming/
How much money is wasted on AGW, seems like every man and his dog is being fed this crap 24/7
Pharos,
The piece includes the question: "Global inferno or a new Eden?" Which raises the question of how the total eradication of serpents is to be achieved should we choose the latter, because, as we know, through a feedback effect with apple trees, mankind MAY/COULD be forever consigned to live in the real world.
CAGW is a state of mind.
Thanks for the references BBD. I have reviewed papers in this area before. Indeed I quoted some of these papers to you on an occasion before.
I bring nothing with me, to base the everything of that, on the presence or absence of a hotspot. On the other hand, the IPCC and the climate consensus do.
It is they who should be troubled by the absense of a hotspot, because even small unexplained observations bring to question large and complex models.
Cameron has backed Julia Gillard and her carbon tax according to this report:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/international/2011/07/cameron-backs-julia-gillard-on-carbon-tax-embarrassing-australias-conservative-opposition.html
BBD Shame on you for not taking the hint! Everyone else behaved whilst Bish has been away and you could have taken the old worn out argument over to discussions without losing anything and given us all a break to discus other things! We have seen all your links before!
Cameron has backed Julia Gillard and her carbon tax
oldtimer
He has to Oldtimer, simply look where his Father in Law has his money. Its the old Bird/Bat killers on a hill! Follow the money as usual!
Well, when I asked the question 2 days ago regarding participation by ladies on Bishop Hill’s Blog I had no idea that there would be such a response. Thank you all for your comments; it is a rare occasion when I get to start off even a “mini thread” like this.
As I have commented before, I have no scientific background, but firmly believe that cAGW is a scam.
Sometimes a 1st name can be used by guys and dolls so it may not be clear as to the gender behind the name. Not that that is the most important thing I suppose.
Pat could be male or female. My neighbours across the road are Pat (the husband) and Pat (the wife) Likewise Viv could be male or female and here in Ireland our Taoiseach’s (prime minister) name is Enda and back in 1995 I had a (very nice lady) Enda as my boss.
I have now made the acquaintance of Hilary Ostrov and visited Her blog. A couple of times. I will be back every day from now on
So, you sometimes can’t tell and I thought for a while that most if not all people commenting here were likely to be male.
On the subject of cross gender names, here are 7 lines (the complete poem) by W B Yeats..a sort of vindication of my above points.
Thanks again folks:
Herewith the poem:
To be Carved on a stone at Thoor Ballylee
I, the poet William Yeats
With old mill boards and sea-green slates,
And smithy work from the Gort forge,
Restored this tower for my wife George;
And may these characters remain
When all is ruin once again.
As Yeats predicted, after his death the tower (in Co Galway) did fall into disrepair but was restored in 1965 and his poem is inscribed on a Tablet.
PW
Thought this may interest you:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/international/2011/07/cameron-backs-julia-gillard-on-carbon-tax-embarrassing-australias-conservative-opposition.html
No comment needed ... and abandon hope all who thought the end of the buffhuhn would mean the end of the bird slicers ...
Hmm............ looking at the website it seems that AGW is going to steadily drive the wine growing areas northwards (or south in the case of Oz).
Well, Spain's loss could be our gain. Soon we could be spending our summer hols sitting at a delightful shady pavement cafe in the Gorbals and sipping an amusing little local vintage.
Plus the locals will have abandoned their staple diet of deep fried Mars bars, pies and Ir'nBru for healthy Mediterranean eating and extended their lifespan by about twenty years.
What's not to like?