Friday
Sep092011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Make haste more slowly
Sep 9, 2011 Climate: Models What fun - readers point out that some revisions are to be made to the Dessler paper in the light of comments made by Roy Spencer. I wonder if Steve M's comments will have an effect too?
Reader Comments (289)
Shub
No apology for the crap about my 'nuclear fantasies'? Well, no surprise, I suppose.
Bad Andrew is a consistent source of nonsense. Attribution is a branch of climate science. You are giving him a run for his money though. I counter your decarbonisation is misanthropy by asking why? Why does increasing the amount of nuclear in the global energy mix count as misanthropy? Why does shifting from FFs to electricity for heating, cooking and transport harm humanity? Only green loonies argue for hair-shirt solutions. And only anti-humanitarian greens think that energy availability in the developing world should be limited. I do not argue this. I despise these misanthropic idiots as much as you do.
Given that rapidly warming the Earth will be very bad news indeed for many humans, I would like to add to the list: 'Climate pseudo-scepticism is misanthropy'.
This stuff about carbon's quantum in the circulation not killing life is just waffle, as per.
The topic here is: climate sensitivity (see SB11 but mainly the spin surrounding it) and the radiative physics of CO2. With these in mind, there is a major problem which you have done everything in your power to obfuscate in this and every other exchange I have had with you.
"This is Spencer's belief system. How can it not influence the nature and direction of his work?"
BBD,
Theists and Christians have been doing science since it began and have been doing it in uncountable numbers to the benefit of vast numbers of people alive today. Now you suddenly have a problem with this after enjoying the benefits provided by such scientists?
Andrew
Bad Andrew
Eh?
I have a problem with prior commitment to fundamentalist beliefs when it manifests in work like Spencer's. Let's not forget that SB11 really doesn't make any great claims about climate sensitivity, but it has been spun as doing so. This was clearly Spencer's intent: get something out there (by publishing it in a journal that won't spot the problems) then amplify the fuss for all it's worth. Spencer is very popular with hard-right Republicans with fundamentalist beliefs. Why do you suppose that is?
And what is it that such people endorse? Business as usual fossil fuel use. So there's a perfect fit. It's so bleedin' obvious I have a hard time understanding why you don't see it.
"I have a problem with prior commitment to fundamentalist beliefs when it manifests in work like Spencer's."
Where exactly is this manifestation in his work? Please be specific and reference source material, please.
Andrew
Bad Andrew
Okay, you don't understand a word I've been saying. No help for that.
"Okay, you don't understand a word I've been saying. No help for that."
BBD,
And you didn't answer my simple question (again). But, there's obviously no help for that. Again, not the first time and surely not the last.
Andrew
Bad ANdrew
I didn't answer you question because it was a transparent attempt to avoid the point I made above.
Which is: not that you will find lines of scripture interspersed with equations in SB11
But that: SB11 is the latest in a line of papers and books by Spencer which (to a greater or lesser extent) claim that climate sensitivity is low
He is insistent on this point because the alternative - serious consequences from AGW - runs counter to his profoundly-held religious beliefs
I have explained all this in detail above. There are two possible explanations for your comment:
- you are very stupid
- you are very clever, and trying to switch track to avoid losing the argument
You choose.
BBD, sorry, I should have been clearer. What do you think of the point the cartoon is making?
ta.
BBD, you say "Low climate sensitivity means effective energetic loss to space (eg per WE's thunderstorm hypothesis). This means that the climate system cannot heat up. So once it has entered a glacial and ice-albedo feedback has become dominant, there is no way out."
Would it be possible for you to give me a specific reference, especially concerning the last sentence?
Thanks!
Josh
wrt your cartoon:
If the message is, look - no runaway greenhouse effect here chaps, then it is correct. The climate clearly has a (large) range of variation. This strongly contradicts the hypothesis of a low climate sensitivity. Equally, CS is evidently not high enough to trigger a positive feedback loop that boils the oceans.
Given the CS we have, which derives substantially from the physical properties of the atmosphere, the temperature response to the maximum energetic input (solar) over the last 500my has an upper bound.
What your cartoon doesn't address is the question of how of how rapid variation within the range will affect humanity or the ecosystem as a whole.
TS
There's a great deal of published work on this question. After a bit of hesitation, I think you might find Glikson (2010) useful. Not because I necessarily endorse all of its conclusions, but because it provides an overview and plentiful further references.
Sorry, that would be Glikson (2010)
I have to apologize to BBD for not recognizing that nuclear power is an 'alternative' to fossil fuels?
BBD, I accept none of your premises in this debate. I don't accept your frames. I don't accept your stands. I don't accept your positions - lukewarm, skeptic, denier etc.
I most certainly don't give a rat's ass about the Cornwall Alliance. 'Debates' about 'evolution' evoke no reaction in me. Seeing as I am, according to you, supposed to automatically become suspicious of Spencer's motives because of his membership in the said Alliance, makes me suspicious of your motives.
The 'climate' varies a lot so it must be 'sensitive'. How insightful indeed.
Now I understand ...people write stuff, BBD misreads it absolutely, then the thread degenerates in multiple futile attempts to show the guy he's understood not a thing. Repeat.
TS
Before going further, could you explain if and why you disagree? Particularly with the last sentence (please provide your references too; it would be very helpful).
Shub
No substance
Mauritzio
Ditto
Errors in the Dessler paper?
Has anyone resigned yet?
For the last time BBD...I compared SPENCER to Shockley. Why should I apologize to you? And if you still don't get it, then you're truly a troll.
Thanks BBD! And no the cartoon does not address the affects of rapid temperature variation. A cartoon can't tell the whole story.
;-)
Josh
I know the cartoon cannot tell the full story and I struggled with my reply. It was a hard question ;-)
Maurizio
Sorry for typoing your name above.
You say:
Your original comment was:
Goodness only knows what you are on about. If failing to understand you makes me a troll, then I dare say I am not alone on this thread.
BBD - they say recent converts are the most zealous. Until a month or so ago you found lukewarmism intellectually respectable - why should your change of mind mean that it is no longer so for others? You have your own blog debating style, which seems to involve a lot of aggressiveness towards people you think you disagree with. Other people have different styles - e.g. Shub is a little more elliptical. As I read your exchanges, I'd say you misunderstand his/her point roughly half of the time. Did you consider reading more carefully? And finally: the point that entry into and exit from ice ages suggests high climate sensitivity is a good argument, that supports the idea that CO2 sensitivity is high. But is it a killer argument? In truth, we don't know everything about how ice ages happen, so certainty seems misplaced. And the optical absorption properties of CO2 may be well understood, but all the knock-on effects of increasing CO2 concentrations are pretty hard to be sure of. So: how certain are you that the we-are-all-doomed +3 degrees or more by 2100 consensus is correct? 99%? 80%? 50%?
Jeremy Harvey
Ah yes, 'plus catholique que le Pape'. Well, all I can say, sticking with the religious thing, is that I feel the need to atone. Specifically, here in comments, where I've argued for something that I now see was incorrect. I'm effectively apologising to those that I have unintentionally misled.
Blunt, yes, but aggressive, no. There are examples of aggressive responses to me on this thread that illustrate my point.
If you can provide an intellectually coherent and referenced counter-explanation, then no, it's not a killer argument.
I prefer 'committed' to 'we-are-all-doomed' but the answer is ~80%.
This is wrong. I should have said:
I prefer 'committed to a +3C rise by ca 2100' to 'we-are-all-doomed' but the answer is ~80%.
No one is attempting to "delegitimize" you, BBD. But, unfortunately for you, your very own comments are doing an excellent job of that.
OTOH, speaking of "delegitimizing", it is glaringly obvious that you are doing your level best to delegitimize Spencer with your constant harping on his religious beliefs.
Ironically, the only evidence that Spencer's religious beliefs might be informing his science is his willingness to "turn the other cheek" to Dessler's fault-laden "rebuttal" of his work by assisting Dessler in getting his facts straight.
It will be interesting to see whether or not Dessler apologizes to Spencer in his "revised" paper for misrepresenting his position - and whether or not he actually acknowledges Spencer's (and Steve McIntyre's) contributions.
Considering the precedent set by Wagner, it will also be interesting to see whether or not the editor of GRL chooses to fall on his sword for the failure of the "peer reviewers" to catch the obvious errors in Dessler's paper.
Hilary
Well, I shall have to live with that.
Wrt Spencer, the links and quotes are there. I leave it to each reader to decide for themselves. You have; I have. Fair enough.
It will indeed be interesting to see what form Dessler's revised paper takes. Misrepresentations and errors will be key factors. We'll have to tot them up and see who loses.
BBD Sep 10, 2011 at 11:08 PM
"We'll have to tot them up and see who loses."
For pity's sake change your thought patterns.
Nobody "wins or loses"! Science gains and therfore we all gain! All scientific development requires some theories to be proven and some to be disproven, that is the principle upon which we develop our understanding. It is not clan or fan based it is a simply a matter of fact.
A true scientist is equally at peace with being proven wrong as he is at being proven correct. Why, because under both scenarios he can go forward. Being "unproven" either way is the normal state under which he exists, being insistant that his is the only way, has never been and never will be the way to move science forward.
There are no winners and losers, blind alleys are time consuming, correct and wrong are equal imput, unproven theories are just thoughts backed by possible unfalsifiable information.
Blunt BBD?
Yes, Blunt, as in, here is my overall politcal-energy-climate philosophy all wrapped up in one bundle. Either swallow it whole, or you are anti-science.
Some of the rhetorical techniques are interesting to note as well - the demand for 'apologies', the demand for clarification of one's position on key issues - "evolution - do you believe in it or not", "nuclear energy - are you for it", "decarbonization - I hope you don't think that is a good thing".
Yes, Jeremy, I prefer elliptical. I don't like shutting the door on arguments, or on people.
Green Sand
Well, there you have it. You argue, rightly, that science is a net-gain endeavour. You simultaneously endorse a position that is counter to current scientific understanding.
But you think I'm in the wrong ;-)
@BBD
you say - "Ah yes, 'plus catholique que le Pape'. Well, all I can say, sticking with the religious thing, is that I feel the need to atone. Specifically, here in comments, where I've argued for something that I now see was incorrect. I'm effectively apologising to those that I have unintentionally misled."
i know you are no troll & appreciate your comments/input on this blog over the years, but what data/papers/evidence etc.. have convinced you 'to atone' for i presume disagreeing with "DOOMED- mmgw"
BBD Sep 11, 2011 at 12:21 AM
"You simultaneously endorse a position that is counter to current scientific understanding."
BBD Please explain where in my comment I have "simultaneously endorse a position that is counter to current scientific understanding."
Shub
Why am I wrong to ask people to be clear about what they say? And where possible, to back it up with references? As opposed to wittering.
You don't shut the door on arguments. You don't open it. Specifics and logical debate are not your preferred tools. Which is why exchanges with you are waffle-o-thons.
Green Sand
I might have made a mistake. You can correct me. I was under the impression that you are a climate sceptic or at most, lukewarmer. Apologies if I have got you wrong.
dougieh
Thanks for that. I can't point to any specific paper, article, book or blogpost. The effect is cumulative. Just read 'the other side'. Science of Doom is where to start, but don't blank RC. Seriously. As a sceptic, test all the ideas and arguments against each other. It's not always fun, but it's better than blinkers.
Yeah, 'references'. Another rhetorical technique. Like providing a weblink to the entire IPCC 2007 report when asked to show how exactly is it that 'most' of the warming of the 20th century is caused by humans, and claiming that you provided a reference.
Logical debate? Like dragging every thread into the funnel of the climate sensitivity 'debate'? I am glad I dont do that. Like flashing Hadcrut graphs as soon as the questions get a bit tough.
I don't see myself as having exchanges with you, BBD. I am just doing my job. If it wasn't me, someone else would take that place - of asking two questions behind each one of your abrupt formulations. Your 'bluntness' then takes care to see that we never get to the bottom of what you originally meant.
I won't hold back from insulting you anymore. Try flashing your 'references', go ahead. Two can play your game.
Shub
When did I do that?
Climate sensitivity is the debate. I use graphs to support my argument, not to evade questions.
Oh come on. Other people are reading this. Some of whom will have followed our exchanges.
This is just weird.
BBD Sep 11, 2011 at 12:34 AM
"I might have made a mistake. You can correct me. I was under the impression that you are a climate sceptic or at most, lukewarmer. Apologies if I have got you wrong."
You really do not get what life is about:-
"I was under the impression that you are a climate sceptic or at most, lukewarmer."
What has that statement got to do with the scientific method?
You don't even know into which "clan" or "team" YOU think YOU should place me in YOUR brain, but because I criticise your interpretation of the method, note the method, not the outcome, you assume I am a "climate sceptic or at most, lukewarmer" whatever, to be polite, the f..k they maybe. What gives you the right to label me?
I pleaded with you to get your thinking right, because your "winners or losers" thought pattern can never move science forward, your reaction, to label me with a name that you seem to think is derogative.
Now take a time out and think just how your reation to me can possibly move forward our understanding or how mankind can move forward.
And that is quite frankly a far more polite reply than you normally give other people whose only motives are to try and help you.
Green Sand
I didn't label you. I asked you a question.
That cuts both ways.
That's not true, and I dispute it.
Maurizio
Shockley was right about the physics underpinning the transistor. And he didn't use his work on transistors as a platform for promoting his views on eugenics.
So "Spencer:creationist=Shockley:eugenicist" is a nonsense in this context. Or any context, really.
I'm going to bed now.
BBD, my boss is a Jew and my collaborator as Creationist, do I stop working with them on chemotherapy because of their religious beliefs, or do I treat them as fellow professionals?
I am an atheist, I have met all sorts in my life, but have never found much in the way of correlation between espoused faith and ability to do scientific research, none what so ever.
We could of course sack all the Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus and all other religious people from our universities and research institutes, but not all atheist are completely ration, many I know believe in curious things like Marxism, social justice or ecology.
BBD Sep 11, 2011 at 1:12 AM
OK, so you will still not accept that people are trying to aid you and it is really getting to be sad now, but here we go:-
I asked:- What gives you the right to label me?
Your answer:- I didn't label you. I asked you a questiion?
Correct you did! Your question:-
"I might have made a mistake. You can correct me. I was under the impression that you are a climate sceptic or at most, lukewarmer. Apologies if I have got you wrong."
I will repeat my comment, what has that got to do with the "scientific method"? Note:- Again, sadly, but it must be stated "method" not outcome, because that is not yet known.
"Now take a time out and think just how your reation to me can possibly move forward our understanding or how mankind can move forward.
That cuts both ways."
Agreed! Keep doing it!
"And that is quite frankly a far more polite reply than you normally give other people whose only motives are to try and help you.
That's not true, and I dispute it."
"That's not true, and I dispute it."
Well if there was one response that I could put my house on that was it!
BBD, I will now leave this discourse to judgement of The Fifth Estate.
The same Fifth Estate that appears to be responsible for the Dessler pre publication rewrite.
Have fun
Anyone who has spent a lifetime working in science and still retains a modicum of objectivity into their retirement/dotage will eventually admit (even if it needs quite a few glasses of red wine or a couple of double whiskies) that much of science is just as riddled with a barnyard ‘pecking order’ as any other, supposedly more crass endeavour of the human race e.g. making war.
Many scientists, especially the denizens of academia, can spend an entire career habitually making regular ritual genuflections both in person and in print to the self-appointed ‘gods in their own minds’ of whatever fashionable ‘paradigm’ currently rules their chosen field.
Go to any conference and watch quietly from the sidelines. The syncophancy can often reach the very heights of Shakespearean buffoonery.
Add to that a very curious effect I discovered while doing research in middle Europe for 3 years in the 1990s and you have all the answers you need.
I call that effect ‘The Birkenstock Effect’.
Somewhere between about Geneva and Bern as you travel east out of francophone academia you will inadvertently stumble right over a mysterious invisible fault line from whence, henceforth, you will observe a remarkable enthusiasm amongst physical scientists for wearing birkenstocks (with socks of course) to work, to the opera, to the nearest bar, and I'd say 'yes', with a high R^2, even when in bed 'mit die Frau'.
The unfortunate downside of The Birkenstock Effect is of course chill blains and chronic cold feet – especially while traversing those long chilly corridors where one is most likely to bump into Herr Doctor Professor(s).
Poor young Wolfgang Wagner comes from very deep in Birkenstock Effect territory.
PS: That reminds me - I must get BBD's latest position on birkenstocks (and 'gods')!
BBD finally decided to read about Shockley several hours after totally misunderstanding my comment. Another victim of "write first, think later". For the record, Shockley did use his transistor fame to promote eugenics, hence in BBD's world of beliefs trumping everything else we cannot be sure if Shockley invented the transistor in order to better humanity via prevention of non-white childbirths.
Then we have Coco Chanel : as it is well known, millions of women share her antisemitic and Nazi collaboration thoughts, and they show it by using her No. 5 /sarc
I smoke cigarettes and observe the rules as to where I can do it. Lifelong nonsmokers by and large don't harass me, and that includes my wife. However 45 years of experience has led me to believe there is no person on earth more insufferable and zealous in their crusade to direct me towards the path of righteousness than a reformed smoker.
I'm having a rethink.
Maurizio
If your comments were more coherent, there would be less chance of my misunderstanding them. Also, if the s/n ratio improved, I might spend more time reading them.
Instead of further diversionary witter about Coco Chanel, why don't you go back upthread and look at the bollocks that the Cornwall Alliance is promoting, and which Spencer enthusiastically endorses.
Then ask yourself the obvious question: with Spencer, is the theology prior?
There is only one possible answer, but I do not live in the expectation that you will admit it.
It has been clear from the outset that SB11 does not advance our understanding of anything much. The furore it has caused is much more important than the paper itself. This is effective tactics, and Spencer has just won a round.
Not everyone is so stupid as to be unable to see what is actually going on here.
DocMartyn
Whether accidentally or deliberately, you have missed my point. See my response to Maurizio above.
BTW, have you gone back up the thread and actually read the Cornwall Alliance quotes and links? If not, it would be a few minutes well spent and it will clarify why I respond to Maurizio as I do.
Green Sand, Steve Short, GrantB
I haven't got time for this sort of thing today.
What makes you think I was referring to you?
BBD - if you see everybody driving the wrong way, there's only one possible explanation
BBD
The Cornwall Alliance is a nonsensical point. Please understand that not everybody is convinced by that.
In general, this approach is a bad idea. It just amounts to assuming people's prejudices without their consent in the light of their broader political-religious beliefs. How would you feel if everyone simply declared that all those papers you link to, are simply to advance your leftist political ideal of a global environmental treaty?
And yeah, if everyone sounds 'incoherent', maybe you need to think a bit harder. Perhaps not everyone wants to be as blunt as you.