Saturday
Jan072012
by 
Josh
Josh Futurist - Josh 137
Jan 7, 2012 Climate: MetOffice Josh Richard Betts 
Reading this thread may be required.
Jan 7, 2012 Climate: MetOffice Josh Richard Betts 
Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Nov 11 - US Design Hub
on
Launched my very own online store. -
Nov 11 - Kenna Morgan
on
The Benefits of Using Tutorbin for Custom Writing Services
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 (32)
Good pun.. a little unfair perhaps..
suppose Placing your 'Anderson's' wouldn't really work though.. him of tyndall centre 2c is extremely dangerous game, and 1c is the new 2c
Worrying about catastrophic warming seems to depend on neatly avoiding all contextual reference to the earlier evidence from the geological record. When such perspective is included, the collective madness of crowds becomes self evident.
Figure 6 in this paper on the Epica Dome C Antarctic ice record
http://epic.awi.de/19826/1/Ste2009a.pdf
has been copied and annotated very neatly in the enlargeable figure on the ref below, to show the tiny time frame all the fuss is about, and the absurdity of worrying about warming, rather than cooling.
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/06/2010-antarctica-peerreviewed-research-ice-core-data-confirms-medieval-period-warmer-than-present.html
It will be a test of Richard's sense of humour.
It seems to me that when you have to start using "likely" and "plausible" then it is time to shut up.
Thanks Josh. Fame at last :-)
I'll print that out and put it over my desk on Monday.
Another winner by Josh!
And well done, Richard Betts, to print it and hang it over your desk.
Not everybody has the honour of becoming a Josh cartoon.
Richard Betts proudly claimed that he was a Bayesian in another thread. So we do have some high degree of belief that he is a Betting man. Or should I say "likely"? Or that it is "plausible"?
Whatever, Richard has shown himself to be a darned good sport.
Well done, both Josh and Richard.
Environmental Impact statement to JOSH137-
WARNING: ANYONE NOT VOTING WILL BE TRIED FOR HERESY AND BURNED AT THE STAKE MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY BETWEEN 9:00 AM AND NOON. SO AS TO PRECLUDE A WASTE OF SCARCE RESOURCES, IN THE EVENT OF FEDERAL HOLIDAY, HERETICS MAY BE BURNED WITHOUT TRIAL BETWEEN NOON AND CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON THE LAST WORKDAY PRECEDING THE HOLIDAY. THINK GREEN!
(SarcOff - Aren’t you so proud of your gubment? Out of many One! But what?)
CAGW is remotely plausible but we must prioritise our efforts. A lot of butterflies still have their wings...
" ... to show the tiny time frame all the fuss is about ..."
It is actually much worse than that. Try plotting the temperature from the start of the planet. Using two sheets of A4/letter size paper, in landscape, side by side, results in 10 million years covering one millimetre (0.04 inches).
The thickness of a piece of paper therefore represents about one million years. Slicing the paper into one thousand very thin slices will mean that each slice will cover the hockey stick timescale.
Good one Josh
and good for Richard Betts who I think sets an example of how debate & discussion should be.
The highly mirthworthy case of the Climategate2 activist group's protest letter circulated for sign up at CRU - bemoaning how everybody, even the Guardian, is disgracefully enjoying a spell of warming:
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/amusing-letter-circulates-at-cru.html
Pharos, 4:301 PM. I can imagine John Knox composing that sort of letter, were he around now and imbued with the (albeit pagan) fire of our modern-day religious revival based around computers and CO2. What kind of sub-culture does it speak of?
Meanwhile back in our sub-culture, we enjoy the charm and generosity of both Josh and Betts, and many others. I know which sub-culture I prefer.
Richard (Betts), when I asked Professor Mike Lockwood at the Climate Change Conference held at Downing College, Cambridge, last year why increased water vapour at 300mb, required by GCMs, for "positive feedback" was not present (NOAA data 1948-present), he was reduced to public arm-waving.
Can you explain to me
a) why atmospheric water vapour has not increased as required by climate "theory"?
b) what this lack of increased water vapour means for the output of the various GCMs?
It's not only likely, but very plausible that we will have a repeat of 1988, but don't quote me. Although, I can say with 100% certainty that the music that year was terrible.
To paraphrase Bill Clinton, that all depends on what your definition of "catastrophic" is.
To those invested in CAGW, this year may indeed be catastrophic in terms of their incomes and influence, as we appear to be approaching a 'tipping point.'
Same for "plausible." In this era of post-normal pseudoscience, if I feel that something is plausible, and others have those same feelings, then it is. And then the Precautionary Principle advises me to panic.
edward getty
Ah, but it still does require a consensus of your peer group -- or is it face book group? Or peer pal group. Or what ever group.
It is all so confusing. Back when I was young, it was just groupies -- and they appear to have been a whole lot more fun to be around.
Don Keiller
Simple -- they can't sell water credits. No money to be made trying to charge people for clouds.
Josh
Unforgiveable. I've posted twice on this thread and neglected to say what a gem your cartoon is. One day, your signed originals will be very valuable. Keep them safely.
Don Pablo de la Sierra
"Ah, but it still does require a consensus of your peer group -- or is it face book group? Or peer pal group. Or what ever group."
On the bright side, peer review of feelings can be highly democratic. All can participate, free from the constraints of facts or logic. Ideal when doomsday is imminent, time is short, and the children and islanders are at stake.
edward getty
Interesting concept. I must admit I find it an amusing premise for a science fiction story. The population of a planet, tired of living because they screwed up their world by not using the energy available to them for fear of screwing it up decides to end it all democratically, votes to put an end to it and so God smashes a asteroid into it.
Josh brilliantly hits the bulls-eye ... again :-)
Hilary [wondering what mischief she could get up to, so that she can earn a Josh cartoon!!]
It's obviously time for post modern science to come up with some proper quantification of these likelihood and plausibility indices.
Perhaps a new Likelihood/Plausibility Monte Carlo matrix model, backwards correlated with homogenised, smoothed forward projection is required.
I would think a couple of new 100 teraflop supercomputers plus the odd $5M for travel + expenses should do the trick.
Perhaps they could all meet next month in Barbados to discuss it.
I'm still waiting, Richard.
Hi Don
As a quick placeholder (I am on DIY duty today....) does this help?
Not so sure that there is as much as a problem as you seem to be suggesting.
In the 2012 economic downturn I'm betting reality bites.
I would say that the economy heading into recession and also something like finding out if shale gas in the UK can prevent us from having to import gas, will probably have some weight in the plausability and likelihood of CAGW, especially with regard to the governments advisors.
Richard, I do not believe in positive feedback for a variety of reasons. Not least we are able to have this conversation. Other reasons are here.
“A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions”, by Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer, 2007 - International Journal of Climatology. [http://www.scribd.com/doc/904914/A-comparison-of-tropical-temperature-trends-with-model-predictions] comparing the climate models to observations from satellites and balloons (1979-2004).The models exhibit the CO2 theory characteristic of most warming occurring in the troposphere. However, the satellite and balloon based observations show warming only at the surface of the earth.
The IPCC 2007 Report Chapter 9 – Understanding and Attributing Climate Change [http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf] provides a climate model based simulation of the expected CO2 “spatial signature” of all forcings including anthropogenic CO2 (left-hand figure below shows degrees change per decade). However, a study of actual data from radiosonde data shows a non-CO2 based signature [http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap5.pdf]. The models predict a large tropical increase in temperature in the 300 mb range, due to increased water vapor in the troposphere.
The following figure is from a study by Gray and Schwartz (“THE ASSOCIATION OF OUTGOING RADIATION WITH VARIATIONS OF PRECIPITATION – IMPLICATIONS FOR GLOBAL WARMING”)
http://ams.confex.com/ams/29Hurricanes/techprogram/paper_168567.htm
Shall I talk about the Climategate emails as well?
Jan 9, 2012 at 5:51 PM | Don Keiller
Sure, why not, if it helps clarify your argument.
As in "plausible medium of influence"?
Not very. CO2 is a bad bet. Too many sources, some of which (Iceland, anyone?) far outweigh human sources.
My bet is on methane as the new CO2. Cow farts are killing the planet!!
Jan 9, 2012 at 5:51 PM | Don Keiller
Shall I talk about the Climategate emails as well?
Sure, why not, if it helps clarify your argument.
Too easy, Richard. But this is very apposite.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/09/scaffeta-on-his-latest-paper-harmonic-climate-model-versus-the-ipcc-general-circulation-climate-models/#more-54492
Sorry Richard, couldn't resist.
Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Kevin
2004 email from Richard Somerville: "We don't understand cloud feedbacks. We don't understand air-sea interactions. We don't understand aerosol indirect effects. The list is long"
Email 1107, circulated among prominent warmists
Many of us were pleasantly surprised that our leading scientific societies have recently adopted such strong statements as to the reality and seriousness of anthropogenic climate change. There really is a scientific consensus, and it cannot be refuted or disproved by attacking any single data set.
I also think people need to come to understand that the scientific uncertainties work both ways. We don't understand cloud feedbacks. We don't understand air-sea interactions. We don't understand aerosol indirect effects. The list is long. Singer will say that uncertainties like these mean models lack veracity and can safely be ignored. What seems highly unlikely to me is that each of these uncertainties is going to make the climate system more robust against change. It is just as likely a priori that a poorly understood bit of physics might be a positive as a negative feedback.
So has our knowledge improved? Are the GCMs more accurate as a result?