Bishop Hill Puffed rice
Oct 5, 2015 Climate: Models Climate: sensitivity 
Here's an interesting wrinkle in climate science that I hadn't thought about before. It came up in a thread at Ken Rice's place, underneath an article about carbon dioxide reductions.
The specific claim of interest was that "the amount of warming depends almost linearly on cumulative emissions". This is a claim that you hear quite often, with the corollary being that even if we halt carbon dioxide emissions, temperatures are going to remain high for centuries. However, it seems that the scientific veracity of the statement is not exactly set in stone, as Nic Lewis points out in the comments.
For the record, whilst this may be true for simulations by most current Earth system models, it is an entirely model dependent result. So please don’t present it as if a fact. If one builds a model with a low ECS, and moderate climate-cycle feedbacks, warming peaks immediately if emissions cease and declines quite rapidly thereafter. Which would happen in the real climate system is not as yet known, of course.
Encouragingly, Dr Rice fully accepted Nic's case: an encouraging example of consensus emerging among colleagues. Indeed, I'm sure I sense him trying very hard to enhance the atmosphere of collegiality:
Yes, I realise it is not a fact. So, for clarity, our current understanding is that it depends almost linearly on temperature.
However, given the sites, and organisation, that you associate with, the idea that you can come here and tone troll me is utterly amazing. What the hell are you playing at? Do you have no self-awareness whatsoever? Do you really not get the irony of you writing appallingly dishonest posts at Climate Audit, commenting at Bishop Hill, and writing reports for a pseudo-denial organisation like the GWPF, and then coming here and suggesting that maybe I should have qualified myself a bit more carefully than I did. You really do need to look at how you present and defend your own work before coming here and tone trolling me. Seriously; WTF!!!!!
In fact, a thoughtful and decent response might actually be in order, because I really cannot believe that someone like yourself, who seems completely unwilling to acknowledge possible issues with your own work, can have just done what you’ve done.
He is trying isn't he?
Reader Comments (183)
redc,
I realise, that's why I'm telling you that it is not the case.
MCourtney,
I do not believe that that correctly represents what Nic Lewis has pointed out at all. I shall, however, leave it to Nic Lewis to decide if you are correctly - or not - representing what he has supposedly shown.
No nit-picking is not how I would decribe that at all. Nit-picking is, normally at least, correct, if a somewhat poor way to interact if interested ina actual dialogue.
@redc
"Just for laughs:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150206161651/http://www.roe.ac.uk/ifa/people/wkmr.html"
Thanks for the link, redc. I knew that I'd seen a reference to Dr Rice associated with a Public Relations role at Edinburgh University but couldn't locate it.
As ATTP (not, never in PR) says "Don't believe everything you read". Your link certainly reinforces the wisdom of those words when applied to Dr R (who, doubtlessly, will soon be here to provide a concrete example of what Steve McK refers to as 'pea and thimble')
And that's why I said "don't trust everything you read". So, I shall repeat: I have never been in a Public Relations role at Edinburgh University, despite what you read on that link.
DNFTT
redc,
I did say don't believe everything you read. I'll repeat, I am not - nor have I ever been - the Director of Public Relations for any organisation/department/.....
Oct 5, 2015 at 1:45 PM | .and Then There's Physics
============================================
[snip] The man who can't be civil.
jeremy,
I still have the email you sent me. Not only was it factually incorrect, are you one of those who expects civility from others, but not from yourself?
Fluck and Law were reputed to be good judges of character - I couldn't possibly comment...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeDk6ZeGNnU
Ha ha, a great post and a lovely little exchange in here.
It cheered me up no end.
The lad is really touchy, eh? Invoking the troll definition counter argument, and ranting on rudely the wonderibg in his comment here why the discussion was not carried out in a civil manner on his site.
And the going on with the defense that it was a hastily written post anyway, yet he still has plenty of time to make longwinded sidestepping replies explaining that Lewis makes a good valid point, it's just that ATTP does not like him much.
Ahh, all quite uplifting.
omnologos, considering the topic ATTP cannot be considered a troll on this post.
He is decidedly on topic regardless of his style.
Don't get me wrong; I find his unsubstantial claims of nit-picking to be pathetic.
But that is, in itself, the point.
Perhaps it is time to re-purpose the ATTP abbrevation to stand for "and then there's pejoratives"?
Using the "but he's not a climate scientist, ignore him" argument that is so popular with climate change proponents I'd like to point out that Ken Rice is an astronomer, and by that definition he's no more qualified in climate matters than Nic Lewis, who's a mathematician.
But when it comes to being civil and level headed, Nic Lewis is miles ahead of Ken Rice. I've never seen Nic use a cross word on anyone, and he's published papers in climate. AFAIK, Ken Rice has not.
Ken Rice could learn a thing or two from Nic Lewis, but I suspect he really doesn't want to. He's all puffed up with himeself as you aptly point out in the title.
Anthony,
As commendable as it is to have never said a cross word, I'm not really sure what that implies. Keeping one's cool, doesn't imply some kind of special understanding of a complex topic. FWIW, I have publisued a paper on climate, but that seems rather irrelevant. If you think publication numbers has some significance, there are plenty of very polite people with substantially stronger CVs than Nic Lewis.
I'm sure I could learn a thing or two from Nic Lewis, but that's unlikely to happen if he can't really be bothered interacting in a manner that encourages dialogue. I don't hugely care, though. There are plenty of people from whom I can learn things. That there are some from whom I can't, or decide not to, means little.
In fact, is this thread intentionally ironic or not? Anthony, you run one of the biggest scientific misinformation sites in the history of the internet. You regularly ignore - and are rude about - people with extremely strong scientific credentials. Yet, here you are complaining because I wasn't as polite as I might have been to someone who has published a few papers and who mainly associates with sites that are regarded as promoting climate science denial. Do you not get the irony in that?
to be clear, I think it's very impressive that Nic does research and publishes papers. I have indeed learned from his papers. I maybe should have been less uncivil. None of that, however, changes that I appear to be being criticised by people who have spent a substantial amount of time doing precisely what they're cricitising me about. It doesn't surprise me very much, but you can't really expect me to take it all that seriously.
ATTP = Any Tone Trolling Prohibited ('cos that's my department, says K Rice.)
I played with people like ATTP at school, they never knew when they were dead and buried, they just kept running around after I discombobulated them with my ray gun :(
Rice:
WUWT stats: 246,781,018 views Hmmm. That's a lot of misinformed people - or just one jealous (cough) academic.Harry,
Exactly. That's why I called it "one of the biggest". I don't think there is any other site (that I know of) that has spread so much scientific misinformation and had the kind of impact that Anthony's has had. It is not - IMO - something to aspire to or be proud of. Bishop Hill is relatively small by comparison, but still doing it's damndest to confuse and spread doubt.
Ken sometimes tries really hard to be civil, but just doesn't seem to understand how it's done.
Anthony and Andrew aren't people who hold opposing views on science, they're misinformers trying their damndest to confuse and spread doubt.
AttP
"to confuse and spread doubt"
I've always found Andrew's writing to be a model (if I can use that word) of clarity. Have you read the HSI..?
Is there a chance that you could provide
examples of Andrew doing that Mr Abbott?
Jonathan,
Almost a fair point. I did make it appear as though Bishop Hill does so on purpose. I can't know that to be the case. I apologise. It is possible that Andrew is not intentionally spreading confusion and doubt.
Ken Rice wrote:
"Yet, here you are complaining because I wasn't as polite as I might have been to someone who has published a few papers and who mainly associates with sites that are regarded as promoting climate science denial."
I find it ironic that you can't get past the pejorative state, i.e. use of the word "denial". In a gust post you published by Dr. Richard Betts, this phrase was turned into the headline:
"Label the behaviour, not the person, and even then take care to do so only when justified."
and in an essay titled "Just Grow Up!" you wrote:
"Fundamentally, I agree with the basic premise: serious dialogue generally requires that you avoid labeling those with whom you wish to have a discussion."
Then you wrote to Nic Lewis:
Yes, I realise it is not a fact. So, for clarity, our current understanding is that it depends almost linearly on temperature.
However, given the sites, and organisation, that you associate with, the idea that you can come here and tone troll me is utterly amazing. What the hell are you playing at? Do you have no self-awareness whatsoever? Do you really not get the irony of you writing appallingly dishonest posts at Climate Audit, commenting at Bishop Hill, and writing reports for a pseudo-denial organisation like the GWPF, and then coming here and suggesting that maybe I should have qualified myself a bit more carefully than I did. You really do need to look at how you present and defend your own work before coming here and tone trolling me. Seriously; WTF!!!!!
The irony here? "Just Grow Up!" Astonomer, heal thyself.
There won't ever be a civil dialog until you realize that people like myself and Nic Lewis and Andrew Montford don't "deny" climate issues, we just don't think they are as catastrophic as many on your side of the debate would like the public to believe. Nic's work in ECS says this well.
Sadly, you can't get seem to get past the pejorative state. It's like you are locked-in with that thinking, and that seems to be a common social trait with your peers.
Sure, I'm not perfect, I have my moments, and some of my guest authors have gone further than I like, but I've also reached out in the UK with Nic's help. But then again I don't hide behind silly monikers while claiming intellectual authority. I think the lesson here is "anonymity breeds contempt". There was certainly no contempt when I met scientists face to face in the UK last year, it seems purely an Internet phenomena related to climate discussion.
While I'm in the UK, would you treat me civilly if I showed up and your office and said hello, or would you call security, have me escorted away, and then write terrible things about me under a fake name?
I truly think you'd be more civil if you had to put your name and professional reputation to your own writings. And why can't you? Most everyone knows who you are now, why not stand fully behind what you write?
Tis a puzzle.
> ATTP is happy hosting cranky and rude skeptics [...]
Citation needed about the last part.
If Shub could keep the mind probing in the first part to himself, that would be nice.
***
> What is tone trolling?
I thought David read Junior's. In any case, one of its occurence is in the last bit of AT's main claim:
The conclave has yet to discuss that one.
You are not whiter than white Anthony, you cut perfectly civil posts on your website just because you do not agree with them.
Irony: a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions is clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.
and Then There's Physics (Oct 5, 2015 at 3:32 PM) talks about "...sites that are regarded as promoting climate science denial."
Exactly what are sites like Bishop Hill supposed to be 'denying'?
My understanding is that the people like Andrew Montford and Anthony Watts agree with the basic physics of AGW, they just don't agree that the catastrophic projections (i.e. CAGW) have been verified to any acceptable degree by scientific observation... and, if you read the WG1 documents as opposed to the SPM, neither does the IPCC.
> Nic's work in ECS says this well.
It says it so well it needs to be dogwhistled.
Where's the engineer-level derivation where we see the difference a "low ECS" can make?
Also, please don't present a "low ECS" as a number, when a whole range need to be considered. Some might think you'd wish to present the lowest number the lowest bound of justified disingenuousness the GWPF would buy.
Innit nice just watching him dig?
Pointman
Mr Rice should just get on with his life & enjoy the inter-glacial, whilst it lasts, that is!
> Exactly what are sites like Bishop Hill supposed to be 'denying'?
Beware your wishes.
I would almost certainly be civil, but I wouldn't see much point in having such a meeting. I also don't think I've ever written terrible things about you under a fake name, so I'm not sure where that comes from. You wouldn't be calling "criticising what you've said on your blog" somehow "a terrible thing". That I can be somewhat blunt and - at times - uncivil, doesn't really qualify as "a terrible thing". As I have offered before, if I have ever said anything (or allowed a comment) that is untrue, defamatory, or similarly unacceptable, people just need to tell me and I'll do something about it. I have done so before. Implying that I've written terrible things about you, doesn't make it so.
I do regard your site as one of the biggest scientific misinformation sites in internet history. You may not like that, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't hold that view. I'm also clearly not alone in that view.
No, I think I've become less civil since I've been outed. I don't think I've ever said anything that I wouldn't be willing to put my name to.
Because I regard the online climate debate as juvenile and would really rather not associate myself professionally with it. This post is - in my view - an illustration of exactly that.
Plus, I do stand behind what I write. I haven't deleted or changed anything. I was well aware that I would probably be outed as some stage, so I always wrote things that I would stand behind. Still choosing to use a pseudonym doesn't change that.
Willard for the rescue.............
That's when you lose
> [Y]ou cut perfectly civil posts on your website
See for yourself:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Reading the titles on that page ought to be enough to take this profession of faith with a drop of holy water.
Please gents do not help the usual suspects that are now coming out of the sewers.
There's nothing any reasonable person here can write or do to make Rice reconsider any of his stupid arguments and behaviours. He's accused Lewis of consorting with us, and nothing that appears here will be taken as more than dishonest.
It's just a waste of time. Jump over his comments, and Willard's. They are not going to read anything you write anyway.
Dung:
I was paraphrasing Ken, not suggesting my own views of WUWT and BH.
Willard:
You quoted "...maybe I should have qualified myself a bit more carefully than I did."
Ken is continuously making supposedly heavyweight comments that he subsequently has to row back from, and here's yet another. It's become a running joke. He's desperate to become a serious blogger that all sides respect, but by shooting his mouth off, and shooting himself in the foot, and banning comments on his blog that he dislikes, Ken is sadly demonstrating exactly how not to do so.
Thanks Ken Rice for the reply.
You wrote:
"Because I regard the online climate debate as juvenile and would really rather not associate myself professionally with it."
My irony meter just pegged and broke off.
I have to attend an appointment, so "Ta la!" for now.
> He's accused Lewis of consorting with us.
Where?
Please report to Lew, Maurizio.
Having associated with a number of PhDs in my career as a patent lawyer (many years ago), I am surprised and dismayed at the apparent unwillingness of many CAGW proponents to argue their case on the merits. Wasn't that way in my experience. If they were convinced that they were right, those guys would jump at an opportunity to argue about it.
JA,
No, I gave up on the "all sides thing" ages ago. In my view, genuine dialogue is virtually impossible. I'm not trying to bridge any kind of divide, or encourage better dialogue. I no longer really care, and I don't think it is actually possible to do so.
My blog seems to be doing fine, but I'm not the one to judge. And I do indeed delete comments and ban various people, but then it's my blog. I make no claims to providing some kind of platform for people to simply air their views. It's just a blog that I run and that I allow people to comment on if they abide by the rules.
> He's desperate to become a serious blogger that all sides respect, but by shooting his mouth off [...]
Again with the mind probing.
Look, guys. It's a blog. Mistake happens. They get corrected. Most of AT's post contain enough qualifers to make our Beloved Bishop turn purpler than he normally is.
If making mistakes was some kind of sin, Tony's and Judy's might need to be ridiculed for all eternity.
We're far from being into Gremlins territory here.
willard, if your buddy ATTP had any substance to offer he would defend the irreversibility proposition. That is what Lewis point was, and that is what this is all about.
Instead he chooses to make this another thread about *his behaviour*. Let me assure you, he can only make a fool of himself. Does he like making a fool of himself? I would say, possibly, since that way he doesn't have to discuss the science issue in consideration.
@Alan the Brit
'Mr Rice should just get on with his life & enjoy the inter-glacial, whilst it lasts, that is!'
I thought I recalled that, not so long ago, Mr Rice was writing about stepping back from his blog and blog-related activities in an attempt to get his life back. Now, although that was just something that I'd read and ergo not something that I should believe in too strongly, I thought that he'd made an excellent decision.
I'm with AtB on the getting on with his life bit and can only ask ATTP to revisit his priorities.
> if your buddy ATTP had any substance to offer he would defend the irreversibility proposition
Your blackmail reverses the burden of proof, Shub. Do you suggest carbon sucking trees or tin foil hats to filter everything but the purple spectrum of the Sun's light?
That CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long while is basic science. Even Tony knows that one. That we're dumping the stuff at a staggering rate is a basic fact that no amount of lukewarm gerryandering can erase.
Since IAMs already insert a Leprechaun step where the magic you beg is being assumed, you may not hold the trump you're trumpeting right now.
***
> Instead he chooses to make this another thread about *his behaviour*.
I don't recall that, so citation needed.
If you'd be against such thread, you wouldn't be here.
Willard,
In your post at 4:35 you include: AT's, Tony's, Judy's, sin, ridiculed, Gremlins
My translations:
AT = all terrain (a 4 wheeled off-road vehicle)
Tony = Tony Abbott, 28th Prime Minister of Australia
Judy = Judy Collins, American singer and songwriter – recently in the news
sin & ridiculed == does not compute; not what the priest told us
Gremlins = AMC Gremlin is a subcompact automobile introduced in 1970
Mis-direction is a technique used by mystery writers but does not serve factual writers well.
A more fundamental question is if we cut CO2 emissions by 1/2, will CO2 levels rise or fall? What cuts will result in CO2 levelling off? If we don't know that, we can't even begin to talk about goals like 80% cuts by 2150.
"we're dumping the stuff at a staggering rate"
Very possibly, so where's the warmth - the bottom of the Marianas Trench?
"That CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long while is basic science. [willard @ 5:01]
What does "a long while mean" mean?
" temperatures are going to remain high for centuries" [from the 2nd paragraph of this post]
Seems to me, willard, that such an asseration is what the internet calls a WAG.
The following is 4 years old, but still a good read.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/08/sciam-gavin-schmidt-despise-climate.html
Do listen to Omnologist, we're giving our attention to a guy we'd ignore in a crowded room and he's revelling in it. The blogosphere has a number of sites where people who would otherwise be ignored get the attention they crave aTTP is one of them.
Gremlins relate to economic projections on which the lukewarm playbook rests. Tony's a blog that doesn't even deserve due diligence, since it would be like shooting a fish a barrel so small the fish doesn't even fit in it. (If he would correct NG's affiliation, that would be nice, however.) Judy's the CAGW meme Mecca. All three are cases where Nic's non-fact detector are sorely needed. We could extend this social network if needed.
***
As to sin, there's an interesting omission on this very blog:
http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2015/09/gwpf-wimps-out.html
Perhaps the GWPF's secretarial services could clarify that situation.
We can "know" nothing. If you want absolute knowledge, then science isn't for you. However, our current understanding is that if we cut emissions by 1/2, atmospheric CO2 would continue to rise. To fix atmospheric CO2 concentrations would require cuts of around 90%.
If you want to test this yourself, you can try this Gelogical carbon cycle model. If you set the transition spike at 200, you'll set the concentration at 400ppm. On the right-hand side, 7.5 x 10^{12} mol/year is about 0.1GtC per year, so 750 would be 10GtC/yr (our current rate). Reduce it to 375 and see what happens. The model is quite simple, but it is still - I think - a reasonable representation of the basic process.
"That CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long while is basic science."
willard, don't appeal to what you assume I ought to have swallowed and internalized from the orthodox doctrine to cover for questions directed at you (at ATTP). In science, it doesn't hurt to restate facts, or what you believe to be facts, in refuting an argument, however 'obvious' it may appear to you. I said as much when Mr ATTP tried to pull the same trick when asked to explain why exactly Salby was wrong.
If you cannot show explain Nic L is completely and absolutely wrong, in your own words, you don't have the right to your short fuse.
If you cannot state your argument clearly, it means you don't the concept clear in your head. It's that simple.
Never anger the ATTPhysics Fairy. He will then feel the need to answer every ...single ....comment. There will be flouncing, and there will be tiaras thrown. It's a mess.