Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > From the archives, at EM's own request

'I surmise that sceptics think in terms of increments, which do decrease in effect as CO2 concentration grows'

Any evidence for this surmise?

Or is my evidence-based hypothesis - that most sceptic I know of have at least O level mathematics (or equivalent) and so are quite familiar and comfortable with the idea of a log scale, its implications and the calculations involved - more likely to be true?.

As an aside I've also noticed that a high proportion fo sceptics are well-versed in that most practical of sciences..chemistry. Not much room for bullshit with litmus paper, however much Entropic witters on about 'ocean dealkalinasation'

Jan 24, 2017 at 12:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

A Phil sighting! I think he's been all through the woodpile, searching for a straight shaft to aid his future gait.
=========

Jan 24, 2017 at 1:12 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

kim, it is amazing what Phil Clarke can forget so quickly, yet Entropic Man never commented, but declines to take any credit for working out it was wrong.

"Latest Hockey Stick"

"Actually, it is the Gergis Australia study, Joelle and her team have corrected the various issue and resubmitted the study and it has been reviewed and accepted, in the face of the usual denier unpleasantness.

Conclusion:"Overall, we are confident that observed temperatures in Australasia have been warmer in the past 30 years than every other 30-year period over the entire millennium (90% confidence based on 12,000 reconstructions, developed using four independent statistical methods and three different data subsets). Importantly, the climate modelling component of our study also shows that only human-caused greenhouse emissions can explain the recent warming recorded in our region."

Add it to the list.

Jul 11, 2016 at 10:46 PM | Phil Clarke"

Martin A started this thread in response to a challenge from Entropic Man, and now Phil Clarke denies his own mistakes.

Entropic Man started another thread introducing a new temperature timeline that also confirmed the Hockey Stick, except it didn't.

If only Climate Scientists had listened to Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit (and others) about the UN IPCC's falsified rejection of the LIA and MWP, Climate Science might have proved useful.

Jan 24, 2017 at 4:20 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Oh dear.

Every published surface temperature reconstruction, whether global or hemispherical, shows modern warmth to be unusual. Hence 'latest hockey stick'.

Gergis et al covered Australasia, while MBH 98/98 were for the Northern Hemisphere, there I would not and did not claim that one confirmed the other. How could they?

Having said that, the premise is wrong; there's nothing significantly wrong with Gergis et al, McIntyre is doing his usual conflation of mountains and molehills. Its all he has.

Jan 24, 2017 at 8:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, why don't you write a paper about it, and get it published? It is your normal response after all.

Jan 24, 2017 at 9:30 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

@Latimer Alder, you are showing your age!

I teach classes of 18-30 year olds electronics and control theory.

Between 20% and 30% of each class, typically have not covered logs. In some cases they missed out Trig!!!

I know it sounds odd but these days in the UK, exam boards 'omit topics'!!!!!

I and others just have to pick up the pieces.

PS do you know how they get away with it?

Last year an item on the news covered teachers paying to get 'advice' from exam boards prior to each years sitting. Now you know why...

If 20% of the syllabus will not be examined, you can increase your efforts on the remainder and make your school 'Outstanding'.

Outstanding....

Jan 25, 2017 at 2:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve Richards

Am I missing something? If the relationship was was linear then deltaF = 5.35*(C/Co). I doubt very much that the incremental forcing would be even close to deltaF = 5.35*ln(C/Co).

Jan 26, 2017 at 8:43 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

Is Phil beginning to suspect what garbage almost all of the temperature reconstructions are? It's this simple, Phil; modern temperatures are not unprecedented, and the false shaft of the alarmists' reconstructions are the reason this delusion is so prevalent.

It's not the blade at the end of the series, Phil. I know you are highly motivated to not understand this, because you are apparently bright enough to do so.
===============

Jan 26, 2017 at 12:43 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

EM - You said

Using the empirical formula delta f=5.35ln(C/Co) conventional physics predicts that each doubling of CO2 would produce the same amount of additional forcing.
Thus an increase in CO2 from 280ppm to 560ppm would produce 3.7W/m2 of forcing. Increasing from 560ppm to 1120 produces a further 3.7W/m2.

It also predicts that each increase in CO2 of 100ppm would produce a smaller increase inforcing than the previous 100ppm.
Thus an increase from 300ppm to 400ppm would produce 1.54W/m2. An increase from 400ppm to 500ppm would produce 1.19W/m2.

Leaving aside your doubts about the physics, could you critique this mathematics.
Jan 23, 2017 at 2:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Thank you for asking. If I have understood your request, it is to check that, using the magic climate formula delta f = 5.35ln(c2/c1), in the cases (a) c2 = 400, c1 = 300 (b) c2 = 500, c1 = 400
then the corresponding values of delta f are (a) 1.54 and (b) 1.19 (leaving out the units - W/m2)

Is that what you were asking? I confirm that I got those same values from a spreadsheet calculation.

In case it is of any use to you, my spreadsheet gave the following:

increase from 300 to 400 gives delta f = 1.54
increase from 400 to 500 gives delta f = 1.19
increase from 500 to 600 gives delta f = 0.98
increase from 600 to 700 gives delta f = 0.82
increase from 700 to 800 gives delta f = 0.71
increase from 800 to 900 gives delta f = 0.63
increase from 900 to 1000 gives delta f = 0.56

Jan 26, 2017 at 10:55 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Martin A

Thank you. Supertroll and I are both right.

Each doubling adds the same amount of forcing.

Each 100mm produces a smaller increment of forcing than the one before.

The end result is the same.

Jan 27, 2017 at 10:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM - If that helps, my pleasure.


Ah, I think I see what you are complaining about.

Jan 23, 2017 at 2:00 PM Entropic man

Well it was the idea that ln(1/x) = -ln(x) is no more than an assumption that provoked our supercilious smirks, not the numerical error.

Jan 28, 2017 at 8:41 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A