Climate sensitivity

Quote of the Week – models, climate sensitivity, the pause, and psychology

11 years ago
Anthony Watts

There’s a saying that “even a blind squirrel will find a nut occasionally”, and while I don’t think of Steven Mosher as anywhere close to a blind squirrel, he does have the habit of posting comments on climate blogs that appear sometimes as staccato and drive by style incomplete. I attribute that to trying to use a smartphone when a desktop and keyboard is really needed. This time, he’s produced a comment that is in my opinion, a home-run, because it cleanly and linearly sums up the issue of models, climate sensitivity, and “the pause”, along with a  dash of psychology thrown in about the value of model based approaches to climate sensitivity compared to observational based approaches.

He writes on Judith Curry’s blog:

Steven Mosher | September 24, 2014 at 11:48 pm |

 

it [the new Lewis and Curry paper] wont change much.. But the longer the pause goes the smaller

the ECS becomes

A longer pause means dT doesnt change.

But dF ( change in forcing) goes up.

dO can also go up if heat is stored.

So. to narrow the range we need better measures of dO and better measures of dF. The uncertainty in dF is dominated by aerosols.

If we believe that observationally based estimates are the best ( an assumption with uncertainty ) then we really should be

A) resolve the uncertainty in aerosols.

B) measure the ocean better.

If we believe that paleo approaches are best ( an assumption with uncertainty) then we need to spend a lot more on Paleo work.

If we believe that model based approaches are best, then we need to have our heads examined.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

140 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
pokerguy
September 25, 2014 12:07 pm

Don’t pretend to understand the post, but fwiw I just want to say that I have the greatest respect for Steve Mosher. I think he sees the world at times through an almost idealistic haze, but that says only good things about the man’s character. He’s tough on warmists and skeptics alike, always prodding us….mostly but not always gently…to do better. We need more like him.

0
hunter
Reply to  pokerguy
September 25, 2014 12:51 pm

+1

0
Richard Drake
September 25, 2014 12:07 pm

+1 Watts and Mosh. The place clarity is needed more than anywhere – except I suppose for policy.

0
bones
September 25, 2014 12:08 pm

Even a blind squirrel . . . . !

0
brians356
Reply to  bones
September 25, 2014 1:38 pm

The saying I recall is “Even a blind pig finds a truffle now and again”. Which is ironic, since in fact all pigs find truffles by scent – they’re underground.

0
inMAGICn
Reply to  brians356
September 25, 2014 3:31 pm

Man, there was this blind pig down in Corpus. Booze all night long. No truffles.

0
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
Reply to  brians356
September 26, 2014 12:06 am

It’s not ironic.

0
Bear
September 25, 2014 12:15 pm

As I’ve read Mosher’s comments over the years he seems to have become snarkier and snarkier. His smugness has certainly detracted from any information I can usually glean from his short missives.

0
Ian Schumacher
Reply to  Bear
September 25, 2014 1:15 pm

Every time a see a Mosher comment it comes across as extremely arrogant and condescending, but maybe that’s just my interpretation. I mean I also think the same thing about “I’m a genius and everyone else is an idiot” Willis whose posts I avoid like the plague.

0
MarkW
Reply to  Ian Schumacher
September 25, 2014 1:47 pm

You aren’t the only one.

0
pokerguy
Reply to  Ian Schumacher
September 25, 2014 1:57 pm

Ian, to get a better idea of what Mosher’s about, I suggest hanging out at Climate Etc. for a while.

0
Caleb
Reply to  Bear
September 25, 2014 7:44 pm

Have some mercy, fellows. The Climate Wars have belted the heck out of guys who don’t know everything, but insist upon honesty. Maybe Mosher has been hit especially hard, and shows a symptom or two of being punch-drunk, but please remember he was out there raising a ruckus when some of you whippersnappers were playing little league ball.

0
DrTorch
September 25, 2014 12:17 pm

dF goes up? I thought dF goes down w/ longer pause.

0
looncraz
Reply to  DrTorch
September 25, 2014 2:27 pm

“dF goes up? I thought dF goes down w/ longer pause.”
That’s the problem in a nutshell. That is why the desperate efforts to explain away the pause – even going so far as to claim there has been no pause by revising history through suspect, and often ill documented, adjustments.

0
Owen in GA
Reply to  DrTorch
September 25, 2014 3:04 pm

dF is change in forcing which in the world of climate science boils down to “there is more CO2 in the atmosphere”

0
Mario Lento
Reply to  DrTorch
September 25, 2014 10:25 pm

I’m with you. That’s totally backwards. dF would go down the longer the pause, of course.

0
Alan McIntire
Reply to  Mario Lento
September 26, 2014 9:43 am

I think the confusion here is in terminology rather than actual meaning.. The actual forcing would be a constant K = (delta Temp/delta (log ( CO2/CO2 original)), which is what the Lewis and Curry paper is trying to measure. Whatever the actual forcing is, the forcing would increase with increases in CO2.
As temps continue not to increase much, the estimated value of K will continue to drop.
As the log of CO2 continues to increase, T would have to also increase to maintain that constant K.,

0
Duster
Reply to  DrTorch
September 26, 2014 10:29 am

CO2 has a specific capacity to absorb LWIR. If CO2 increases in the atmosphere, the latent capacity to absorb LWIR should increase. If atmospheric CO2 levels are regarded as a “forcing,” then, as they increase without correlated increases in temperature, the sensitivity of the climate to increases in that specific forcing (whatever “climate” really is) must be revised downward.
My understanding of various Mosher posts on Judy Curry’s blog regarding the new paper was that he was making an argument that to win these kinds of debates, it is critical to do so using the internal logic of the opposition. So, while many posters were complaining that the new paper didn’t go “far enough,” Mosher argued that the key point, which is emphasized in the positioning of the paper, was that using the IPCC’s own numbers, the estimated value of TCS should be reduced. No new data was mangled in producing the reduced estimates. It does lead to a question of whether the failure of the IPCC to publish new estimates of TCS was due to the fact that the best numbers were smaller. That is a far stronger rhetorical point than arguing that “my data” is better than “your data.” After all, the conclusion of the paper is that “your (the IPCC’s) own data” contradicts your (the IPCC’s) position. Mosher’s approach to drive-by commenting though tends to obscure his points.

0
mpainter
Reply to  Duster
September 26, 2014 11:05 am

Thanks for your comment, Duster. I believe that I speak for many when I say that such elucidations are appreciated.

0
Andres Valencia
September 25, 2014 12:18 pm

Yes, more light, please, Steve.

0
Man Bearpig
September 25, 2014 12:20 pm

Just an observation really, there is nothing in ‘quote of the week’ about the Koch bros divesting in oil and going for renewables.
How does this pan out for those renewable companies that are in the pay of the Koch brothers now ? are they evil?

0
Chris Nelli
Reply to  Man Bearpig
September 25, 2014 12:52 pm

That would be the Rockefeller foundation.

0
Catcracking
Reply to  Chris Nelli
September 26, 2014 3:53 pm

The Post indicated the Rockefeller Brothers, not the Foundation. There may be some connection but that did not come up in a Google of the two foundations. I never hard of the Brothers before but probably a good thing as it seems as though they are squandering the values of Rockefeller who one of the several men who changed the way we lived for the better.
An incredible series on the history channel documents this
(betscha this is not taught in our schools)
The Men Who Built America – Episodes, Video & Schedule …
http://www.history.com/shows/men-who-built-america
History
John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford and J.P. Morgan rose from obscurity and in the process built modern America. Find out …
‎Video – ‎Episode Guide – ‎About the Series – ‎Andrew Carnegie

0
Brute
Reply to  Man Bearpig
September 25, 2014 1:11 pm

You did not earn your BigBird paycheck today and will consequently be less of a millionaire tomorrow.
*I meant, BigOil.

0
tz
September 25, 2014 12:28 pm

Isn’t this a case of a nut finding a blind squirrel occasionally?

0
TedM
Reply to  tz
September 25, 2014 4:51 pm

Happens at sks regularly

0
michael hart
Reply to  tz
September 26, 2014 2:51 am

Who would want a blind nut?
…another blind nut?

0
Robert Conway
Reply to  tz
September 26, 2014 11:16 am

+1…Best comment on the thread…thus far….

0
Joel O'Bryan
September 25, 2014 12:30 pm

‘If we believe that model based approaches are best, then we need to have our heads examined.”
So many other peer-reviewed papers have been published over the years whereby the model outputs have been the inputs to another model to produce a new prediction.
examples:
– West Antarctic ice sheet collapse.
– Sea level rise accelerations.
– Calamitous Precipitation changes.
– Societal collapses, mass migrations.
Some may happen just by sheer probability. Then those authors will look like savants in a crowd of fools. Pure luck. It’s all garbage. And the main stream science community is now waking up to that reality.
The All in all: Billions of dollars worth of studies from models, all wasted money, all worthless results.

0
NikFromNYC
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 25, 2014 1:16 pm

Chemists would love to get their poor hands on those massive supercomputers! Quantum stuff, molecular dynamics, protein folding, drug interactions, materials simulation, all very directly relevant to everyday medicine and nanotechnology.

0
Bart
Reply to  NikFromNYC
September 25, 2014 3:14 pm

Good point. The opportunity costs are just staggering.

0
Mark T
Reply to  NikFromNYC
September 25, 2014 5:38 pm

Nvidia CUDA, on many desktops already. For about $15k you can have access to around 9 TFLOPs of processing capability (2 Kepler K10s on a Supermicro server). Ya gotta know to to use them horsies, however. 😉
Mark

0
Bart
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 25, 2014 3:16 pm

“Some may happen just by sheer probability.”
Yet, none have. So, evidently, they’re not just randomly guessing, they are actively and systematically moving in the wrong direction.

0
Mark T
Reply to  Bart
September 25, 2014 5:40 pm

Not sure I have ever disagreed with you on these matters, Bart. Continuing the trend, IMO.
Mark

0
michael hart
Reply to  Bart
September 26, 2014 2:58 am

It is not just opportunity cost as you mention above. As a result of these models, economic policies are being put in place that cause negative economic growth by making energy more expensive. They are much worse than useless.

0
alcheson
September 25, 2014 12:31 pm

Cannot not stop just at the aerosols and measuring the oceans better. Looking only at these two things is making the assumption you already have everything else figured out… i.e…. “We climate scientists KNOW that if it weren’t for those darned aerosols and the “ocean just know started eating our warming”, CO2 would have a TCS or 3C or greater.”
I don’t believe the climate scientists have all of the convection processes worked out sufficiently yet… have accurately taken into account all the heat being moved around by evaporative processes yet, how much energy is getting tied up in generating additional plants/algae due to increase CO2 fertilization. Certainly don’t have all the effects of clouds accounted for accurately enough or the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation amongst a host of other things as well. Also, even if you could measure the current Ocean heating/cooling with absolutely 100% accuracy to 7 decimal places and STILL NOT HAVE the answer required, because unless you KNOW exactly how the oceans have been heating and cooling to extreme accuracy over the past several thousand years at least, you will not be able to attribute any changes to natural versus anthropogenic cause. You MUST know the natural variation quite well before you can attribute any small temperature excursions with any degree of confidence to AGW.

0
alcheson
Reply to  alcheson
September 25, 2014 12:39 pm

Drats! Sorry all, please forgive the numerous typos…. they never seem to be visible until after I post…. guess I will have to start typing up my responses in word and paste them on the blog afterwards. Maybe then I will have better fortunes.

0
Harold
Reply to  alcheson
September 25, 2014 1:03 pm

++
It’s the phase change convection, stupid. The troposphere is not a radiant heat transfer problem.

0
DanMet'al
September 25, 2014 12:31 pm

Pray tell, for the ignorant like me, what is dO? . . . change is radiation output. . . I’m clueless.

0
M Courtney
Reply to  DanMet'al
September 25, 2014 12:36 pm

Seconded. I was about to ask the exact same question but Mr Met’al got there first.

0
Mario Lento
Reply to  M Courtney
September 25, 2014 10:30 pm

radiation is the only way the upper atmosphere can get rid of heat to space. There is no convection in a vacuum, so only radiant energy can travel in a vacuum. Convection requires mass.

0
Mario Lento
Reply to  M Courtney
September 25, 2014 10:32 pm

Oh – sorry I misread and thought the question was about radiation blah blah. Please ignore.

0
alcheson
Reply to  DanMet'al
September 25, 2014 12:41 pm

I assumed it was ocean heat uptake…

0
Mark Bofill
Reply to  DanMet'al
September 25, 2014 12:43 pm

ECS = Fco2 * dT/(dF-dO)
where Fco2 = forcing due to c02 doubling
dT = delta temp from begining period to ending period
dF = change in Forcing
dO = change on OHC

Steve’s comment here.

0
DanMet'al
Reply to  Mark Bofill
September 25, 2014 1:00 pm

Mark . . . thanks for the clarification. . . it’s very helpful!

0
Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Mark Bofill
September 25, 2014 1:49 pm

If the pause, which is a change in temperature anomaly wrt time, is approaching zero, then ECS must approach zero too.
If that is not the case, then hand waving on Fco2 and dF is at work to arrive at some non-zero number for ECS.
Overall, that formula to me says, “It’s turtle’s all the way down” logic.

0
James Schrumpf
Reply to  DanMet'al
September 25, 2014 3:04 pm

It’s a typo. Should have been d’OH, which is the change in Simpson units.

0
Robert B
Reply to  DanMet'al
September 25, 2014 3:27 pm

What’s meant by dT.?
Bear with me. The SD for the the 10 year moving average is 0.1-0.15, or are dF and dO really in sync with the surface temperatures as dCO2 is?

0
Mario Lento
Reply to  Robert B
September 25, 2014 10:33 pm

delta Temperature – or change in temperature. It’s calculus if it’s dT/dt where little t is time, or rate of change.

0
Fernando Leanme
September 25, 2014 12:35 pm

I would argue that measuring the ocean heat uptake while accounting for geothermal heat flux will give a much better bang for the buck. The way geothermal heat flux is left out is puzzling. Why do they avoid it? Or do they?

0
Ted Getzel
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
September 25, 2014 1:31 pm

I agree with you. New geothermal vents and full blown underwater volcanoes are be discovered all the time. To not consider their contributions to the energy balance of the oceans and the planet is wrong. Recently the largest chain of volcanoes were discovered off of Iceland in the Arctic and no one takes that into account when talking about sea ice. It makes no sense to me.

0
Ted Getzel
Reply to  Ted Getzel
September 25, 2014 1:32 pm

Should be “being”

0
Dave Wendt
Reply to  Ted Getzel
September 25, 2014 2:08 pm

The canonical calculation of geothermal heat flux entirely excludes areas of of active volcanism from consideration. The value given, about 90mW/m2 as I recall, is from the longterm, i.e geologic, cooling rate of the planet. It is generally considered negligible, but these guys suggest otherwise
http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/203/2009/os-5-203-2009.pdf
Geothermal heating, diapycnal mixing and the abyssal circulation
J. Emile-Geay1 and G. Madec2,*

0
Duster
Reply to  Ted Getzel
September 26, 2014 10:41 am

Dave Wendt, thanks for posting that link. I imagine that Bod Tisdale would be interested in the implications with respect to phenomena such as ENSO. Trenberth would hate it, since it indicates there is even more “missing energy” in his budget than he thought.

0
Adam Gallon
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
September 25, 2014 2:00 pm

The contribution, in the great scheme of things, would be negligable. The temperature of the deep ocean is only a few degrees C above zero.

0
Rud Istvan
Reply to  Adam Gallon
September 25, 2014 3:26 pm

Adam, about 4C. That is because saltwater is densest at that temperature, and the densest stuff works it way to the bottom (gravity). Oversimplification, of course, because there is no even bottom and that results in upwellings, plus there is not some even salinity gradient. The thermohaline circulation is a fascinating topic, not well modeled by GCMs.

0
Robert B
Reply to  Adam Gallon
September 25, 2014 3:41 pm

Sea water density increases until close to freezing. (almost wrote decreases again)

0
Harold
Reply to  Adam Gallon
September 25, 2014 6:03 pm

Didn’t Bill Nye have the thermohaline thingy all figured out?

0
PiperPaul
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
September 25, 2014 2:14 pm

If someone does take an educated guess, please make the estimate in Hiroshima bombs.

0
inMAGICn
Reply to  PiperPaul
September 25, 2014 3:38 pm

Billions and billions in Sagan units.

0
Robert B
Reply to  PiperPaul
September 25, 2014 3:48 pm

1600 for Mt St Helens was the estimate (wild guess?). About 2 million rather than 2 billion Hiroshima bombs, from 70 volcanic eruptions per year since 1998 (on the surface). There is probably an order of magnitude more under the oceans but the extra heat on the surface is not important, its what it does to ocean currents,

0
Joel O'Bryan
September 25, 2014 12:38 pm

On the issue of ECS, are any of the lukewarmer scientists discussing the impact of what a declining global temp does to that value? What happens to ECS if temp anomaly declines 0.2-0.3 deg C by 2024?
If it means ECS is not reliable due to overwhelming natural variability swamping CO2 forcing, then what makes anyone think an ECS determination with a Pause is a reliable number?

0
Gary Hladik
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 25, 2014 1:07 pm

If ECS is the climate’s sensitivity to all forcing (not just CO2), then a drop in temp would only mean that forcing has gone down (e.g. from less solar input, more clouds, etc). In fact, if you know the magnitude of the drop in forcing, I suppose you could also estimate ECS that way, too.
The problem with calculating ECS is the uncertainty in the inputs, which is presumably why the Lewis & Curry paper has such a broad estimate.

0
Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Gary Hladik
September 25, 2014 1:18 pm

I thought ECS and TCR were exclusively functions of 2 x pCO2?

0
Gary Hladik
Reply to  Gary Hladik
September 25, 2014 5:31 pm

Joel, more generally ECS and TCR refer to doubling of a given climate “forcing”. It all other forcings are negligible, as the IPCC has apparently concluded, then the only forcing left is CO2. With the so-called “pause” in global warming lengthening by the day, that conclusion should be revisited.

0
Dave Peters
Reply to  Gary Hladik
September 26, 2014 9:23 am

Gary — re: “lengthening by the day…” Could you clarify that for me? I thot temps were strongly heating this year.

0
Mario Lento
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 25, 2014 10:37 pm

I think the problem with this, is that many assume ECS means CO2 forcing sensitivity. I think we can not assume that temperature of the atmosphere is directly proportional to CO2 forcing.

0
Ralph Kramden
September 25, 2014 12:49 pm

I was watching a show on television called Monumental Mysteries and they mentioned that in July 1901 a heat wave hit New York City that killed over 700 people. Can you imagine what the alarmists would be saying if that happed today.

0
Mike Lewis
Reply to  Ralph Kramden
September 25, 2014 1:03 pm

They would be on that news like ducks on a June bug but they conveniently ignore the fact that more people die during cold months than warm ones..

0
LeeHarvey
Reply to  Ralph Kramden
September 25, 2014 1:10 pm

Meh… I’m guessing that I could count the number of buildings in NYC that had air conditioning in 1901 without even having to remove my shoes and socks.

0
dmacleo
Reply to  Ralph Kramden
September 25, 2014 2:32 pm

during the 2003 grid failure weren’t there a bunch of heat related deaths too?
I forget for sure.
IMO this really shows why we need stable grids and renewables do not provide that.
I usually deal with these issues in the winter (in Maine) so am very cognizant of power failures then, I have a portable (9500 surge 7500 base) gen AND a smaller (5500 surge 4500 base) backup portable gen in case the main one goes out. I loves me some redundancies 🙂
I have power failures OFTEN here,

0
dmacleo
Reply to  dmacleo
September 25, 2014 2:34 pm

ok I was wrong, was 10 deaths and as far as I can see only 1 (heart attack) could be heat related.
sorry should have checked first before posting/asking.

0
inMAGICn
Reply to  Ralph Kramden
September 25, 2014 3:40 pm

The year after Galveston was leveled by a hurricane! Sooo much global warming at the turn of the twentieth century. Too many Sports Utility Choo-choos.

0
Mario Lento
Reply to  Ralph Kramden
September 25, 2014 10:41 pm

Good point – and ironically because we have more cheap fossil fuel energy that runs air conditioners to keep us cool, a heat wave would have much less of an effect on deaths. Ironically to the CAGW crowd, with a similar heat wave, fossil fuel energy will save the day.

0
Dave Peters
Reply to  Ralph Kramden
September 26, 2014 9:51 am

Mike — I just “came out” over at Dr. Curry’s site this am, as a “hysteric,” but recall making a point, contra yours some weeks back, that a heat wave with no precedent that occurred in north-west India probably killed multiples of the known Chernobyl deaths, utterly without notice.

0
john robertson
September 25, 2014 12:52 pm

Define your terms?
Makes sense to me , if the temperatures continue to flatline (never mind cool) and CO2 emissions continue to grow.
The sensitivity of climate to emission, the heart of the CAGW scheme, approaches zero.
When the temperatures go down, as I believe the cycle will, this sensitivity will go negative.
The theory of Thermagedon brought upon us by the magic gas, outgassed by evil humanity is about as dead as Monty Python’s parrot.
The other causes of thermal sensitivity are handwaving.We do not know.
Because the Concensus folk already dismissed natural systems and other pollutants as insignificant when the natural cycle was passing through the upper LH quadrant of the cycle, they have no credibility left.
The cause?
I do not know, however given the past stability of our climate, the null hypothesis stands.
Climate doing what it has always done, mans contribution unmeasurable.
Next Team IPCC ™ proclamation:CO2 caused planet to cool, give up your wealth and freedoms, surrender to our omnipotence.

0
Mario Lento
Reply to  john robertson
September 25, 2014 10:42 pm

Yeah – but the heat must have gone somewhere – yeah, the oceans, that’s the ticket… It’s waiting to pounce on us catastrophically, just you wait.

0
Harold
September 25, 2014 12:59 pm

Staccato? I hear the Swedish Chef every time I see a Mosher comment.

0
Rud Istvan
Reply to  Harold
September 25, 2014 3:29 pm

Harold, go to climate Etc and access the Mosher post prior to the shorter one cited here. It really was quite good. Very un-Swedish Chef like.
BTW, I am a proud owner of a complete set of the Muppet Show.

0
NikFromNYC
September 25, 2014 1:10 pm

As I asked in the Curry paper thread, how can models be taken at all seriously given that there is earlier near perfect precedence for postwar variation but a near complete lack of input forcing data to be had back then? And what might that forcing *be*? Why is it never specified?! A model has to pick from a wide range of possible forcings, so there isn’t some gold standard out there, given the unknowns. And if the earlier half of the model run lacks input data other than insignificant prewar greenhouse gasses, how is it modeling at all rather than just wiggle matching by parameter tweaking? Do they input temperature itself and also output it too? That’s not modeling either.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1955/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1895/to:1954
-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)

0
Adam Gallon
Reply to  NikFromNYC
September 25, 2014 2:03 pm

I believe that all the models use different initial conditions. Remember, they’re only “Scenarios” and can’t be used for “Predictions”!

0
Bart
Reply to  NikFromNYC
September 25, 2014 3:33 pm

Nice chart! I hadn’t looked at it in a while, but HADCRUT4 is decidedly moving down now. Even GISTEMP is looking a might peaked (pun intended).

0
Bart
Reply to  Bart
September 25, 2014 3:36 pm

Especially in the NH.

0
Mario Lento
Reply to  NikFromNYC
September 25, 2014 10:44 pm

You nailed it. It’s all based on an assumption that CO2 must be the control knob during the cherry picked time periods of the modelling.

0
Curious George
September 25, 2014 1:13 pm

ECS, dF, dO, dT – what model does Steven Mosher use?

0
Harold
Reply to  Curious George
September 25, 2014 1:50 pm

A very simple one.

0
Karl kruse
Reply to  Curious George
September 25, 2014 3:55 pm

Why don’t you read the Lewis and Curry paper all of this about?

0
Gary Hladik
September 25, 2014 1:14 pm

“A longer pause means dT doesnt change.
But dF ( change in forcing) goes up.”
OR overall forcing may actually be flat, meaning we don’t know all the components of dF. Right?
Do we know what dF caused the Medieval Warm Period? The Little Ice Age? The recovery from the Little Ice Age? The Roman Warm Period? The Minoan Warm Period?

0
NikFromNYC
Reply to  Gary Hladik
September 25, 2014 1:23 pm

Your final questions round out my own. It’s amusing that it was model pusher Mosher himself who coauthored a book bashing the Orwellian hockey stick revision of climate history, in effect helping to restore those earlier warm spells.

0
Gunga Din
September 25, 2014 1:41 pm

An honest person who disagrees with you is of more value than a dishonest one who does.
You stay honest and then you both benefit.

0
Charles Nelson
September 25, 2014 1:55 pm

Even the paid PR wing of the Warmist party is now openly admitting that their observations to date are worthless. I think that’s something to cheer about.

0
Alexandra Kahler
September 25, 2014 2:26 pm

Hello WUWT,
OT for this post, but I have just come across this news story and now hope the readership here can shed some light. WUWT has become my number 1 place to fond intelligent science discussion, hope this is ok.
http://uncnews.unc.edu/2014/09/23/carolinas-laura-mersini-houghton-shows-black-holes-exist/
The story is actually that Dr Mersini, an apparently well respected physicist, has done a mathematical proof showing black holes are impossible. The link above is to the source article at UNC. There is another more sensational article at the Daily Mail.
So far I’ve been unable to find discussions of this on the internet. Any reaction to the article, or redirection to a good place to discuss astrophysics, would be much appreciated!!
Thanks!

0
garymount
Reply to  Alexandra Kahler
September 25, 2014 3:50 pm

I recommend Luboš Motl’s blog The Reference Frame :
http://motls.blogspot.com/

0
Alexandra Kahler
Reply to  garymount
September 25, 2014 4:05 pm

Thank you for the reference!

0
inMAGICn
Reply to  Alexandra Kahler
September 25, 2014 3:53 pm

Did some looking up at “Astronomy Magazine.” While there is a large number of articles on black holes, the name Mersini didn’t even show up. Yes, it’s a popular publication, but she didn’t appear. Good hunting.

0
Alexandra Kahler
Reply to  inMAGICn
September 25, 2014 4:09 pm

Thank you for recommending another good source. I will see if I can find any forum or comment sections I can engage in.

0
Alexandra Kahler
Reply to  Alexandra Kahler
September 25, 2014 5:07 pm

Hello Again,
I found the original paper by Dr. Mersinin here: http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1409.1837
And a good refutation of the salacious spin here:
https://briankoberlein.com/2014/09/25/yes-virginia-black-holes/
Again, apologies for the OT nature. When I read the original article, my first thought was, “Whats Up With That?!?”

0
dmacleo
September 25, 2014 2:27 pm

not a fan of him (due to his (IMO) smugness) but I also am man enough to say when someone is right they deserve people to know. I am also willing to say my impressions may be due to my own failings.
and I think he was dead on right here and stated it in a manner that was succinct and needs to be repeated.
so fwiw I say good job.

0
Kev-in-Uk
September 25, 2014 2:30 pm

Mosh can bring useful things on the table. However, the quoted comment is a little irksome because, IIRC, over the years, his defense of ‘models’ has been seen to be pathologically devout! Does this last comment mean he has finally seen sense and accept that climate models are not all they are cracked up to be (something we have all been saying for years!).

0
Mark Bofill
Reply to  Kev-in-Uk
September 25, 2014 2:40 pm

I might have this wrong, but I don’t think Steven’s defense of models makes him ‘devout’. My impression is that Steven is a general purpose pain in the $$ to everybody on all sides of the issue. When people overstep the bounds of logic bitching about models, there’s Steven to rub their noses in their mistake. Usually he takes it a lot farther than I think is reasonable, but I don’t think for a minute he doesn’t understand the failings of the models. Probably better than most of us do, actually. From what I’ve gathered, Steven can bring a sharper intelligence to bear by marshalling the nerves in his left buttcheek than I can by focusing every neuron in my skull, but maybe that’s just my crush talking.
~shrug~
Anybody notice Doug still peddling the same ole hoke on that thread as ‘Climate Scientist’?

0
steveta_uk
Reply to  Mark Bofill
September 26, 2014 2:31 am

Yeah – we missed him for a while, gald he’s OK.

0
Gary
Reply to  Kev-in-Uk
September 25, 2014 6:08 pm

Mosher argues that we all use models of various kinds and complexities in trying to validate our theories. To use them correctly we have to admit they’re simulations of reality and not reality itself. We also have to show our work (parameters, data, and code) if we expect them to be taken seriously. Otherwise nobody can test our assumptions. Without the testing we’re just spinning fantasies. All that is eminently sensible and the honest practice of science.

0
Mario Lento
Reply to  Gary
September 25, 2014 10:51 pm

Sure – but the models Mosher speaks of do not attempt to model reality. They attempt to model CO2 as a control knob which sets off other feedbacks, which are presumed to be in a certain direction. It excludes other feedbacks intentionally and therefore attributes presumed effect on CO2 as a climate driver. They do not model the climate on planet earth. So – they’re bunk.

0
slow to follow
September 25, 2014 2:38 pm

Kev-in-UK – I agree but it does cross my mind that Anthony might be having a little play at Mosher’s expense here…

0
1 2
wpdiscuz   wpDiscuz
Verified by MonsterInsights