From the “linear thinking doesn’t follow reality” department, comes this stunning revelation that sounds pretty much just like every other press release about climate we’ve ever read. Plus, they’ve got a map!
A new study puts temperature increases caused by CO2 emissions on the map
Concordia research findings can be used to show the impact of human activity on local climate
Montreal, Jan. 20, 2016 — Earth’s temperature has increased by 1°C over the past century, and most of this warming has been caused by carbon dioxide emissions. But what does that mean locally?
A new study published in Nature Climate Change pinpoints the temperature increases caused by CO¬2 [sic] emissions in different regions around the world.
Using simulation results from 12 global climate models, Damon Matthews, a professor in Concordia’s Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, along with post-doctoral researcher Martin Leduc, produced a map that shows how the climate changes in response to cumulative carbon emissions around the world.
They found that temperature increases in most parts of the world respond linearly to cumulative emissions.
“This provides a simple and powerful link between total global emissions of carbon dioxide and local climate warming,” says Matthews. “This approach can be used to show how much human emissions are to blame for local changes.”
Leduc and Matthews, along with co-author Ramo?n [sic] de Eli?a [sic] from Ouranos, a Montreal-based consortium on regional climatology, analyzed the results of simulations in which CO2 emissions caused the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to increase by 1 per cent each year until it reached four times the levels recorded prior to the Industrial Revolution.
Globally, the researchers saw an average temperature increase of 1.7 ±0.4°C per trillion tonnes of carbon in CO2 emissions (TtC), which is consistent with reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
But the scientists went beyond these globally averaged temperature rises, to calculate climate change at a local scale.
At a glance, here are the average increases per trillion tonnes of carbon that we emit, separated geographically:
Western North America 2.4 ± 0.6°C
Central North America 2.3 ± 0.4°C
Eastern North America 2.4 ± 0.5°C
Alaska 3.6 ± 1.4°C
Greenland and Northern Canada 3.1 ± 0.9°C
North Asia 3.1 ± 0.9°C
Southeast Asia 1.5 ± 0.3°C
Central America 1.8 ± 0.4°C
Eastern Africa 1.9 ± 0.4°C
“As these numbers show, equatorial regions warm the slowest, while the Arctic warms the fastest. Of course, this is what we’ve already seen happen — rapid changes in the Arctic are outpacing the rest of the planet,” says Matthews.
There are also marked differences between land and ocean, with the temperature increase for the oceans averaging 1.4 ± 0.3°C TtC, compared to 2.2 ± 0.5°C for land areas.
“To date, humans have emitted almost 600 billion tonnes of carbon,” says Matthews. “This means that land areas on average have already warmed by 1.3°C because of these emissions. At current emission rates, we will have emitted enough CO¬2 [sic] to warm land areas by 2°C within 3 decades.”
###
Related links:
Cited study http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2913.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Presumably physics is still universal so it would be good to hear these “scientists” explain how their conclusions allow Earth’s temperatures to surpass those of Venus long before CO2 levels get anywhere near the concentration levels found on that planet!
The good news of this article is that the impact of incremental CO2 is negligible. The interpretation is wrong.
The Antarctic with the lowest temperature on earth doesn’t show any uptic in temperature and it’s just there where the impact of CO2 should be noticed. The increase of temperature in the Arctic is mainly due to change in albedo and residual heat effects of the Northern Hemisphere.
So nothing to worry about and the benefits are more greening and less heating costs in winter time.
“The increase of temperature in the Arctic”
Say what ???????
http://s19.postimg.org/sm42pougj/No_Pol2.jpg
Did you know that Iceland Met report that 2015 was the COLDEST year this century ?
Also, UAH SoPol has 2015 in 35th place out of 37 years.
Give a five year old a map and some crayons and they would come up with a more credible map.
No. I would say a 2 or 3 year old. At 5 most kids are self aware.
caitiecaitie wrote
“Janice
All materials have an intrinsic quality called latent heat, for materials that undergo a phase change, i.e. liquid to ice, or liquid to gas, or even solid to gas, these are called the latent heats of [melting/evaporation etc.]
Ice has a latent heat of melting at 334 Jouls/kg. That means i kg of ice can absorb 334 joules before its temperature changes”
*WRONG *
The enthalpy of fusion also known as (latent) heat of fusion is the change in enthalpy resulting from heating a given quantity of a substance to change its state from a solid to a liquid. The temperature at which this occurs is the melting point. In the case of water applied heat will first raise the temperate of the ice to its melting point (0 deg C for pure water) then you have to supply additional heat to melt it.
This means that AFTER you have raised the temperature of ice to its melting point you must supply an additional 334 joules per gram NOT kilogram to turn it into water
This is because the liquid form of water has higher internal heat than the solid phase. It is this property that makes ice such an efficient cooler of drinks. Adding 10 grams of ice to a drink has a cooling effect that is enough to drop the temperature of 4 grams of water from 20 deg C to 0 deg C
See
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/standard/physics/energy_matters/heat_in_the_home/revision/3/
This is high school physics, in my case actually grammar school physics as we did this experiment at Acklam Hall Grammar school back in 1963.
Correction that is 40 grams of water not 4.
What has happened shows signs that the climate has non-constant stability. This is due to the earth’s climate has not been stable in the last 500 million years.
I think the killer comment is:
caitiecaitie January 20, 2016 at 7:14 pm
These findings verify the model
If averaging 12 unverified models gives you what you are looking for is called ‘verification’ then we are all truly doomed.
Do climate research groups have any computing professionals in their teams?
caitie has a model of a model that proves her models are correct !!
So if you combine 12 models,does that make it a supermodel?
Most of the supermodels I have seen all look to be on the edge of starvation.
Sort of like how AGW is starving for verifiable facts..
” So if you combine 12 models “………
In my younger days in Daytona Beach, Fla. we use to call that a party !!
+1 LOL
Hi steve
did you actually read the publication?
When you do, let me know – and you can amend your comment appropriately. Until you do, your comment has little informed basis or intelligent substance.
really – would it kill you to read it?
…Do you have a model for that too ???
caitiecaitie:
I write with sincere attempt to help you and perhaps some others who may be following this thread.
It is clear that you are an inexperienced but well-meaning person who is trying to share your opinions and doing it with the usual blinkered arrogance of youth. For your sake, I write to suggest that you calm down and read the responses you have been getting.
I make this suggestion because for some time I was enjoying seeing you failing to understand the drubbing you have been getting, but it is now clear you are ‘out of your depth’ and may get hurt.
WUWT is a science blog and it won the award for the world’s best science blog outright. Many of those who post here are practicing or retired professional scientists. Hence, someone is regarded with amusement when e.g. offering the unsolicited information that phase changes of water involve latent heats. No ‘grandmother’ likes to be told ‘how to suck eggs’.
It seems you have been misled by the ‘openness’ of WUWT which requires plain speaking and avoids using mathematics as a language. This enables anybody to interact on WUWT for mutual benefit.
For example, Phil’s Dad has repeatedly commented on your posts. He is not a scientist but is a member of the UK government (i.e. a Conservative MP). So, a potentially influential person has been responding to you. I ask you to review his responses because they seem to imply he regards your posts with a mixture of amusement and disdain. Is that really how you want your views to be considered by an influential person?
Please, stop posting for a while and consider the responses you have had before considering how you want to continue posting your views. Failure to do that could result in you obtaining the rightly harsh responses dealt out to trolls.
I repeat, I write this as a sincere attempt to help you
Richard
+ 100
Wasted words, Richard. With so many nonsense comments from cc I gave up on the thread. Which I realised was partly the point of cc. So I decided to look at it differently: cc is either an AI robot, or multiple posters. I do not subscribe to the gender assignment default used by many here, I think that’s part of the scheme. There are indicators in language and synbtax use that supports my second theory: random capitalisation; odd sentence structure; and illogical errors (180 deg about) that are quickly accepted.
We are dealing with a rather sophisticated ‘troll’ which I think is more than it seems.
I think your right Harry. I get the feeling that cc (et. al.) is writing a Lew type paper. At least Brandon posts under his real name.
Harry Passfield:
Subsequent to your comment, I have become convinced that you are right. Thankyou for inducing me to recognise the reality.
Richard
If you dont like it, demonise it.
Why not hey?
You can even go further and make a whole slew of random conjectures almost without any real reason to guide you, beyond the necessity of casting what you dont like in an unfavourable light.
Harry – I’m perfectly happy for you to show exactly which is nonsense. A few people have, and that’s great. I even took it on board.
But in the main, it seems people dont have much to say, other than “I dont like you so you suck”. Thats not how it works.
Troll posting as caitiecaitie:
I made no “threats” but I am very angry at the unsolicited abuse and insults you have directed at me.
You have not posted the apology for your inexcusable behaviour that I demanded.
Richard
If it’s multiple posters, they are well disciplined. The writing style of the various posts is quite consistent.
I don’t recall ‘demonising’ cc: I merely pointed out that it is an androgynous construct that could be either a robot or a ‘person’ with multiple personalities.
As a rather infrequent commenter on blogs I know the investment in time that is required to follow a thread and make an occasional comment: so far on this thread there are 326 references to cc; if only 80 of these are original comments then that poster has been inordinately busy and fully engaged – to the extent that it is either multiple personalities or, is professionally employed to disrupt a thread.
Now, there is value in having someone like cc on a thread as it make sceptics think, develop their argument and debating skills, and review references. That said, the presence of such an insistent poster – on this thread alone (why none other?) – means to me that the post has hit a nerve and that the ‘paper’ (now known to be a ‘letter’) requires substantial (disruptive) support.
In my previous comment I referred to 326 occurrences of cc on this thread: silly me. It has a duplicate handle so the number will be half that as I only searched on half the name. However, there are 152 finds for the full name and 135 for half of it.
Harry, Shortly after this comment, dear CC started posting on the latest article.
hi richard, While what you say might be true – it’s also true that there is a plethora of just outright ignorance being posted on this site some of which is simply misleading.
Richard, I’m pretty sure I dont need to respect someone who makes comments like those phil has made. I also dont respect past presidents of the USA. I frankly dont care how the president of the USA views me, and if he wants to punish me somehow, for comments on a blog, then that probably won’t go very far to justifying respect. Last I checked, he spend quite some time with the diminutive and belittling comments. Sorry. He struck out.
If you would like to assert I’m trolling – thats fine, but as was pointed out to me a few times, the parameters probably should be not only defined, but standardised.
Now, in the context of trolling – and the threats you just dispensed to me – can you tell me how those kinds of threats might be applied to people who openly and rather aggressively insult another, on this site?
Richard, what you’ve given me is a litany of threats, double standards. etc.
Again, I’m all for people intelligently refuting what I post. Blogs, unpublished documents, refusal to even view the paper itself (and so many people here simply have not), do not amount to intellectual honesty. I’m sorry if you feel threatened by someone pointing out a failure of intellectual honesty, if you can come up with a better word for it, I’m all ears. The argument “i haven’t read the paper but it must be wrong, just cos” doesnt work.
Abusive troll posting as caitiecaitie:
My reply to your untrue and abusive accusations has appeared in the wrong place.
It is here.
I again state my genuine anger at your egregious behaviour.
Richard
Do you have a ” MODEL ” to prove that ??
oh, and richard. a few anecdotes I’ve recently learned is that wuwt encouraged its readers to vote for it to win best science blog. If that is true, the awards were not made based on any scientific credential, but was more a kind of “we have more readers than you” kind of basis, along with a stack of other climate “skeptic” blogs. It seems it has less to do with being science, and more to do with a place people can vent their spleen with other spleen-venters.
It seems to me, an absolutely bizarre way of claiming to do science – a blog can say anything you want. That is not science. If you want to do science, why dont you use a journal? how do you expect any blog to be taken more seriously than, for example, the “we didn’t land on the moon” blog sites? simply waving around popularise and arguably stacked voting credentials does not make something validly scientific. Its absolutely strange to me that you even make the implication.
Further, the scientific content of this site is certainly not widely highly regarded by scientists. In fact, it seems to be openly criticised by commentators and scientists alike.
Again, these seem to be the facts. I’m happy if you want to refute them with additional facts. Youre also free to shut down people presenting dissenting views to yours, though I suspect if you do, you’ll have some of your own demons to wrestle with -for a few moments at least, then you can get back to pretending a popularise vote lends scientific credence to award recipients.
LOL, This coming from someone who believes ” MODELS ” are better than real life data !!!
Abusive troll posting as caitiecaitie:
I am not interested in assertions you have picked up from smear sites.
I am still awaiting your apology for you having made untrue assertions that I made “threats” and for your unsolicited and untrue insults of me.
Richard
Marcus January 21, 2016 at 9:07 am
LOL, This coming from someone who believes ” MODELS ” are better than real life data !!!
Its coming from someone who got the relative density of ice and water completely reversed, got the relative heat caapcities of water versus mud and rocks completely reversed, explained CO2’s radiative properties at approximately an “I took Al Gore’s seminar” level, and simply has no clue how badly she/he/it has destroyed their own credibility.
All that is left is for her to accuse us of Dunning Kruger 😉
It’s like BG has a sister! Only less rational and less polite. The most fun we ever have here is when someone comes along declaring how scientific and logical and superior they are in comparison to everyone here at WUWT, and then they immediately resort to unscientific terminology, logical fallacies, and inferior grammar skills, punctuation skills, observation skills, rhetorical skills, etc ad finitum.
It cracks me up more than any other style of argument ever could. “Let me insult you in every way possible using the exact form of behavior that I am “projecting” upon you!” I suspect that these individuals are just suffering from their own cognitive biases.
“A cognitive bias refers to a systematic pattern of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment, whereby inferences about other people and situations may be drawn in an illogical fashion. Individuals create their own “subjective social reality” from their perception of the input. An individual’s construction of social reality, not the objective input, may dictate their behavior in the social world. Thus, cognitive biases may sometimes lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, or what is broadly called irrationality.” (bold mine)
Those bolded words pretty much describe every single thing caitiecaitie has said so far here, just in this one thread.
So here’s a link to a list of cognitive biases. I suggest that everyone examine it and note which ones caitiecaitie uses in his/her replies from now on. He/she likes to examine data and facts, so let’s be sure he/she examines all that apply to him/her based on the evidence supplied to us by him/her.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
CC, every blog in the competition urged their readers to vote.
Ens Josh:
You ask me
Why did you pick caitiecaitie to tell him/her to “calm down” and “read the responses”.
Ens Josh:
You ask me
Because that troll addressed its abuse, misrepresentations and falsehoods at me.
I would say you are trying to defend the indefensible.
Richard
Ens Josh,
I’ve had a very few comments here moderated out for being overly offensive — like maybe three? Each time I noted that I thought what I dished was commensurate with what I’d been served, but agreed under protest to dial it back. Anthony’s blog, Anthony’s discretion — or that of his designated moderators.
The balance of my time here I don’t mind so much that the refs don’t blow the whistle against the home team very often because, if you think about it, that means they don’t have to be as motivated to play the ball.
Should, could maybe possibly likely. New plant bigger than earth!!!!! http://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/20/ninth-planet-solar-system-edge-discovery-pluto
That is soooooo….yesterday !! LOL
Marcus
January 20, 2016 at 5:46 pm
Way off topic maybe but…even the science of our Solar system isn’t ” SETTLED ” yet !!
Scientists believe they have found a giant 9th planet in our Solar system …
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/01/20/scientists-may-have-just-found-ninth-planet-and-its-massive.html?intcmp=hpbt4
https://youtu.be/6poHQ2h00ZA
Three Mile Island: How many people died from the accident, 00000. Brockovich on the case in Flint ie Water.
Shouldn’t this be from the “we can make a model to fit any global warming outcome we wish” department?
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/china-and-russia-plan-to-cover-the-oceans-with-floating-nuclear-power-plants-2016-01-21?dist=beforebell
Gosh, … temperature caused by CO2 emissions … 1/20/2016
Earth’s temperature has increased by 1°C over the past century, and most of this warming has been caused by carbon dioxide emissions. Bold added.
They found that temperature increases in most parts of the world respond linearly to cumulative emissions. Bold added.
Surely Matthews and Leduc wouldn’t rely on correlation implying causation. So how did they know that CO2 caused warming instead of warming releasing CO2?
Aha!:
… results of simulations …
Now, how did their simulations know that CO2 leads, not lags, warming
They have models of their models that prove their models are correct !! Ask any model, they know !! LOL
Especially the blonde ones !
Marcus, 1/21/16 @ur momisugly 6:04 am, said,
They have models of their models that prove their models are correct!!
That’s no joke:
A number of ambitious and comprehensive ‘model intercomparison projects’(MIPs) were set up in the 1990s under the auspices of the World Climate Research Programme to undertake controlled conditions for model evaluation. One of the first was the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP), which studied atmospheric GCMs. The development of coupled models induced the development of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), which studied coupled ocean-atmosphere GCMs and their response to idealised forcings, such as a 1% yearly increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. It proved important in carrying out the various MIPs to standardize the model forcing parameters and the model output … .[¶] The establishment of the AMIP and CMIP projects opened a new era for climate modelling, setting standards of quality control, providing organisational continuity and ensuring that results are generally reproducible. Bold added, IPCC, AR4, ¶1.5.3 Coupled Models: Evolution, Use, Assessment, p. 118.
AGW is real because all the models agree.
We’ve been told time and again that the GCMs don’t resolve to anything less than a global scale. That is the fact that they can’t be used to predict regional changes can’t be held against them.
Now we find out that even though the models are useless to resolve regional changes, you can nonetheless, use them to find out how individual cities have changed.
Do these morons even bother to talk to each other?
Does anyone know what cattiecattie does for a living? Whatever it is, it doesn’t involve actually showing up for work.
well done mark, at showing me how well you can process data and make informed and accurate conclusions.
Fascinating how CC completely misses the point, again.
Whatever it is, it must allow him/her to engage in cognitive biases without any recourse at all! 🙂
Globe Warming in Washington DC This Weekend. Only 2 feet of snow expected.
Two feet of snow, maybe , and they are declaring a state of emergency !! LOL
Even in Iowa, 2 feet of snow would shut down the city for a day. And they have a lot more equipment and experience.
“Arctic is cooling since the AM switched”
“You do know what the AMO is , don’t you , ditz?”
I do have to say that folks use a lot of acronyms around here and don’t spell ’em out first. Drives me crazy. For instance, with reference to the two quotes above, is the “AM” the same thing as the “AMO”?
Please science folks, spell out your acronyms. You might know exactly what yer talkin’ about, but a lot of other people don’t. Or maybe it’s just me. Either way, it’s only a few extra keystrokes.
Thanks in advance.
SIMULATION from 12 Models! When over 150 “Models” have already been proven to be so much BS, I am curious as to which 12 these Imbeciles chose to use. Additionally, they are right in line with the Morons who claim the Arctic is Ice Free today, while Ice Breakers are having increasingly difficult times keeping the shipping lanes open.
you could read the paper, sz, they detail it in there.
do you guys ever bother to actually read the article?
caitiecaitie on January 21, 2016 at 9:05 am
– – – – – – –
caitiecaitie,
‘Nature’ called it a letter not a paper, so maybe you did not read it because you thought it was a ‘Nature’ paper.
John
It’s in the paper, so it must be true.
Unless it’s something that goes against religion, in which case it’s caused by all those super rich oil barons who live in the Gulf.
“do you guys ever bother to actually read the article?”
stereotyping-cognitive bias
association fallacy
Below is the flawed logic of Nature Climate Change | Letter ‘Regional estimates of the transient climate response to cumulative CO2 emissions’ by Martin Leduc, H. Damon Matthews, & Ramón de Elía.
Take an ensemble of GCMs which run hot and do not reflect actual temp data, use the hindcast of the models matched to past temps the posit that most of warming must be CO2.
Which reminds me of deja vue all over again.
John
Here is an edit of my above comment:
– – – – – – – –
John Whitman on January 21, 2016 at 7:39 am
Below is the flawed logic of Nature Climate Change | Letter ‘Regional estimates of the transient climate response to cumulative CO2 emissions’ by Martin Leduc, H. Damon Matthews, & Ramón de Elía.
Take an ensemble of GCMs which run hot and do not reflect actual temp data, use the hindcast of the models matched to past temps
thethen posit that most of warming must be CO2.Which reminds me of deja vue all over again.
John
Moderator,
My comment to DCA a few minutes ago probably went into the WP nether regions. I may have submitted it twice, both are identical. Can you retrieve one of my comments?
John
[Done. -mod]
John,
What is the difference in a “letter’ vs “paper?
Thanks in advance
But, DCA, has cc (you know who) concurred? [smile]
DCA, do your own homework. He’s not your own personal google.
DCA,
‘Nature’ called the publication a ‘letter’. Obviously ‘Nature’ distinguishes between something it publishes as a ‘letter’ and something it publishes as a ‘paper’.
If you are interested in what ‘Nature’ considers the difference in a published ‘Nature’ ‘letter’ versus a published ‘Nature’ ‘paper’ then ask ‘Nature’ to distinguish what they mean by the two different terms.
My point to caitiecaitie was that she (he/them/it**) may not have read it if she (he/them/it**) thinks it is a ‘Nature’ ‘paper’. She (he/them/it**) has not responded.
** by referring to caitiecaitie as “she (he/them/it)” I intend no insult but rather I mean anonymous commenters are not self-identified as to whether male or female or a collective of people or partly a semi-automated search response algorithm.
John
NOTE: By ‘Nature’ in my above comments I mean ‘Nature Climate Change’.
John
“Using simulation results from 12 global climate models”…….”analyzed the results of simulations”
C’mon man! Go back to playing Zork and leave the real research to real scientists.
Canadian Weather Net struggles with east coast storm but but: http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/major-storm-to-impact-eastern-us/62576/
“what you wrote is irrelevant,.ignores valid and demonstrably appropriate precedent etc. but most of all, I suspect it is just different to what you want to be true.
Wanting something to be true richard, need not correlate with what is, in fact, true.”
cc wrote this upthread
projection, much?
(sorry to abuse your good name with the reference rsc)
I’m still waiting for the cc troll to produce even one IPCC global climate change projection model that has been validated in the real world using observed data, like I asked for hours ago.
They can’t, because there isn’t one (much less, 12).
Watching them shifting goal posts and blowing smoke when just about every claim they have made has been refuted with real world data, and trying to have people guess where the validation pea is under the constantly moving walnut shell of their ignorance is quite entertaining.
However, it does nothing to demonstrate that the subject letter and map have any scientific credibility whatsoever,(except possibly to demonstrate what really bad scientific modeling looks like).
caitiecaitie:
Welcome to the alternative universe.
Indeed you are correct – the only in insults have come from others towards you, whilst you have been commendably restrained in response – especially considering the beyond patronising “warning” from courtney merely for posting science they don’t agree with.
But don’t you see? they don’t tolerate “warmist” views (for too long), and if you persist, as you have WITHOUT resorting to ad hominem, then they will either goad you into it or just plain accuse you anyway.
Been there and got the T-shirt and observed how they treat the likes of Mosher, twinotter and Brandon, amongst others.
Denizens – you could have a pure echo-chamber here, but what’s the point?
BTW: A Troll (wiki) is ….
“.. is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement”
None of the above applies to caitiecaitie.
ToneB:
Your unsolicited support for the troll posting as caitiecaitie is noted.
I still await the apologies warranted from caitiecaitie for the untrue assertion that I made “threats” and for the unsolicited abuse and insults gthat troll directed at me.
An apology from you for pretending the falsehood that the troll is a ‘victim’ would also not come amiss.
Richard
Toneb:
My repudiation of your support for the troll has vanished and I suppose it is in the mod ‘bin’.
I add that you rightly say
then you falsely assert
That is absolutely untrue! See above.
I still await the apology from the troll.
Richard
Mods:
I have provided two rebuttals of the post from Toneb but they have both vanished.
I would be grateful if you would let me know if they are not found when you check the ‘bin’ so I know to send a replacement.
Thanking you in anticipation.
Richard
CC’s other classmate has been heard from?
Regardless, equally delusional.
What Toneb said.
Brandon Gates:
Before supporting egregious trolls on this thread, it would be appropriate if you were to acknowledge your multiple errors on the ‘Monday mirth … thread’.
Richard
richardscourtney,
I think I’ll simply link to that conversation and let my words there stand for themselves: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/18/monday-mirth-old-reliable/#comment-2122673
As for me “supporting egregious trolls” on this thread, I hold that providing topical, relevant counterpoint which others apparently find disruptive to their own beliefs is not trolling.
Oh sweetie.
BG-“As for me “supporting egregious trolls” on this thread, I hold that providing topical, relevant counterpoint which others apparently find disruptive to their own beliefs is not trolling.”
It’s so sad….and yet hilarious at the same time…that those people who are afflicted with cognitive biases are the last people to know they are afflicted. People with CB reveal them all the time, in their words, in their actions, the way they communicate with others. It’s like hearing an accent and knowing immediately where that person came from. The very axioms, idioms, quotes, and lingo used by people with CB can be used to identify the type of CB they suffer from. They give us clues to the “roots” of your thinking. You try to hide it and it only makes it worse.
You expose yourself all the time. What cc and Toneb offered here are not relevant counterpoints that others here “apparently find disruptive to their own beliefs”. YOU think that because you suffer from cognitive biases that allow YOU to believe that you have some magical ability to know what others are thinking AND what motivates them to respond to others. You don’t. No one does. And what is disruptive here is people like you coming in with your flawed thinking and irrational responses…it’s shocking, and amazing, and disturbing here because it happens so very RARELY. And when you, and cc, and toneb persist in it, it goes from being a cultural shock to most people here, to being an outrage because it is so obviously insane for anyone to think like you do, that your persistence in it MUST be voluntary and MEANT to disrupt.
And normal, rational people get angry when people WANT to disrupt and cause contention just for the sake of contention alone.
Brandon Gates:
That was naughty!
You linked to where you presented a blatantly erroneous graph, but nobody is going to read the reams of irrelevant twaddle that you posted to try to evade admitting that you posted the blatantly erroneous graph.
This is the link to where that debate has reached.
And that is only one of the subthreads in the ‘Monday Mirth …’ debate where you have yet to admit your error. As Aphan said of you in one of those other subthreads
Richard
richardscourtney,
I have tendered a reply to you on the other thread: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/18/monday-mirth-old-reliable/comment-page-1/#comment-2125802
Again, I shall let my comments there stand on their own, for I do not think it is “naughty” to link to the beginning of the conversation and let others read it and decide for themselves what to think about it.
Ens Josh,
The site Policy here is used as a guideline, not a law. Anthony makes all the final decisions. But I note that “CC” is heavily thread-bombing, which is one of the things that site Policy does not allow. Yet she is free to continue, at Anthony’s pleasure. If you want to argue with success, feel free. Or, you can start your own site and run it your way.
WUWT has become the most popular, most heavily trafficked site on climate issues. Its internet traffic is far more than all alarmist blogs combined. One reason for this is Anthony’s free speech policy. That policy is not absolute; when someone steps out of line too often, they can get a time-out or worse. If you haven’t seen that, you’re new here. Moderators routinely *snip* or *delete* words or comments.
Conversely, most alarmist blogs heavily censor the comments of skeptics. That makes them propaganda blogs; they do not want to allow their readers to see all points of view. Here, all points of view are encouraged. Readers can then make up their own minds based on the maximum information.
The result is easy to see: most readers end up being skeptical of the ‘man-made global warming’ scare. Certainly the impartial ones can see that there is, at best, flimsy evidence supporting the alarmist narrative. If it were not for the immense piles of money propping up the ‘dangerous AGW’ alarm, it would have dissipated long ago. There is just no good evidence showing any global damage or harm from the rise in CO2, which has anyway only risen just one part in ten thousand — over more than a century. That is hardly a cause for alarm, especially since no one has been able to show any harm resulting. In fact the rise in CO2 is a net benefit, increasing agricultural productivity and ‘greening’ the planet. For the one-third of humanity that subsists on less than $2 a day, the lower food prices are a matter of life and death in many cases.
A lot of the frustration you see is directly due to the unfairness of taxpayer loot flowing into the pockets of individuals and organizations that promote the dangerous AGW hoax. Skeptical scientists are largely cut out. The scare is being used to pass a carbon tax — which would further confiscate the income of taxpayers who don’t believe a word of it.
Put yourself in the shoes of skeptics. Let’s say that the scare was instead about Scientology, and that proponents were being paid huge piles of public grant money to promote their Scientiology scare. Their goal would be to get Scientology taxes passed, which you would be forced to pay even though you know it’s a trumped-up false alarm, and there’s no good evidence that Scientology is credible.
What would you do? Turn the other cheek? Play kissy-face with the self-serving Scientology scamsters? Or would you tell them how you really feet about their hoax?
Toneb says wrt trolling “none of the above applies to ” cc. Really?
I haven’t done any insulting, merely pointed out that their off-topic false analogy to crash test simulation modeling was flawed because even the simulation models of crash tests require criteria for scientific validation of the models, yet they claimed “noone would bother to question the validity of that simulated result.”, (apparently including both themselves and you in the term ‘noone’ (sic) ).
This suggests that understanding of both the value and the concept of”validation of scientific simulation models” are not among the strengths evident in the claimant’s purported knowledge of the SM and how the SM actually works, however many hairs on a rat’s hindquarters they may skillfully split.
If you indeed concur with the claim, I have access to a Corvair, a Pinto, and a Gremlin that I am happy to sell to both you and the claimant for your own kids to use at some distant time in the future (after I’m not around any more, I hope). The paint jobs are really shiny, in custom color palettes , with awesome sound systems, GPS, and–wait for it– new very expensive tires!!!
Since you appear keen to engage in the discussion,on the claimant’s behalf, you may be able to provide us with a link to at least one (preferably 12) IPCC global climate projection simulation model that has been validated by real-world data, that the claimant appears so far unable to provide.
Global climate simulation model projections are what the topic is. They have been falsified by real-world data. Any further models based on them , like the one in the topic paper, cannot yield anything except spurious results. That is the science as it stands. Period.
Putting lipstick on a pig doesn’t change the fact that it is a pig, and there isn’t enough lipstick in the world to make it anything different.
So yes, what is your point?
In this analogy the rat is the scientific simulation model that requires no validation in order to be accepted as ‘credible’ by either yourself or the claimant.
Splitting hairs on a rat’s hindquarters has been known to backfire with tragic consequences when one does not pay any attention at all to what the rat itself is doing , or even ensuring it is indeed a rat that one is splitting hindquarter hairs on. The intelligent and agile rat has been known to turn around, bite the hand of the hair-splitter, run up the hair-splitter’s arm and make it’s nest in the hair-splitter’s own hair , ultrasonically calling out to its rat relations for assistance, and all the while infesting the hair-splitter with plague, or at least fleas. If the non-validated “rat ” turns out to be a weasel and not a rat at all, the hair -splitter may simply have their face ripped off.
Can you see how validation of scientific simulation models when real world observational data is available might be equally as , if not more, important than the skill to split hairs? If not, let me know where to deliver the cars.
It is difficult for me to become concerned at claims of global anthropogenic “climate change’ or “warming” or “warmest year ever” ,due to some specious correlation with CO2, as mapped in the topic letter, on the order of 100ths or even 10ths of a degree over decades when the temperature on my own doorstep can fluctuate by as much as 100 degrees F in any given year-yet with a little forethought and minimal disruption or expense, I and virtually everything around me is not only surviving, but thriving.
You, ToneB, did read cc’s comments. Right?
Troll 1 in support of troll 2, sure I will take your anonymous word for it.
Or I could trust my lying eyes and reading comprehension.
There is a small but significant thread of valid criticism in “Toneb on January 21, 2016 at 11:09 am” about significant lapses of civility on some WUWT threads.
We should emulate Dr Richard Lindzen’s, Steven McIntyre’s and the late Dr Robert Carter’s wonderful civility and patient forbearance on dialogs with those who we profoundly disagree intellectually. We owe that kind of behavior to Anthony who works so hard at this wonderful venue of his.
John
This thread is extremely long now (I’ve read longer – and more interesting ones at WUWT) but I wanted my comment up-thread to be more easily found (hubristic apologies for that):
I don’t recall ‘demonising’ cc: I merely pointed out that it is an androgynous construct that could be either a robot or a ‘person’ with multiple personalities.
As a rather infrequent commenter on blogs I know the investment in time that is required to follow a thread and make an occasional comment: so far on this thread there are 326 references to cc; if only 80 of these are original comments then that poster has been inordinately busy and fully engaged – to the extent that it is either multiple personalities or, is professionally employed to disrupt a thread.
Now, there is value in having someone like cc on a thread as it make sceptics think, develop their argument and debating skills, and review references. That said, the presence of such an insistent poster – on this thread alone (why none other?) – means to me that the post has hit a nerve and that the ‘paper’ (now known to be a ‘letter’) requires substantial (disruptive) support.
(erratum)
In my previous comment I referred to 326 occurrences of cc on this thread: silly me. It has a duplicate handle so the number will be half that as I only searched on half the name. However, there are 152 finds for the full name and 135 for half of it.
+1
As only an interested lay person who enjoys science strictly as an amateur – amateur astronomy, physics, biology, botany, geology, etc. – I still have never seen a clear and cogent explanation as to how catastrophic heating will occur because CO2 has increased in our atmosphere from maybe 1 molecule in 3000 to now 1 molecule in 2500 (400 ppm). How does it – how can it – have such a big effect? What is the actual mechanism, just absorption and near-immediate re-radiation in the IR? Why has there been such a small observed effect of perhaps 1 degree C in 150 years if it is so potent? How is it that the “blame” for this can be assigned to Man when there have been upswings and downswings in both temperature and CO2 concentration long before Man appeared on the scene and began to contribute significant CO2, and the climate is always changing in cycles we don’t completely understand because of natural processes?
If the “science is settled” why do they rely on computer models none of which agree except they all overstate warming, instead of observations and experiments? Inquiring minds want to know. Inquiring minds should be skeptical, shouldn’t they? Or am I expected to accept it all blindly, to swallow it whole?
Or am I going to be told (by some) it’s just too complicated for me to understand, just keep paying for the endless studies (even though if the “science is settled” we shouldn’t need more studies)?
The only answer you’ll get from the ” Catastrophic Glo.Bull Warming ” crowd like cc is that the models tell them it’s true, so reality is lying !! Hope that helps…
Not Chicken Little:
Only warmunist sites pretend the subject is “just too complicated for {you} to understand”.
I suggest you start with this article by David Middleton and ask again if you want more info.
Richard
Harry Passfield said that ‘cc’…
…is either multiple personalities or, is professionally employed to disrupt a thread.
As often happens with thread-bombers like that, CC posts non-stop 24/7, throughout the work- or school-day. But she has convinced no one at this BEST SCIENCE site (which has far more traffic than all alarmist blogs combined).
‘CC’ argues with everyone, a la B. Gates; nitpicking, re-framing arguments, erecting strawmen and then knocking down her strawmen, deflecting, and otherwise avoiding the central point:
The climate alarmist crowd was wrong. They made the central prediction that a rise in CO2 would cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe.
But Planet Earth has other ideas, and she is busy falsifying the alarmist crowd’s scary predictions. When proponents of a conjecture are proven wrong, repeatedly, and none of their alarming predictions ever come true, rational folks will begin to wonder about their unstated motives.
Honest scientists are wrong routinely. When they find that their conjecture or hypothesis is wrong, they go back and try to understand why.
But not climate alarmists. Instead, they double down like CC, and argue incessantly. Everyone here can see that the real world simlpy disagrees with their failed conjecture. So, how do we know the alarmists’ conjecture is wrong?
Here is how: one characteristic common to every Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, and Law is that they are all able to make repeated, accurate predictions. If they can’t then their conjecture is falsified.
But as we see, not one scary prediction of the climate alarmist contingent has ever come true. They were all wrong. No exceptions.
The only honest kind of scientist is a skeptical scientist. But climate alarmist scientists have zero skepticism — they insist that they’re right, that their models are right, and that the data must be wrong, or it must be ‘adjusted’ to match their models. By then it’s no longer data.
The conclusion about unskeptical alarmists is obvious to even the most casual observer:
The truth is not in them.
…If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything !!
I look at the red colors as multi sigma “error” bars for warming side because: 1) adjustments favor going warmer in the present and cooler in the past getting the maximum upslope that can decently be concocted (decently is losing out as we go along) 2) Among data sets and proxies there are differences and the researcher of a warming bent, tends to rationalize choosing the warmest one – after the tomkarlezing of the pause, the competing HadCrut just added on the new slab of heat to there data set as did GISS. 3) error bars themselves are skewed to warming – as climate sensitivity became more constrained on the upper side and IPCC had to grudgingly reduce the lower figure, they left the upper figure of 4.5 where it has always been to rescue the models in the future.
The satellite temperatures were a major headache to the (already failed) theory, not only because they showed the pause, but even more so because they constrained the freedom of the adjusters to push the ‘present’ end of the record upwards and this gave way to what I call figuratively the thumbtack method of sticking a pin in the graph at about 1945 and rotating counter clockwise to steepen the curve and deep six the real temperature records of the 1930s-early 40s (they did this in 1998 under Hansen’s direction because the hope for the 1998 El Nino to lead us into a new high wasn’t able to do it and he knew an La Nina was likely to follow and the team just couldn’t have the 60yr old records stand).
This first major adjustment to temperature (by a fellow who shut down the air conditioning in Congress and closed all the windows to make the chamber hot for his alarming speech in 1988) was made on the last day of warming for the next 18+years. The bloody pause began! Now the satellite data is even more a pain. That is why THEY HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO DO THE SATELLITES IN!! Are people getting this? Even Christopher Monckton didn’t seem to get that in his review of the 10 minute video discussion. They threw out the argo floats – 4000 precision instruments on the ocean – for old fashioned ship engine room water intake temperatures because they showed what they wanted to show. I would alert Lamar Smith that this is what is going to happen.
They do not want actual data..They want perceived / hoped for data !! The real world means nothing to liberal socialists !!,