Climate Change - The Scientific Debate - Vol II

Climate Change - The Scientific Debate - Vol II

Author
Discussion

LongQ

13,440 posts

172 months

Saturday 3rd October 2015
quotequote all
wc98 said:
a question for plunker. any clue as to why the north sea surface temperature peaked 6 degrees c lower than last year ? i can't quite understand that after all the recent warmest years ever.
I think it was down to all of the cod returning from their holidays further north.

Cod is no longer listed as a species "at risk" in the North Sea as I understand things.

I expect they are all much colder than they were before they (allegedly) headed north and so their return will doubtlessly mean they have brought cold water with them - in the same way that importing plants brings bugs and diseases that have not previously been endemic in the UK during recorded horticultural arboreal history.

Alternatively they may have returned because the water is colder.

Or there may be no correlation at all.

plunker

542 posts

65 months

Saturday 3rd October 2015
quotequote all
wc98 said:
a question for plunker. any clue as to why the north sea surface temperature peaked 6 degrees c lower than last year ? i can't quite understand that after all the recent warmest years ever.
I've no idea but that sounds like a huge variation - got a link?

hairykrishna

10,859 posts

142 months

Saturday 3rd October 2015
quotequote all
XM5ER said:
Just when you thought that the settled science was settled, it turns out not to be (again).

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/30/massive_gl...
The paper
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b0238
From the article;
Lewis Page said:
Global models at the moment assume total emissions of isoprene from all sources - trees, plants, plankton, the lot - of around 1.9 megatons per year. But, according to the new research, the newly discovered "abiotic" process releases as much as 3.5 megatons on its own
I would be seriously surprised if any global climate models assume isoprene emissions of 1.9 megatons. The best estimate of the global annual emission of isoprene is something like 600 megatons. Most of it comes from plants.






Edited by hairykrishna on Saturday 3rd October 15:21

XM5ER

5,073 posts

187 months

Sunday 4th October 2015
quotequote all
hairykrishna said:
I would be seriously surprised if any global climate models assume isoprene emissions of 1.9 megatons. The best estimate of the global annual emission of isoprene is something like 600 megatons. Most of it comes from plants.






Edited by hairykrishna on Saturday 3rd October 15:21
Link?

hairykrishna

10,859 posts

142 months

Advertisement

XM5ER

5,073 posts

187 months

Monday 5th October 2015
quotequote all
hairykrishna said:
That kind of snarky comment says more about you than me Hairy?

So it would appear from scanning a few related papers that the annual emissions of Isoprene are estimated based on models extrapolated from observations and studies in tropical locations. All good stuff but not an actual measurement though. So it would appear that we have another unknown unknown.

As an interesting aside, now that we know that the sea in sunlight produces lots of isoprene all on it's own, and that isoprene when exposed to NOx produces Ozone, I wonder if anyone is considering how this affects atmospheric conditions in California in relation to smog production. I think I'll contact VW.


hairykrishna

10,859 posts

142 months

Monday 5th October 2015
quotequote all
Sorry I couldn't be arsed to do your legwork for you but there’s a pattern with these things. Some hack writes a story where they misunderstand and/or over interpret a paper in order to shout about how scientists have had it wrong all these years. 5 minutes of reading normally makes it obvious that they have the wrong end of the stick. Despite this, Brietbart and numerous skeptic blogs uncritically post it as the next big thing. Watts puts up a slightly more sophisticated, but still totally uncritical, version.
People then post it here.
Why is it that none of the people who are global warming sceptics are at all willing to think critically about these stories? 5 seconds googling tells you that the main point of Mr Pages article, namely that this result means that the global level of isoprene is off by at least a factor of 2, is total nonsense.

Jinx

8,792 posts

199 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
hairykrishna said:
Sorry I couldn't be arsed to do your legwork for you but there’s a pattern with these things. Some hack writes a story where they misunderstand and/or over interpret a paper in order to shout about how scientists have had it wrong all these years. 5 minutes of reading normally makes it obvious that they have the wrong end of the stick. Despite this, Brietbart and numerous skeptic blogs uncritically post it as the next big thing. Watts puts up a slightly more sophisticated, but still totally uncritical, version.
People then post it here.
Why is it that none of the people who are global warming sceptics are at all willing to think critically about these stories? 5 seconds googling tells you that the main point of Mr Pages article, namely that this result means that the global level of isoprene is off by at least a factor of 2, is total nonsense.
Sorry HK - modelled isoprene does not equal annual emissions especially when unknown sources are well, unknown. As to trusting any atmospheric models? Well they are wrong in both their assumptions David Evans work and their results against observation AR5

plunker

542 posts

65 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
Gotta love William Connolley's way with words:

Most normal people would have been content to have produced one game-changing theory of climate but David Evans is not a normal person. No! He has squillions of degrees from Really Prestigious universities and has, on his own, invented entire new types of Fourier analysis. So it is with no surprise – rather, with a dull grey sense of the inevitable – that I note (thank you JM and ATTP) that his latest theory has thunked onto the doormat like junk mail.

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2015/10/04/force-f-f...

Edited by plunker on Tuesday 6th October 13:09

LongQ

13,440 posts

172 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
plunker said:
Gotta love William Connelley's way with words:
Given WC's editorial history I'm surprised you resorted to using that phrase here.

I'm even more surprised to hear that The Stoat is still an active site but I suppose Stoats are nothing of not tenacious.

Jinx

8,792 posts

199 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
plunker said:
Gotta love William Connelley's way with words:

Most normal people would have been content to have produced one game-changing theory of climate but David Evans is not a normal person. No! He has squillions of degrees from Really Prestigious universities and has, on his own, invented entire new types of Fourier analysis. So it is with no surprise – rather, with a dull grey sense of the inevitable – that I note (thank you JM and ATTP) that his latest theory has thunked onto the doormat like junk mail.

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2015/10/04/force-f-f...
Seriously Plunks? William Connelley? The serial Wiki vandaliser? You may as well quote Al Gore if you are going to use the WC.

plunker

542 posts

65 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
Jinx said:
plunker said:
Gotta love William Connelley's way with words:

Most normal people would have been content to have produced one game-changing theory of climate but David Evans is not a normal person. No! He has squillions of degrees from Really Prestigious universities and has, on his own, invented entire new types of Fourier analysis. So it is with no surprise – rather, with a dull grey sense of the inevitable – that I note (thank you JM and ATTP) that his latest theory has thunked onto the doormat like junk mail.

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2015/10/04/force-f-f...
Seriously Plunks? William Connelley? The serial Wiki vandaliser? You may as well quote Al Gore if you are going to use the WC.
He seems to make some pretty damning observations about Evans' claims about 'assumptions' used in models that aren't assumptions at all but emergent results from running the models. If he's right then Evans doesn't understand this stuff very well.

But go on - tell us how many wiki-edits WC has done again as an editor who edits.

Like that means anything.



Edited by plunker on Tuesday 6th October 13:41

Jinx

8,792 posts

199 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
plunker said:
He seems to make some pretty damning observations about Evans' claims about 'assumptions' used in models that aren't assumptions at all but emergent results from running the models. If he's right then Evans doesn't understand this stuff very well.

But go on - tell us how many wiki-edits WC has done again as an editor who edits.

Like that means anything.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/13/wikipedia-tu...
Damning from WC is as worthless as a Yamal tree ring for measuring global temperatures.

plunker

542 posts

65 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
Jinx said:
plunker said:
He seems to make some pretty damning observations about Evans' claims about 'assumptions' used in models that aren't assumptions at all but emergent results from running the models. If he's right then Evans doesn't understand this stuff very well.

But go on - tell us how many wiki-edits WC has done again as an editor who edits.

Like that means anything.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/13/wikipedia-tu...
Damning from WC is as worthless as a Yamal tree ring for measuring global temperatures.
Meaningless and pure ad-hom. Having held up Evans' work as good and true you have to defend it by any means I guess.


LongQ

13,440 posts

172 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
plunker said:
Meaningless and pure ad-hom.
Which of course in no way could be discerned from any of the words and phrases used in WC's paragraph of which you seem rather fond?

Speed reading I would guess. Pick the words you want to read.

plunker

542 posts

65 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
LongQ said:
plunker said:
Meaningless and pure ad-hom.
Which of course in no way could be discerned from any of the words and phrases used in WC's paragraph of which you seem rather fond?
No it can't actually - I used the word 'pure' quite deliberately. I don't mind a bit of ad-hom so long as it's followed up with something more substantial, as WC does (and Jinx doesn't).

LongQ said:
Speed reading I would guess. Pick the words you want to read.
Wrong and demonstrably so as I've already referred to the substantive parts of WCs post that Jinx has waved off with an ad-hom - try and keep up..

Also, I've never practiced 'speed reading' tongue out



Edited by plunker on Tuesday 6th October 16:41

Jinx

8,792 posts

199 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
plunker said:
Wrong and demonstrably so as I've already referred to the substantive parts of WCs post that Jinx has waved off with an ad-hom - try and keep up..

Also, I've never practiced 'speed reading' tongue out



Edited by plunker on Tuesday 6th October 16:41
You could always go to Jo Nova's site and raise your objections with David Evans' work (her husband) - I'm sure you would get a polite answer and possibly gain some knowledge. Unlike any attempt to engage with WC.

plunker

542 posts

65 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
They're not my objections Jinx, and I'm not remotely qualified to make objections. If you want my opinion for what it's worth, I'll take the evil wiki-editors word over David Evans' on how climate models work cos he's done, y'know, climate modelling and I'd expect him to know about 'assumptions' fed into the models versus things that are the emergent results of running them.


LongQ

13,440 posts

172 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
plunker said:
They're not my objections Jinx, and I'm not remotely qualified to make objections. If you want my opinion for what it's worth, I'll take the evil wiki-editors word over David Evans' on how climate models work cos he's done, y'know, climate modelling and I'd expect him to know about 'assumptions' fed into the models versus things that are the emergent results of running them.
Hmm.

Would you like to give that assumption some more thought?

Surely it's a bit like suggesting that, say, Tony Blair, having been involved with all the stuff he has been involved with, must have been right about it because he has had the experiences and other more distant (and possibly more impartial) observers have not.

Therefore Mr. Blair's opinions must always be right.

No doubt to those who wish them to be right in order to reinforce their own opinions (and yes, before you say it, I know that is an observation that can cut both ways) will support him to the end. They may be right .... but the results, whatever they are, of his beliefs seem to have less substance, to put it politely, than he would like us to believe.

One might observe that there are plenty of people out there in the public eye who have a reputation related to what they did at some point in their lives that is representative of their entire reason for existence. Many will have "lived" on the proceeds for years, perhaps decades. They may still be proven wrong or irrelevant. Fame and renown is often fleeting - at all levels of recognition. Individuals who see themselves as being in their public's eye do not always seem to accept that.

plunker

542 posts

65 months

Tuesday 6th October 2015
quotequote all
LongQ said:
plunker said:
They're not my objections Jinx, and I'm not remotely qualified to make objections. If you want my opinion for what it's worth, I'll take the evil wiki-editors word over David Evans' on how climate models work cos he's done, y'know, climate modelling and I'd expect him to know about 'assumptions' fed into the models versus things that are the emergent results of running them.
Hmm.

Would you like to give that assumption some more thought?

Surely it's a bit like suggesting that, say, Tony Blair, having been involved with all the stuff he has been involved with, must have been right about it because he has had the experiences and other more distant (and possibly more impartial) observers have not.

Therefore Mr. Blair's opinions must always be right.

No doubt to those who wish them to be right in order to reinforce their own opinions (and yes, before you say it, I know that is an observation that can cut both ways) will support him to the end. They may be right .... but the results, whatever they are, of his beliefs seem to have less substance, to put it politely, than he would like us to believe.

One might observe that there are plenty of people out there in the public eye who have a reputation related to what they did at some point in their lives that is representative of their entire reason for existence. Many will have "lived" on the proceeds for years, perhaps decades. They may still be proven wrong or irrelevant. Fame and renown is often fleeting - at all levels of recognition. Individuals who see themselves as being in their public's eye do not always seem to accept that.
Err no, I think you're confusing technical facts with opinions and beliefs. My faith in WC is an opinion, with a 'confidence factor' if you like, whereas whether property 'x' in a model is an assumption that has been fed into it (input) or is an emergent result of running the model (output) is a technical fact for which there is a right or wrong answer.