Drivel: A simple demonstration of chaos and unreliability of computer models

From WUWT: A simple demonstration of chaos and unreliability of computer models. As you'd expect from WUWT it is drivel. Nick Stokes points out why, and another commentator does so in more detail later. Everyone else appears to be totally and embarassingly clueless.

For a moral argument about adaptation that mirrors what Eli was saying, ask Thilmeeza Hussain from the Maldives?

For a moral argument about adaptation that mirrors what Eli was saying, ask Thilmeeza Hussain from the Maldives, says Brian at Eli's. I however was unimpressed, to the extent that I'll blog about it chez moi if Brian comes up to the scratch; for the moment, I've just commented:

That's not a moral argument, that's propaganda. Do you really think otherwise?

El Niño in the Lower Troposphere - watch this space

El Niño in the Lower Troposphere - watch this space sayeth Sou. But she also says

Some people wonder when El Niño will show up in the lower troposphere. It takes some months before the temperature of the lower troposphere peaks - up to three months later than the peak in surface temperatures. That means that it will still be a couple of months before the El Niño shows up strongly in lower troposphere temperatures.

Which I found surprising:

I find that surprising. The atmosphere has precious little heat capacity. Why would the lag be so large? What's you source?

Nothing Can Go Wrong

By CIP. About the regrettable fracas between the Commies and the Beys.

Tom Fuller Gets One Right

mt commends TF - correctly - for denouncing Lamar Smith. I've asked him if he will, in return, denounce Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman.

My prediction is that mt will not; that he will argue a difference between trawling through scientists emails and trawling through a companies email. I predict that I will reply that he is biased by his dislike of Exxon.

Weird stuff from TF; the KKK; and the ATTP connection

A little birdie points me at Too Much Climate News: A Tale of Two Ice Caps, Cuccinelli Redux, And Halloween Zombie Climate Denier Justifications. This contains some silliness ("Over in Alarmist land, And Then There’s Physics  tries to explain away a similar gain in ice in Greenland. The huge ice cap is gaining mass"; but then again science has never been TF's strong suit) and the curious "Update: Sorry for those in the comment thread. I just booted ATTP and yanked his posts. It will disrupt the threading. That’s four people I’ve booted in four years. Sigh…" (archive). For those familiar with TF's mantra "the worst thing about censorship is not knowing what has been censored" this will come as no great surprise; but those familiar with the always reasonable ATTP will, correctly I think, read this more as a judgement on TF than anything else; Yeah, ATTP. Right. You’re a KKK member looking to kneecap your policy opponents speaks for itself.

We live in a society dominated by violence from the top down, secrecy, lies, denial, conspiracy and manipulation, torture, imprisonment...

New comment on your post "Exxon speaks"Author: J4Zonian 

Nice one, Neven. I don't know who Tom is, but I'd like to hear some people do Amazing Grace on video, too—maybe the first one will be Blankenship. Of course, when they do they should have to tell the story of the song, every time, and come to understand why it's part of the agreement.

However, though I don't know if anyone knew beforehand or was saying anything like this during the 1930s, the course of the projection, scapegoating, and economic/ political externalizing (3 strands of the same process) into industrial genocide was absolutely predictable, given 1. age-old European discrimination against Jews, especially in hard times, 2. German childrearing practices and the cultural pathologies that resulted, 3. statements by Hitler, his top henchmen, and Nazis at the time, 4. actions like the hushing up of Hitler's own Jewish roots by those henchmen, (in a move remarkably similar to Bush (W's) Rathering—the baiting and discrediting of Dan Rather on a story the news anchor had right—Bush's lying avoidance of military service)  5. the actions of the Nazis and German society toward Jews and others even a decade before the war, 6. the increasing industrialization of all aspects of society, as well as the mechanization of Germans themselves.

(#s 2 and 4 can be read about in German psychologist Alice Miller's eye-opening book For Your Own Good)

In defeating the Axis powers in WWII, the US acquired its current, more virulent strain of the Wetiko disease. Anyone who doesn't see exactly the same things happening right now in US society—the scapegoating of Islamic people and ecological activists, for example, and many other repressive and disequalizing actions of a formerly (somewhat) free society in the US (see Naomi Wolf's The End of America) has been blinded by the same cultural denial that kept it from being incredibly obvious then. Responding quickly and massively to the climate crisis and especially getting the perpetrators of the denying delayalist lies to admit the full extent, funding, methods and the wrongness of them, is crucial to avoiding ever-increasing fascism in our responses to the worsening emergency.

We live in a society dominated by violence from the top down, secrecy, lies, denial, conspiracy and manipulation, torture, imprisonment (a higher % than any other country on Earth, and necessary in ours for racial and class control in an increasingly unequal but decreasingly numerically white society), and new laws from the 2007 NDAA, tort reform, Citizens United and McCutcheon, TTP…. and many many more, designed to allow further repression,; coupled with economic actions that make for greater divisions and a more desperate (and therefore more compliant) populace. jWe're headed for very hard times, far worse than what Germany went through between the wars, and the tendency is very strong for societies to close down into repression in such situations.

A quick reversal of those laws, and dismantling of the structures leading us toward that repression, a quick mobilization to build clean renewable energy, reforest the planet and transform agriculture to low-meat organic permaculture, and prosecution of climate criminals along with a generous and regenerative, trust-building Truth and Reconciliation process may be the best things to prevent fascism and the failure to avoid catastrophe that that would avoid.

Roberts on IAMs

mt is keen on Roberts on IAMs. Why I'm not sure; I've never been terribly keen on Roberts: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2015/01/17/how-much-is-climate-change-going-to-cost-us/ perhaps?

The Talk Talk Hack

Via Timmy, a post by ASP.NET, C# and SQL Developer Tim Almond.

Putting the Climate Debate In Its Proper Perspective

At The Lukewarmer's Way. There may be more to say around this subject, but for now I'll just note this post and my comment.

Matt Ridley: “Do people mind more about inequality than poverty?” (So what if somebody else has a yacht?)

A post at Reason and Reality, tag line "If You're Not Outraged, You're Not Paying Attention" by Colin Lawson. Which I came to via Twitter.

Pitchforks and Exxon

Climate Denial Crock of the Week with Peter Sinclair offers Prison for Exxon Execs?

See-also: Exxon Speaks.

Matt Ridley is an idiot

The Idiot Tracker has a post on Ridley, largely denouncing him for praising Willis Eschenbach.

ExxonMobil climate change

By Tamino: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/10/16/exxonmobil-climate-change.

Kinda the Exxon-secret-climate-research-programme nonsense again, a-la http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2015/09/23/episode-iv-the-evil-empire-strikes-back/, but with a letter from Congress critters thrown in.

Your pathetic attempt at character assassination cuts no ice

A new comment on the post "What shall we tell the children?"
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2015/09/07/what-shall-we-tell-the-children/
Author: Jaime Jessop

Comment:
#41 Kevin O'Neill

Your pathetic attempt at character assassination cuts no ice and is ludicrously ill informed. I'll reply to your comment on my blog if I can actually be bothered.

#42 You hide your ignorance and ideological bias behind a string of insults. Waste of space. No further comment.

NO fuckwit asshole likes your blog and wastes time with these underperformer texts of yours

A new comment on the post "“like being inside Hansens head”" 
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2015/08/02/like-being-inside-hansens-head/

Author: kai 
Comment:

conoli: are you too stupid to grasp that NO fuckwit asshole likes your blog and wastes time with these underperformer texts of yours full of logical fallacies, self-complacencies and othet intellectual dirt. give it up, boy, you are never a scientist and no writer, just very untalented, poor guy

your intellectual level is BY FAR TOO LOW to moodderaete whatever you mental dwarf shice out

A new comment on the post "“like being inside Hansens head”"
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2015/08/02/like-being-inside-hansens-head/

Author: kai 

Comment:conoli: i give a shit of your 'moderation": your intellectual level is BY FAR TOO LOW to moodderaete whatever you mental dwarf shice out. your is underground level primitive and unpleadant, and you allgation is ZERO. ZERO ZERO, because the derangement i applicable: huihuihui hahaha!!

your self-esteem is grotesquely exaggerated as superfsnatic partizan climate hallucinist egoist

A new comment on the post "“like being inside Hansens head”"
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2015/08/02/like-being-inside-hansens-head/

Author: kai

Comment:
conoli excreted: "... bla bla bla ..those days ..... when I did science ..... bla bla....": you were a cheap computer programmer, nothing else, you blather. your self-esteem is grotesquely exaggerated as superfsnatic partizan climate hallucinist egoist. shut up and do something for your poor family, BLATHERER

Potholes In Their Arguments?

No-one can accuse the Watties of being up-to-date; see Potholes In Their Arguments and compare to Fossil fuels subsidised by $10m a minute, says IMF?

The sad tales of the Wikipedia gang war regarding WUWT – ‘creepy and a little scary’?

I tried talking a bit; see an archive.

One of my comments made it through:

 * Hello dahlings. How’s the paper coming along?

And so did another; and a third. But after that, things dried up, with the appallingly dangerous:

  left which went unpublished so far, as well as at least one other. Well, glasnost was only going to last so long.

[Update: now published, it looks like. So they're just slow.]

Unlike the comment just after, which I've highlighted, which clearly met all the WUWT comment guidelines. At least, the unofficial ones which are actually implemented - the "official" ones are meaningless, of course.

A little later...

Sorry, gotta run, PBS Antiques Roadshow is on the telly

A new comment on the post "Agricultural land value as a percentage of GDP" 
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2015/05/13/agricultural-land-value-as-a-percentage-of-gdp/

Author: Everett F Sargent
Bernard J.,

Don't go there because:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idolatry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology

Combine those two and you get (made up):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiotolatry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiotology

If humanity could just get past those two issues, religious and ideological beliefs, just imagine what we all could accomplish.

But don't forget VALUE, everything is predicated based on VALUE.  Or is VALUE an assumption or a priori/a posteriori premises or a herd mentality predicated on humanity competing for things, via say auctions, and people shouting in stock markets, etceteras:

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/05/06/van-gogh-s-painting-sells-for-66m-nearly-six-times-its-2003-pr/21180474/

(the materials in that painting are worth like $0.99 at the dollar store)

I'm pretty sure during the Great Depression most people were satisfied with just trying to just meet their basic needs, food, clothing and shelter, we're no longer in a Great Depression, however it would appear that a few billion humans still would like to obtain those very basic needs.

I'm not in 'it' to win 'it' but most people appear to be of that, err disposition.  When people lose faith in an economic system (of governance) you get zombies.

Are we all just flying dinosaurs collecting shiny things, and if so, to what end.  Presumably to collect even more shiny things.

Sorry, gotta run, PBS Antiques Roadshow is on the telly.

What is the sensitivity?

A new comment on the post "Currygate and wikipedia" is waiting for your approval
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2015/03/13/currygate-and-wikipedia/

Author : PlanetaryPhysicsGroup (but really, its Doug Cotton again)
Comment:
 

<b>What is the sensitivity for each 1% of the most prolific "greenhouse gas" (namely water vapor) in Earth's atmosphere?</b>

To help any of you answer the question, here are some facts:

<b>Fact 1:</b>  Water vapor absorbs a significant amount of incident solar radiation as shown <a href="https://www.google.com.au/search?q=solar+absorption+spectrum+images&amp;biw=1920&amp;bih=989&amp;tbm=isch&amp;tbo=u&amp;source=univ&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=Yv8FVYXhAYvo8AXsyoLgAg&amp;ved=0CDEQ7Ak#imgdii=_&amp;imgrc=nZPQWcmcfvv7rM%253A%3BZsBVhE4WQrQ-5M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fupload.wikimedia.org%252Fwikipedia%252Fcommons%252F4%252F4c%252FSolar_Spectrum.png%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fen.wikipedia.org%252Fwiki%252FAir_mass_(solar_energy)%3B800%3B595" rel="nofollow">here</a>. The atmosphere absorbs about 20% of incident solar radiation and that absorbing is not by nitrogen, oxygen or argon. (Carbon dioxide also absorbs incident photons in the 2.1 micron range which each have about 5 times the energy of 10 micron photons coming up from the surface.  On Venus over 97% of the energy from incident solar radiation is retained in carbon dioxide molecules.)

<b>Fact 2:</b>  The concentration of water vapor varies between about 1% and 4%.  (The concentration of carbon dioxide above Mauna Loa is 0.04% and, as <a href="http://americantraditions.org/Articles/Positive%20Proof%20that%20Carbon%20Dioxide%20(CO2)%20Is%20Not%20a%20Driver%20of%20Global%20Warming.htm" rel="nofollow">this</a> graph shows, temperatures there have not increased since 1959.)

<b>Fact 3:</b>  The IPCC claims that water vapor does nearly all of "33 degrees of warming" of Earth's surface.  It must do most of it because it dominates CO2 in concentration and also in the number of frequency bands in which it absorbs and radiates.  But in fact water vapor lowers the "lapse rate" so that the temperature profile rotates downwards at the surface end, making the surface cooler.  (In fact, as per my <a href="http://www.climate-change-theory.com/Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures.pdf" rel="nofollow">paper</a>, there is no 33 degrees of warming being done by any back radiation because it is gravity which props up the surface end of the temperature profile.)

When you have answered the question, work out how much hotter the IPCC conjecture implies a region with 4% water vapor would be than a similar region with 1% water vapor at a similar altitude and latitude. Then look up the study in the Appendix of my <a href="http://www.climate-change-theory.com/Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures.pdf" rel="nofollow">paper</a> and see what real world data tells us about how water vapor cools rather than warms.  And if you don't believe my study, then spend half a day doing your own.

Finally, note that it is quite clear in the energy diagram <a href="http://climate-change-theory.com/PSI.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and the text I wrote beneath it that they have certainly added 324W/m^2 of back radiation to 168W/m^2 of solar radiation in order to use this in Stefan Boltzmann calculations to determine the temperature of the surface.  Obviously they worked out by difference what the back radiation figure had to be and made it 66% greater than the 195W/m^2 of upward radiation from the atmosphere to space.  They need not have bothered, because their whole paradigm is wrong, because they ignored the fact that the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that gravity forms the temperature and density gradients - which represent the state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

Why would anyone credit

A new comment on the post "Exit Pachi, pursued by no-one"
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2015/02/25/exit-pachi-pursued-by-no-one/
Author : Brad Keyes
Comment:

Steve,
Sorry mate, but this is laughable:
<blockquote>Keyes, I think Dr. Connolley is generally preferred in these circumstances.</blockquote>I'm laughing. You've made me laugh.

Why would anyone credit what "[you] think" on the subject of contemporary social mores among humans when your concept of etiquette begins with calling me "Keyes"? ROFL

As for your suggestion that our gracious host is such an insecure mediocrity that he'd actually insist, with a straight face, in 2015, that everyone who visits his <i>blog</i> validate his supposed completion of a PhD on an unknown subject—though he doesn't even see fit to mention this anywhere else on the page!—well, what can I say, Steve? <i><b>Nobody</i></b> could be as pompous as that. And (a posteriori) they're NOT, are they? Look around. <i><b>Nobody on this page</i></b> typed "Dr. Connolley" until you did, Steve. Not even our host. Who signs his blog 'William Connolley.'

Yes, you're the epitome of class

A new comment on the post "rigorously eschewing the unfortunate ad hominem arguments that too often characterize public “debate” about human-caused climate change"
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2015/02/24/rigorously-eschewing-the-unfortunate-ad-hominem-arguments-that-too-often-characterize-public-debate-about-human-caused-climate-change/

Author : Tom Fuller
Comment:

Yes, you're the epitome of class and hence entitled to lecture others on the subject.

Censored again!

A new comment on the post "rigorously eschewing the unfortunate ad hominem arguments that too often characterize public “debate” about human-caused climate change" 
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2015/02/24/rigorously-eschewing-the-unfortunate-ad-hominem-arguments-that-too-often-characterize-public-debate-about-human-caused-climate-change/
Author : Tom Fuller 

Comment:
Censored again!  Bye Cunnelly

As Cook wrote on Skeptical Science

New comment on your post "rigorously eschewing the unfortunate ad hominem arguments that too often characterize public “debate” about human-caused climate change"
Author: Tom FullerComment: Marco, (snore)

"As Cook wrote on Skeptical Science, “We’re basically going with [a definition of] AGW = “humans are causing global warming” Eg [sic] – no specific quantification.” This is very different from what the IPCC says–that humans have caused 90% of global warming."

During the study that was the basis for QTC, two teams of citizen scientist analysts classified papers using 7 different categories ranging from explicit endorsement to explicit rejection. The Cook et al study data base has seven categories of rated abstracts:
1. 65     explicit endorse, &gt;50% warming caused by man
2. 934 explicit endorse
3. 2,933 implicit endorse
4. 8,261 no position
5. 53     implicit reject
6. 15     explicit reject
7. 10     explicit reject, &lt;50% warming caused by man

The highest level of endorsement–“Endorsement level 1, Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%.(human actions causing 50% or more warming)” was assigned by the raters to a grand total of 65 out of the 12,000 papers evaluated. This certainly is a weak finding. Even combined with level 2’s 934 papers it amounts to less than 10%.

&quot;“Let’s walk through that sentence again. The Cook et al 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change. http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97
Permalink: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2015/02/24/rigorously-eschewing-the-unfortunate-ad-hominem-arguments-that-too-often-characterize-public-debate-about-human-caused-climate-change/#comment-52782

The movie District 9 ... was an allegorical reference to racism in South Africa

A new comment on the post "Exit Pachi, pursued by no-one"
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2015/02/25/exit-pachi-pursued-by-no-one/
Author : Shub
Comment:

The movie District 9 ... was an allegorical reference to racism in South Africa. Fitting that AndPhysics and Chinky Stoat help each out so much.

I'm with William

New comment on your post "Exit Pachi, pursued by no-one"
Permalink: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2015/02/25/exit-pachi-pursued-by-no-one/#comment-52717
Author: Brad Keyes

Comment: [Redacted -W],

I'm with William. Please stop self-censoring on our account. If you opine something, say something.

People are beginning to talk. An unkind meme is now in general circulation to the effect that you lack the verbal and cognitive dexterity to come up with a clever insult, hence your continual and cliched retreat to the "I can't tell you what I really think of you" position. Which is a fiction, of course: William (and I!) would gladly welcome the historic event of your giving someone a piece of your mind.

Do it already, [Redacted -W].

— Brad

<b><i>PS</i></b> Let me point out for the benefit of third persons that [Redacted -W] antipathy to me, passive-aggressive as it may be, is entirely justified. I used to be bemused by it myself, but then I found out we'd <a href="https://totheleftofcentre.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/1906/" rel="nofollow">met in a previous life, when [redacted -W] was TLOC</a>. Having re-read that thread I can't blame him for nursing a vendetta, not for one second.

Global Warming and Earthquakes

A new comment on the post "Boron isotope evidence for oceanic carbon dioxide leakage during the last deglaciation. And..."
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2015/02/16/boron-isotope-evidence-for-oceanic-carbon-dioxide-leakage-during-the-last-deglaciation/

Author : Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)

Comment:
Global Warming and Earthquakes
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2015/02/05/toward-a-new-theory-of-ice-ages-iii-global-warming-and-earthquakes/

Thermal crust expansion, decomposition and the Carbon cycle
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2015/02/06/toward-a-new-theory-of-ice-ages-iv-thermal-crust-expansion-decomposition-and-the-carbon-cycle/

How CO2 could control climate
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2015/02/10/toward-a-new-theory-of-ice-ages-viii-how-co2-could-control-climate/

Toward a new theory of ice-ages XIV (Putting it all together)
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2015/02/15/toward-a-new-theory-of-ice-ages-xiv-putting-it-all-together/

Your comment is awaiting moderation

Ah, where have I heard that before? This time at ATTP's Scientific civility and the climate wars from whence I suspect it will be rejected, so I'll post it here instead. Good grief he gets his fair share of cretins.

Your comment is awaiting moderation. 

February 11, 2015 at 8:20 pm

>> “So lets say Connelly is a fake skeptic with regards to my ‘skepticism””
> I’d go along with that. A “skeptic” draws…

Fuck you both. Idiots. Learn to read, learn to spell, learn to use titles.

Our group of physicists will refute all blog posts that... Whatevs

A new comment on the post "How much is climate change going to cost us?"

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2015/01/17/how-much-is-climate-change-going-to-cost-us/



Author : Planetary Physics (IP: 121.218.207.188 , CPE-121-218-207-188.lnse4.cht.bigpond.net.au)

E-mail : its.not.C02@gmail.com

URL    :

Whois  : http://whois.arin.net/rest/ip/121.218.207.188

Comment:

OPEN LETTER TO ANTHONY WATTS at WATTSUPWITHTHAT



Our group of physicists will refute all blog posts that continue to promote the false IPCC radiative forcing conjecture.



Anthony



See what our growing group of physicists (who all agree with me) does to the reputation of your blog site that continues to promulgate the false IPCC physics that IR-active gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane etc) cause surface warming.  Clearly water vapor reduces the temperature gradient.  How could it possibly raise the surface end of the temperature profile at the same time, thus leading to enormous imbalance in net radiative flux at TOA? You have no understanding of the relevant physics Anthony, and you certainly are in no position to judge my physics in which I have qualifications and decades of experience, like John Turner who reviewed my book as below ...



Review of Amazon book: "Why It's Not Carbon Dioxide After All"



"Doug Cotton shows how simple thermodynamic physics implies that the gravitational field of a planet will establish a thermal gradient in its atmosphere. The thermal gradient, a basic property of a planet, can be used to determine the temperatures of its atmosphere, surface and sub-surface regions. The interesting concept of "heat creep" applied to diagrams of the thermal gradient is used to explain the effect of solar radiation on the temperature of a planet. The thermal gradient shows that the observed temperatures of the Earth are determined by natural processes and not by back radiation warming from greenhouse gases. Evidence is presented to show that greenhouse gases cool the Earth and do not warm it."



John Turner B.Sc.;Dip.Ed.;M.Ed.(Hons);Grad.Dip.Ed.Studies (retired physics educator)



Others in our group will be posting plenty until you get it right about the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient and the convective heat transfers which (in accord with the Second Law) are establishing thermodynamic equilibrium with maximum entropy.



Doug

Confess, clown!

Author : kai 
Comment:

did you always pay all your invoices in the austrian hut's, you AGW clown? confess, clown!

You can see all comments on this post here:

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/12/30/ruderhofspitze-fail/#comments