Headgear on readers!
Today I am watching the watcher of Watching the Deniers. I was over at Jo Nova’s as I got a mention from Bob Tisdale over there. Bob and I are good mates, when he’s not making my comments disappear. I noticed a post from someone called Sheri who was saying she had set up a blog called watchingthewatchersofdeniers. It is dedicated apparently to debunking or critiquing or ….something… the WatchingtheDeniers site. I have to admit, I like the name of her blog. It is very clever. What a shame she is moronic beyond belief. She is however incredibly (and no doubt, unintentionally) funny. After I post this I will be subscribing to her blog for an occasional chuckle.
As I was scrolling through Sheri’s blog, I couldn’t help thinking I had struck DOCD and comedy gold. It was actually difficult to choose a single comment for me to use today with so many to choose from. I particularly like the way she makes up data to demonstrate some aspect of graphical representations or how meteorologists work out average temperatures. I particularly like her (+2 -2) /2 =0 demonstration for working out the global average temperature anomaly. Sheer brilliance in its simplicity. Why not use real data I have to wonder? Anyway, I urge you to check out her site. It’s a cracker!
The comment I eventually chose is fantastic. It is her assessment of the Bureau of Meteorology’s decision to expand the range of highest temperatures and add subsequent colours to the charts to represent the new range. Brace yourself!
Adding an additional color to the temperature map just means our current classification system needed revised. There is no magic to the colored charts used to show temperatures. Generally, the charts replace data because data is boring and pretty colors on maps are interesting.
How insightful is this? Where to begin? I know, how about we start with why the Bureau added the colours?
So thankyou Sheri. I’ll be watching you for comedy gold.
Couldn’t resist commenting over there
Me too.
http://watchingthewatchersofdeniers.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/six-aspects-of-climate-belief/comment-page-1/#comment-14
Quick read …. creationist having a go
that is so funny though
Okay, where is your integrity? Instead of picking on or bullying the girl, and making yourself appear better in the process, why don’t you offer an alternative…some nougat of information to bite on? Something contrary? Otherwise this is just tit for tat gossip. It’s certainly not science! I hope this blog is experiencing some sort of transitional adolescence…and that it moves along quickly through it.
Michael, try clicking on the last link. Plenty of factual information there. It’s a shame Sheri was too lazy or ignorant to go to the BOMsite and lok for their justification of putting on two new colours onto their charts instead of making moronic statementsoutof ignorance. May I suggest you go to her blog and question her integrity? Check my rules as well on your way over there.
Michael, are you aware that female scientists have been threatened with rape and even the death of their children, no doubt you are, so I would find your link to a statement from you, already made, to your disgust of such threats as proving your integrity . Your reference to “the girl” is an even worse put down than anything in the blog post,
John,
Apologies for using the word girl, it was an unfortunate choice…I was writing quite late last night. On the other hand, you’ve dug way too deep…quite past the point of my reply. In doing so you ignored the content and intent of this particular commentary by skipping to the word girl. The word girl, is meaningless, oblique in my reply. Read Language and Thought and you’ll understand why.
Here is the point. If this is a scientific blog run by science professionals, why is there a need to stoop the level of this kind of commentary? Why even pay attention to other Blogs, Jo Nova’s in particular? It does nothing to foster science and it makes this blog feel much more like a reality show…and I want to like this blog.
Regarding threats to female scientists…I find threats to any scientist or human disgusting. But, John, please knit your reply to mine a wee bit tighter…I’m still baffled by the connections you made and the reasons for them…perhaps you posses a background quite different than mine and are much more sensitive to some word choices than I. I have never experienced a threat to myself, my wife or anyone I know of the type you suggest.
…iknowispeaksense or anonymous…would be great to have a name. I did click the link and you are of course correct, it is quite easy to see why BMO used two new colors. But why stoop to her level, she isn’t worth your time? (John,’ her’ and ‘she’ are a deliberate choices here) The drama obscures the content…I find it very difficult to get past the drama. Your integrity suffers by association.
her and she, fine
but if the blog that mike referred to was run by a man, would you have used “the boy” no i think that you would agree, as you said you were tired so no further explanation is really needed.
Jonova
KinkyKeith
February 13, 2013 at 7:49 am · Reply
Andy
You’re my hero.
That was a great summary.
For those of us who understand it, it is the end of CAGW, otherwise known as Incineration by Carbon Dioxide.
The core mechanism that is at work is contained in the understanding about gas molecules of one type in the air; They have neighbours and are never alone.
Even if CO2 is able to specifically absorb extra energy, it will instantaneously share and transfer that energy to nearby gas molecules making the entire atmosphere participate.
CO2 can’t do much anyhow because there is not much of it ; water fills any role that might be seen for CO2 as being “dangerous to humans”.
Effectively the entire atmosphere absorbs the energy under discussion by CAGW enthusiasts, not just CO2.
If CO2 was missing entirely, the air would still get to the same temperature.
seriously?
________________________________
…that’s a casual explanation that requires an infra red transmission component to explain fully. And although I agree that our atmosphere can buffer changes to some extent, I don’t think I agree with the last sentence…that might assume that water vapor is solely responsible for regulating heat ay all altitudes…but I could be wrong.
If you are referring to kinky keith, michael, he is insane
I don’t know who I responding to really, it is difficult to know…Jonova, kinky keith?
Molecules re-radiate infrared in every direction, not just to adjacent molecules…unless we’re at absolute zero…every direction means into space as well which is one way earth cools itself…respiration if you will. The effect is not cumulative.
michael the radiation is slowed down in it’s path to space, due to greenhouse gases
this is why the planet is heating up, because we are out of equilibrium, less energy leaving than arriving
I do think that you may be getting a bit ahead of yourself.
go to the basics first.
this site is run by a team of scientists to provide information to the public.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
you can see who they are by using the link at the top
Hi John,
Elsewhere, I cannot remember, I posed a question to you about CO2between 5K -10K…because I am unclear about the processes at those altitudes. As an aside, I really have to learn to navigate through this blog more carefully.
Hopefully the link you provided and the one below, point me in the right direction.
Thank you.
The link provided by uknowispeaksense does not work. Funny, I have Real Climate on my screen as a short cut…been reading from there for some time.
Works for me Michael. Try google scholar with this CTA Chen, ET Drake – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary …, 1986 – adsabs.harvard.edu
Mike
________________________________
This Chen and Drake paper gives a brief history of the study of CO2 but also explains how CO2 increase results in net cumulative effect. it also an excellent look at CaCO3 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1986AREPS..14..201C
To assume that the amount of long wave radiation being reradiated back into space is equal to what is being retained within the atmosphere requires CO2 to be in a layer at the top of the atmosphere which of course it isn’t. Ask yourself, what is the likelihood that the reradiated energy from a single CO2 molecule at ground level is going to make it out into space? It might make it out eventually after exciting countless other molecules in its journey but this is where the timelag factor comes in. Increase the CO2 and other GHG’s and you increase the time it takes to be reradiated. Meanwhile the sun keeps doing its job at the same pace (pretty much). The end result is warming.
Just caught this…thanks. I have questions but hopefully the link answers them.
Michael Boice wrote
” If this is a scientific blog run by science professionals, why is there a need to stoop the level of this kind of commentary?”
If you are referring to “Denier Comment of the Day”, I find it not only entertaining but informative. It is good to know what arguments and “logic” people are using in the echo chamber of denial. The sex of the person is irrelevant, if they are putting a blog out there to spread their beliefs then they deserve to be challenged by anyone who thinks what they are promoting is incorrect or just ignorance and misinformation.
Michael, have you ever experienced a stuffy room, for most people that starts to occur at about 600ppm CO2, (my wife)
we are headed for a stuffy world
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/25/carbon-dioxide-decision-making-meeting-rooms-classrooms_n_2006289.html
I think I should laugh…? “(my wife)” I don’t want to be disrespectful.
was not going to call her my shag
you can use wife it is okay. she always introduces me as, my husband,
but anyway that is small bikkies
here is the big news
just sent a letter off
Dear Sir,
I would publicly like to thank The Minister for Environment and Heritage (climate change) Andrew Powell for his personal letter. It is not my place to reveal the contents of such privacy but hope that Mr. Powell might through a press release assure all Queenslanders of his commitment to the science as he has me. Andrew’s recognition of the science and the consequences of inaction are reassuring, Andrew will obviously meet with opposition to any action within the party room. May his God guide him and give him the strength of conviction.
Rgds
think i know what you are on to michael,
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=upper+atmosphere+greenhouse&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=
Looks like it…nice.
…more…
If I look at our atmosphere as a living breathing entity, I somehow see the thickness of our atmosphere growing in response to additional CO2. do we call this optical thickness? If not, then shouldn’t we expect greater atmospheric pressure? If I think back to the partial pressure of a gas, this makes sense to me. But these two scenarios have two profoundly different outcomes to my way of thinking…?
Or…thinking out loud, the upper atmosphere grows and the lower shrinks…bad word…more CO2 mass = greater atmospheric pressure at sea level. I suspect some sort of displacement is taking place…
You have a lot of advanced questions michael
best resource is http://scholar.google.com.au/
It may take you a few goes adding or deleting words to get what you want
you can change to, from 2012 or 2013 to get just recent stuff
Thank you again John. Do you mind the technical questions?
michael it is years since i went down your path so would need to refresh on a lot, do not try to reinvent the wheel with this. if you find a sceptic paper that you believe has merit then ask the question an put up that reference.
I don’t so much lean toward the side of the skeptic’s beliefs as I do to try to understand that point of view. I find some of ‘that’ information at once useful, and shortsighted.
It is approaching the science with an open mind and heart that can get you there
when andrew powell came to the ministry of climate change QLD last year he was a confirmed sceptic, probably through the bombardment of sceptic emails as the deniers subject all politicians, andrew even proclaimed his rejection of the science in the press,
he has worked through the questions, I have given him a hard time since he was elected, he has finally found the truth, he is to be congratulated
as i have done
Dear Editor,
I would publicly like to thank The Minister for Environment and Heritage (climate change) Andrew Powell for his personal letter. It is not my place to reveal the contents of such privacy but hope that Mr. Powell might through a press release assure all Queenslanders of his commitment to the science as he has me. Andrew’s recognition of the science and the consequences of inaction are reassuring, Andrew will obviously meet with opposition to any action within the party room. May his God guide him and give him the strength of conviction.
Rgds
John Byatt
Michael you made mention of running out of knowledge which is something that the deniers rely upon to try to discredit the science,
how they do that is to ask questions re Antarctic mass ice loss from a specialist in great barrier reef ecology, ask a scientist who might specialise
in oceanography about temperature changes in the alps,
The only scientists likely to be capable of answering most questions would be climatologists,
If they do not know the answers they will tell you, their honesty is then used by the deniers as proof that the science is too uncertain to act upon,
If you wanted to know about greenland ice sheet loss you would ask jason box, if you wanted to know how climate models are produced you would ask gavin schmidt.
The science covers just about every discipline now and are all in agreement , without action we are in trouble
Good morning John,
The names are indeed helpful. Enjoy this day! Are you in the US?
Near Fraser island in Queensland Australia Michael Tin can Bay,
the aboriginal name was tuncanba which suffered from their pronounciation
That strange blog
.” Even if we stopped fossil fuel usage tomorrow (which would cause worldwide war)”
We could all chuck rocks at each other?
Yep….she’s nuts!
John,
An interesting read by Hans von Storch, Regional Climate Knowledge for Society. I think I copied the link correctly…
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/110526-ESPI-Wien.pdf
WE are going about it the wrong way?
http://www.climatecodered.org/2013/02/fear-optimism-and-activism-what-drives.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimateCodeRed+%28climate+code+red%29
Hi Michael. Please believe me, I am trying to prevent you wasting your remaining years trying to uncover a truth that is already in plain sight. To this end, I should like to invite you to read the document linked-to here and to act accordingly:
http://www.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/ew@shell/API-prop.html
In 1998, then, the American Petroleum Institute (API) was spending millions of USD annually in order to achieve a “victory” wherein:
– Average citizens “understand” (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the “conventional wisdom”;
– Media “understands” (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science;
– Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current “conventional wisdom”;
– Industry senior leadership understands uncertainties in climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy; and
– Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extent science appears to be out of touch with reality.
There is just one problem with all of this: It required the creation of junk science to perpetuate the illusion of uncertainty where there is very little – just as did the tobacco industry before it. Please wake up and smell the coffee; and recognise who it is that has been lying to you for at least the last 25 years (if not more).
speechless
In his heart of heart’s, it seems, Evert Wesker is a bit of a pragmatic sceptic http://www.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/klimaat2.html
Sadly, his activities will probably result in the deaths of billions of people because in the post-Industrial society that is now coming, the Earth will probably not be capable of supporting more than a billion people (as it did before the Carbon era).
I wrote a longish reply and it disappeared and I’ve no energy to re-write it.
Legitimate fear and optimism (from the link you provided John)…and in between lay a necessary remedy and mitigation framework and that was the thrust of Hans von Storch’s paper. He is a proponent of AGW and his paper neither disputed AGW nor victimized the IPCC…so forgive me for being puzzled by your response Martin. That he subtly exposed the scientific process points to a recognition that the “roll of science” in this debate has been misguided in two specific areas with the IPCC.
I included the link to promote a discussion about a missing framework…one that is ably positioned to use science to effective international, regional and local remedy and mitigation. I thought the Storch’s paper was intelligent…at least he didn’t suggest the martians were at fault…Hare-Way to the Stars, 1958.
Yes read it michael which is why i put up Spratt’s opinion piece and noted that which most people responded to, fear and intelligent response
Spratt is correct in that in Australia the government is trying to sell a clean energy future when it should face the reality, that it is about the very survival of civilisation.
Michael, did your comment disappear at your end or my end? Sometimes various links can send a comment to spam or “pending”. I check my spam folder carefully before discarding and nothing of yours has appeared in either place. Cheers. Mike.
I’m a bit of a twit when working with computers…I work very fast and sometimes push buttons instinctively, without looking. I’m sure I deleted it mistakenly…wouldn’t be the first time. It was, as John just wrote, more about planning our survival. The reference to the Bugs Bunny Hare-Way to the Stars cartoon was hopefully a chuckle…it was the lone survivor of my previous post.
Thanks Mike.
Martin, from your link, and it echoes one of the comments made by Storch.
“In the meantime, the best that (meteo) scientists in this field can do is provide all information from their work to the public and keep their independence with respect to vested interests like the ones (the API) I mentioned above.”
I was reading that sheri blog watching the watchers, It was so creationist mindset that i just had to ask the question
john byatt says:
February 22, 2013 at 7:36 pm
How long have humans been on the earth Sheri?
Reality check says:
February 22, 2013 at 8:08 pm
Reply to John: As long as they have.
well that confirms my suspicion
you cannot reason with creationists nor conspiracy theorists
indeed
Outdid herself for moronic
this was my pick from that blog
D. Straw Man: Using a larger, more outrageous belief or idea to impugn someone’s beliefs
Example: Skeptics question climate science. Therefore, skeptics refuse to believe science.
Using the broader statement is designed make the disagreement irrational.
These arguments are often used in conjunction with ad hominem attacks.
and then a bit further down in the same post
Gravity is a physical phenomena that is clearly demonstrable. Climate change is not. We have limited data, various models and a system so complex a super computer is required to run the data. All of which can introduce error and serial error. While climate science likes to say it is “certain”, it is anything but certain. The only result one can produce is a probability coefficient or a confidence interval. These may be as high as 95%. They may be much lower. Results can fall outside the interval and the theory still be true, but not over and over again. It’s so much more difficult than dropping a hammer.
then again maybe it was an example
Well after a few weeks of posting there I have now retired. When it was pointed out that her ridiculous ideas were in fact ridiculous my posts started to be and then just about anything that contradicted her beliefs dissappeared altogether.
Yep, it’s difficult to maintain an echo chamber of ignorance if reasonable people keep interfering.
My search came up with no results
http://watchingthewatchersofdeniers.wordpress.com/?s=sanity
Oh John, that is too funny! I too got a non result http://watchingthewatchersofdeniers.wordpress.com/?s=intelligence