Why is it 'clueless' to challenge people's opinions in blog comments Shub?

I'm differing with people here, not 'actively haranguing' them.

Who here is 'just like how you were before'?

BBD,

"The name's familiar. CA? WUWT?"

The bulk of my comments have probably been at Lucia's, followed by CA. A couple at RC and SkepticalScience.

1) You seemed to have missed the point of my first answer, which I'll repeat: "Basically, if the climate of the last ~1500 years has varied more than expected, we would presume the science has something wrong: either the radiative forcings, missing causes of low frequency natural variability, or the response to those forcings."

You've responded with, "But it was not forced by increased RF from CO2 during the MWP, so it must have been something else. Solar variation remains the only other plausible source of increased RF".

Yes, it wasn't CO2. As I'll point out below, an increase in TSI alone (as used in current GCMs/estimates) would not allow account for high variability in temperatures over the last millenium (an implication if the hockeystick were "debunked"). Thus, as I've stressed, one would be left with the lingering question -- how do we explain the discrepancy, and could similar sources of variation have been acting in the 20th century?

2) "You appear to be making some assumptions about GAT during the MWP. What are your references for the assertion that 'the forcing from TSI alone would NOT be sufficient to explain' the MWP? (I don't want to get off into models and hindcasting here)."

I'm not making any assumptions about the GAT during the MWP. You seem to imply that the hockeystick is irrelevant to the question of sensitivity. I'm saying IF the MWP had a GAT greater (or similar) to today, it would suggest issues with the "consensus" understanding of the science, since the models that reflect this understanding cannot properly reproduce such variability in their hindcasts (or in the early 20th century, for that matter). The reason is simple: using estimates of the TSI forcing alone cannot produce such variability. TSI reconstructions show about a 1 W/m^2 variation in the solar cycle, but let's be generous and say it varied 2 W/m^2 over the last 1000 years. After accounting for geometry (shadow area / surface area) and albedo (~30%), this is only about a .35 W/m^2 actual solar forcing on Earth. A climate sensitivity of 3 C / 3.7 W/m^2 would suggest that the maximum variation from TSI alone is around .3 C. Hence, we are left with lingering questions, IF indeed the recent past variability was much greater than that.

3) "Something of a non-answer. I asked if the scientific basis for AGW had been challenged successfully." Actually, you asked, "A substantial body of work points to increased radiative forcing by CO2 as an energetically sufficient cause for much recent warming. Has it been refuted or even seriously challenged?"

I pointed out that the radiative forcing by CO2 is uncontroversial, but that the question is climate sensitivity. To illustrate this, and why other forcings or natural variability are important when constraining sensitivity, I pointed out that if one looked at the CO2 forcing alone it suggests a sensitivity less than 3C (or we would have seen more warming). It is only when adding in a large (and uncertain) aerosol forcing that you can reconcile 20th century observations with a 3C sensitivity. This is rather uncontroversial, do you disagree? Thus, if we are missing a forcing or other sources of variability, it will impact the estimated sensitivity...which is where the relevance of past variability comes in.

4) "'If the current science is underestimating other forcings or sources of natural variability'. Where's the evidence? What other forcings? You can't argue for this scenario and an over-estimate of forcing from CO2 unless you can back it up. This applies to your suggestion that CS has also been over-estimated."

First of all, I am not suggesting the CO2 _forcing_ has been overestimated, only that the climate _sensitivity_ could be over-estimated IF we fail to account for other forcings or sources of variation. The "evidence" that we are missing these factors would be the inability to hindcast/explain sources of past variability, which is where the paleo (e.g. hockeystick) data would theoretically fit in. Once again, you've asked for the relevance of the hockey stick, and I'm giving it to you.

5) "You are continuing the argument, without evidence, that CS is substantially lower than ~3C. Without recourse to 'mystery forcings' we are left with the strong likelihood of CS being ~3C. Aerosols and energetic accumulation in the deep ocean are the most likely modifiers of the effects of CO2 forcing on atmospheric temperatures."

If this is the quality of response you will provide in the future, I'm afraid this conversation is not worth continuing after this post. Your original question #5 asked, "If 'something else' is responsible for modern warming, it should be warmer than it is. How do you explain the missing heat?"

I explained that in that scenario (where we discover "something else"), it would imply that climate sensitivity is less than 3C. This seems rather obvious. If we discovered another positive forcing acting in the latter part of the 20th century, you're saying you *wouldn't* lower your estimate of climate sensitivity? But then you've gone on to use circular logic: we can't be missing any factor because then at 3C climate sensitivity we'd have seen more warming (your original question), and we know the CS is 3C because that's our estimate if we're not missing any 'mystery forcings'. Of course, the fact of the matter is that even without a "mystery" forcing, the uncertainty surrounding the aerosol forcing (and ocean heat uptake) does not do much to constrain sensitivity at 3C.

6) "As I said, debunking the Hockey Stick does nothing to AGW theory. We appear to agree on this."

You have asked how the hockey-stick might be relevant to the AGW argument. I've explained that higher, unexplained variability in the recent past would lead to less confidence that we've taken into account all relevant factors in the recent warming (and in current GCMs), and that if other factors are at play this could suggest a sensitivity lower (or higher) than 3C. So it's more than "nothing" at this point, but as I've said, the hockey stick is certainly not the most important aspect of climate science.

BBD
You now, on Soon and Baliunas

"No, it was a deliberate attempt to suggest - incorrectly - that the dominant climate influence is natural variation.

You then:

But I have to hand it to Gavin for the way he bats away the entire Hockey Stick Affair and its implications for the politicisation of climate science including the supression of evidence of strong natural variation...

and

This is downright cheeky:

"No ‘conflict resolution’ is possible between the science community who are focussed on increasing understanding, and people who are picking through the scientific evidence for cherries they can pick to support a pre-defined policy position."

It's the implication of that last sentence that infuriates me. So the politics is only prior if you are sceptical? Doesn't enter into the science, not a bit

So, depending on what you believe at the moment, the other party is EVIL?

Please spare us.

I liked the last bit. Here is a question, from you, to you: "So the politics is only prior if you are sceptical?"

Troy_CA

If this is the quality of response you will provide in the future, I'm afraid this conversation is not worth continuing after this post.

Very possibly. You are, after all, simultaneously arguing for a high CS (to account for past climate variation) and a low one to avoid the problems implicit in anthropogenic emissions.

Sensitivity to RF is just that; a solar source or a re-radiative atmospheric one are effectively equivalent in this type of discussion. Energy is just energy. And climate sensitivity to a forcing of 3.7W/m2 is about 3C. I'm not proposing to argue over this estimate - I simply agree with expert opinion here (eg Annan & Hargreaves 2006; Hansen & Sato 2011; Knutti & Hegerl 2008)

The reason is simple: using estimates of the TSI forcing alone cannot produce such variability.

I asked for references for this. You didn't provide any. What are you basing this assertion on? Back of the envelope forcing calculations are not sufficient. And don't forget the possible role of volcanic aerosols.

Your apparently contradictory argument also requires assumptions about global average temperatures during the MWP that are controversial and not widely accepted. This is a big problem, especially as you deny it and then do it in the same breath:

I'm not making any assumptions about the GAT during the MWP.

And the next sentence but one:

I'm saying IF the MWP had a GAT greater (or similar) to today, it would suggest issues with the "consensus" understanding of the science, since the models that reflect this understanding cannot properly reproduce such variability in their hindcasts (or in the early 20th century, for that matter).

There you go - your argument requires assumptions about global average temperature during the MWP. Controversial and not-widely accepted assumptions at that.

how do we explain the discrepancy, and could similar sources of variation have been acting in the 20th century?

And:

I explained that in that scenario (where we discover "something else"), it would imply that climate sensitivity is less than 3C. This seems rather obvious. If we discovered another positive forcing acting in the latter part of the 20th century, you're saying you *wouldn't* lower your estimate of climate sensitivity?

I do not accept that 'mystery forcings' are any more than hand-waving. You need evidence, and there isn't any. So I'll stick with the 3C estimate of CS for now.

For these reasons and others, I find the mainstream scientific position on all this substantially more coherent and persuasive than your arguments here.

Beyond this, I can't be bothered either. Too much waffle and too many unreferenced assertions that are absolutely central to your position. But thanks for dropping by.

Shub

Standard misrepresentation: where's this crap about 'EVIL' coming from?

WRT 'the politics is only prior if you are sceptical'. I changed my mind after a careful, honest review of the evidence. The organised pseudo-sceptics in the US are demonstrably motivated by money and politics. Look at the relations between the 'think tanks' and the 'sceptics' and follow the twin trails of money and politics. It's all bloody obvious really. You just have to stop denying the evidence and start reading it. Greenpeace isn't my favourite club either, but the investigative work is sound. Look at Exxon Secrets.

Most of the rest of 'climate scepticism' derives from a toxic combination of being ill-informed and frightened of the truth. So the answer depends on who you are. For some, the money is prior; for others the politics; for most it's ignorance that is prior.

The problem is that 'sceptics' like yourself refuse to look at the science without bias. So you remain in your echo-chamber, terminally confused and confusing others.

The quote-mining is a bore by the way. Just say something interesting.

Shub at Dec 14, 2011 at 8:26 PM

So you freely admit to changing your mind (not a problem), but are clueless enough to actively harangue people who are just like how you were before?

There is no point in arguing with a born-again Christian/non-smoker/warmist, Shub. The behaviour of all of them is essentially identical.
They have no problem admitting that they were wrong before but having seen the light they cannot understand why everyone isn't of the same mind.
For all the research that BBD is carrying out, or at least all the papers he quotes (not necessarily the same thing), his present position is essentially one of new-found faith, as he made fairly clear in his Dec 14, 11.29 am post where he said, "I literally cannot understand how your minds work".
He is just about managing to keep a civil tongue in his head in his engagements with Troy_CA but there appears to be no understanding of what Troy is actually saying.
I shall be interested to see how long it lasts.

Mike

For all the research that BBD is carrying out, or at least all the papers he quotes (not necessarily the same thing)

You are at it again. You are going to have to put your money where your mouth is.

I'm having to repeat myself. Once should have been enough:

You've recently latched on to the idea that I don't know what I'm talking about. I say you are wrong. Provide clear examples to back this up (a single mistake is not sufficient) or stop doing it.
Dec 14, 2011 at 3:28 PM

BBD,

This has truly been surreal. I asked you to consider how a singular piece of evidence (the hockeystick) fits in with the rest of AGW, and why someone (e.g., the IPCC, skeptics) might consider it (or its "debunking") of some importance with respect to the science and question of climate sensitivity.

YOUR premise is that the GAT during the MWP and LIA (i.e., the hockeystick [yes, some use NH as a proxy for "global"]) is irrelevant to the question of sensitivity (or AGW in general). But when I show that higher variance in the GAT for the MWP and LIA *would* have implications for sensitivity, you claim I am making "assumptions about global average temperatures during the MWP that are controversial and not widely accepted". This is of course an absurd objection, as you can imagine in this caricature (gotta keep it light):

JOE: I'll be at work tomorrow, and it doesn't matter whether it's sunny or snowing.

FRED: Actually, if it snows, they close down the road and you might not make it in.

JOE: You're making assumptions about it snowing. Give me evidence that it will!

Re TSI: "I asked for references for this. You didn't provide any. What are you basing this assertion on? Back of the envelope forcing calculations are not sufficient. And don't forget the possible role of volcanic aerosols."

I didn't realize that math was insufficient unless it was peer-reviewed. Unfortunately, I don't think you'll find a journal that acceps such trivial calculations (you may try an introductory atmospheric physics textbook for converting from TSI to the global, diurnally averaged solar forcing). Furthermore, I see you already have the goalposts prepared to move, throwing in another forcing (volcanic aerosols, which typically have a cooling impact, by the way) beyond "simply TSI".

"Energy is just energy. And climate sensitivity to a forcing of 3.7W/m2 is about 3C. I'm not proposing to argue over this estimate - I simply agree with expert opinion here (eg Annan & Hargreaves 2006; Hansen & Sato 2011; Knutti & Hegerl 2008)."

Well, considering climate sensitivity is the central question ("holy grail") of WG1 climate science, I guess this conversation was pointless to begin with. It's definitely not worth continuing. I will end with the note from my last post pointing out where the hockey-stick fits in within this issue of sensitivity, since you said it was irrelevant:

"You have asked how the hockey-stick might be relevant to the AGW argument. I've explained that higher, unexplained variability in the recent past would lead to less confidence that we've taken into account all relevant factors in the recent warming (and in current GCMs), and that if other factors are at play this could suggest a sensitivity lower (or higher) than 3C. So it's more than "nothing" at this point, but as I've said, the hockey stick is certainly not the most important aspect of climate science."

BBD
In case you hadn't noticed I was talking to Shub. If ever I need your opinion be sure I shall make a point of asking you for it directly.

Troy

What is truly surreal is your ability to take what I have written above and convert it into... something else.

I don't do 'blog logic'. So either respond to what I write, or go and bore somebody else.

Mike

Eh?

It's blog comments. You were running me down, again. I can respond if I wish. And I do wish.

He is just about managing to keep a civil tongue in his head in his engagements with Troy_CA but there appears to be no understanding of what Troy is actually saying.
I shall be interested to see how long it lasts.

Somewhat less than 24 hours! Pity I didn't start a book.
"Running you down"? Merely making an observation: quoting sources is not the same as having read and understood them. You certainly didn't seem to understand what Troy_CA was talking about. You didn't even apparently recognise a hypothetical argument. It's all black and white with you. No ifs, ands or buts. What an awful life!

Mike

Would you mind summarising Troy's argument just to demonstrate that you understood it?

Then perhaps you can show me where I went wrong.

Mike

"Running you down"? Merely making an observation: quoting sources is not the same as having read and understood them.

How would I know that they were relevant then? Guesswork? Paranormal ability?

How would I know that they were relevant then? Guesswork? Paranormal ability?

Flannel? Relying on other people's ignorance (a known warmist trait if the climategate emails are to be believed)? Scattergun principle? Any,all, or none of the above?

Where you went wrong (1) was in your 11.38 am contribution, pointed out by Troy_AC at 4.52pm. He posits a "what if .."; you promptly accuse him of taking that hypothesis as a fact. Exactly what I meant when I said you didn't recognise a hypothetical argument.
Where you went wrong (2) was in your 5.26pm contribution when you said "So either respond to what I write, or go and bore somebody else."

I Either an inability or a deliberate refusal to understand what someone has written.
2 A simple exercise in bad manners and a refusal to engage with someone who, from where I am sitting, made some worthwhile points — which you simply don't want to hear.

Sorry Mike, there's been a misunderstanding.

I asked you summarise Troy's argument so I could see what you made of it. Once you've done that, we can continue.

Here's my original comment:

Mike

Would you mind summarising Troy's argument just to demonstrate that you understood it?

Then perhaps you can show me where I went wrong.

@Mike Jackson Dec 15, 2011 at 9:03 PM

I Either an inability or a deliberate refusal to understand what someone has written.
2 A simple exercise in bad manners and a refusal to engage with someone who, from where I am sitting, made some worthwhile points — which you simply don't want to hear.

Hmmm ... sounds like you are speaking of our resident zealot. His posting record strongly suggests that - far more often than not - once he has decided to pollute a thread, he appoints himself judge, jury and dictator/moderator-wannabe. Typically, in the exercise of his self-appointed "roles", both 1. and 2. as you have articulated them, are equally applicable. Furthermore, again considering his posting history, one might even go so far as to suggest that 1. and 2. are actually his good points!

Back in September, I came to the conclusion that attempting to engage his "arguments" (for want of a better word, at the moment) was a complete and utter waste of my time. I have not done so since (nor do I have any intention of doing so - although I shall certainly continue to occasionally exercise my right to share my observations on his posting patterns.)

At this point, I cannot even imagine what he thinks he might possibly be accomplishing. His predictable parade of pompous proclamations and pontifications (not to mention his temper tantrums, and walls of text, interwoven with juvenile insults 'n whines) can serve only one purpose: to deliberately divert the thread to such an extent that eventually any and all who might be interested in intelligent, informed, intellectually honest, adult discussion decide that their time is better spent elsewhere.

<cue whine from zealous boorish boring dictator-wannabe>

Hilary

Back in September, I came to the conclusion that attempting to engage his "arguments" (for want of a better word, at the moment) was a complete and utter waste of my time. I have not done so since (nor do I have any intention of doing so - although I shall certainly continue to occasionally exercise my right to share my observations on his posting patterns.)

You don't engage with me because you don't have any good arguments. Which is why all you can do is snipe. The unfunny part of this is that we both know it's true and cannot do anything constructive about it.

Certain debating 'style' on this thread bears an uncanny resemblance to that of another contributor John C on another blog where NZClimate found the whole debate so odd he reproduced it in full. (Coincidentally, the NZClimate blog also relates to Soon et al. and de Freitas.)

http://newzealandclimatechange.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/climategate-2-defending-the-indefensible/

Hilary
The sad thing is that Troy_CA who, by his own account hasn't posted here before and certainly seems quite happy to put forward arguments on a range of blogs, makes a series of reasoned responses to a several questions and gets his backside kicked "from here to breakfast" for his pains.
After which it seems he has given up trying to debate with a brick wall and gone. And I can't blame him.
And he's not the only name that has gone AWOL lately, as far as I can see.
In fact, I don't know why we stay.

Matt
I've seen similar comments by an 'icarus' on other blogs (at other time/s in the past).

BBD,
So you have no answer to my final question?

Would that be the same 'icarus' who myth has it flew too close too close to certain solar renewables?

I often wonder how much of their retirement wealth people like 'icarus' have actually invested in renewables - and whether that may go part way to explaining their extreme intransigence.

I can't prove it, but I only ever post as BBD. I have never heard of, or visited the blogs you mention above.

Shub:

See Dec 15, 2011 at 11:56 AM

WRT 'the politics is only prior if you are sceptical'. I changed my mind after a careful, honest review of the evidence. The organised pseudo-sceptics in the US are demonstrably motivated by money and politics. Look at the relations between the 'think tanks' and the 'sceptics' and follow the twin trails of money and politics. It's all bloody obvious really. You just have to stop denying the evidence and start reading it. Greenpeace isn't my favourite club either, but the investigative work is sound. Look at Exxon Secrets.

Most of the rest of 'climate scepticism' derives from a toxic combination of being ill-informed and frightened of the truth. So the answer depends on who you are. For some, the money is prior; for others the politics; for most it's ignorance that is prior.

Mike:

Dec 15, 2011 at 10:22 PM? And Troy was being a rude prat. I get enough of this nonsense from you lot. Zero tolerance policy from now on:

If this is the quality of response you will provide in the future, I'm afraid this conversation is not worth continuing after this post.

This has truly been surreal.

I guess this conversation was pointless to begin with. It's definitely not worth continuing.

Worse, he then mangled what I said, whether deliberately or not, produced a messy argument, and then refused to admit that he had done either. As ever, I love the way your entirely selective version of reality didn't register any of this.

Now, summarise his argument please, as requested twice already.

Now, summarise his argument please, as requested twice already.

Shan't.
I am not prepared to be at your beck and call and no, it is not because I can't simply I see no good reason why I should engage in sterile argument.

And Troy was being a rude prat.

Pot. Kettle. He said nothing that you haven't said to us a doxen times.

So, after a careful and honest review of the evidence you concluded that the politics is prior only if you are skeptical. Is that correct?