By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.

March 25, 2013

SS and other sites moderated by the SS kidz: the only region of the blogosphere where threads get progressively shorter.

They warned me it was Stalinesque, but I didn’t believe them. Silly me.

March 25, 2013

Is anyone here smarter than “a smart 13 year old” (h/t Bernard J) ?

Year 7 Kidz Maths Olympiad Challenge:

If the temperature response to every doubling of atmospheric CO2 were 2.5° Celsius, what would the temperature response to an increase in atmospheric CO2 from 396.8 ppm to 550 ppm be?

3. #3 Vince Whirlwind
March 25, 2013

The point is, Brad, you are a lying fuckwit who couldn’t possibly be intellectually enfeebled enough to genuinely believe that the serially-wrong non-scientist, conspiracy-theorist and mining stock spruiker Steve McIntyre is a “defender of science”.

March 25, 2013

That’s a rather odd answer to a maths problem, Vince.

March 26, 2013

You don’t know how to use logarithms, do you?

March 26, 2013

Tumbleweeds.

Listen fellas, I don’t have all day. But I’m a fair man. Instead of setting a time limit, I’ll set a comment limit.

If three (3) believalist comments are posted without answering the Year 7 Kidz Maths Olympiad Challenge question, it’s an admission that you’re all less numerate than a teenager.

Set.

Go.

7. #7 David B. Benson
March 26, 2013

Ocean SSTs set the land temperatures.

March 26, 2013

One down. Two to go.

March 26, 2013

We interrupt your logarithmic humbling to bring you this important

Lionel A has uncovered the existence of a possible identity racket:

BTW RedNose isn’t a Keyes sock emulating Duffspeak is it?

If you encounter RedNose, all should be treated as not being what it seems!
************************
We now return you to the Year 7 Kidz Maths Olympiad Challenge.

10. #10 Bernard J.
March 26, 2013

FrankD legitimately points out that I am needlessly cloggin up the Open Thread with Brad’s Pittance.

I’m pleased to see though that he’s responded here to my post:

To a smart 13 year old (or even to Vince’s 4-year-old spawn, for that matter) it’s instantly recognisable as the solution to a trivial mathematical problem:

If the temperature response to every doubling of atmospheric CO2 is 2.5° Celsius, what will the temperature response to an increase in atmospheric CO2 from 396.8 ppm to 550 ppm be?

If your, ahem, “colleague” knows a better way to the answer than by getting the log-base-2 of (550 ÷ 396.8) and multiplying it by 2.5° Celsius, tell your “colleague” to stop being a lurker and start interacting. Tell me the solution, Bernard… I mean, “Bernard’s colleague.”

Several points Keyes.

First, you said that there was no baseline. There is. The climate sensitivity is predicated on a doubling from a starting concentration of 275-280 ppm carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is the logarithmically-defined increment that determines the linear temperature respond per doubling. Change the size of the initial CO2 increment (with respect to a specific anomaly value) and you change the rate at which temperature would increase.

Baseline matters. In spite of your asserion to the contrary.

Second, I was forwarded the extract exactly as I posted on the March Open thread. I see from your post above and from actually going back on this thread that the context of your original posting is very distinctly different from that which I garnered from the email that I received, owing to the truncation of the extract that I was given. Read the portion that I quoted and you’ll see the difference. As such, I understand that you were saying something quite different to what I believed, and I quite happily and freely admit that you are correct in your original claim.

There, it’s that easy.

Now… would you care to go back over the hundreds of your postings here and elswhere, where you have made mistakes and where they have been pointed out to you in the face of complete subsequent denial on your behalf?

Oh, and congratulations on getting yourself bounced from the Skeptical Science thread. It was in fact that thread that led one of the other researchers on my floor to this thread (greetings W).

And to wrap up, have you yet located any evidence to support your assertion that planetary warming of 2.5-4.0° C is not going to have grave consequences for many plants, animals and human communities?

March 26, 2013

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!

Bernard J correctly agrees with my answer of 1.178 K:

I quite happily and freely admit that you are correct in your original claim.

There, it’s that easy.

Yep! It’s as easy as going from …

There was much laughter up and down the corridors.

Keyes’ equation:

~2.5K * ln(550 / 396.8) / ln(2) = ~1.178 K

is nonsense, no more than meaningless mathematical Thimblerig.

and

Keyes might fancy that he speaks fancy, but his is a mathematical ignorance that could be unpicked by a smart 13 year old.

and

The longer Keyes goes on the less intelligent and informed he looks.

I’m not entirely sure that’s the effect he was going for.

and

Bernard, if you really feel you must join the crowd of Brad-enablers, could you do us all a solid and not clutter up a fourth open thread with his twaddle? If you feel you must rebut such obvious boneheadery, there is a thread for it.

and

It’s interesting to note that the first time BK actually ventures out of rhetoric into the concrete in ~5000 comments, the great scientific genius reveals himself to be incompetent on several levels… What a loathsome little shit it is.

and

Cue us not getting rid of him.

and

I said ‘humility’. That means acknowledging your error. You screwed up because you are a know-nothing, remember? All the while sneering at me, which was a mistake. Now I’m going to rub your face in your evident ignorance because you are too much of a shit to apologise for being arrogant, ill-informed and wrong.

Bernard J has a bloody good laugh at your bollocks too. And now you haven’t a single remaining shred of credibility. You are a buffoon, Bradley, and we are laughing at you.

and

No matter how desperately and how hard you try to get out of this, you can’t!

Luckily for you, I was on hand to set you straight!

and

You have done a lot of boasting about your supposed scientific background and ongoing training. But by this error *alone* you reveal yourself to be essentially clueless.

There is no covering this up – it’s on record now.

and

My very strong impression is that *you* made an elementary error and are now obfuscating in an attempt to cover it up.

The impression that you don’t understand the basics is further reinforced by this very odd statement:

and

Have you really read *nothing at all*? Because that’s what it sounds like.

to

I’ll go over and see if Keyes has justified his rubbery equation.

and finally

I quite happily and freely admit that you are correct in your original claim.

There, it’s that easy!

March 26, 2013

Now… would you care to go back over the hundreds of your postings here and elswhere, where you have made mistakes and where they have been pointed out to you in the face of complete subsequent denial on your behalf?

– her claim that DDT had been promoted as a “magic cure for malaria” was clearly a slip of the tongue, not a sign of medical illiteracy
– her claim that beryllium was a ‘heavy metal’ was in fact true under some popular definitions of the term
– her claim that the pH of a “neutral” solution (given the various conditional assumptions you once described in an attempt to lecture me) is 6.0 was almost certainly just a typo, and she gives the “right” value (7.0) in Errata on her website

– there is, in fact, more than a handful of papers claiming evidence for a higher ECS than I thought

… or any of the other errors I’ve voluntarily acknowledged?

And to wrap up, have you yet located any evidence to support your assertion that planetary warming of 2.5-4.0° C is not going to have grave consequences for many plants, animals and human communities?

Oh, is that (my emphasis) how the burden of evidence works now? 🙂

In any case, given the number of species of plants and animals and the number of suburbs and cities on the planet, it’s almost inevitable that some (or even “many”) of them would fare badly in that hypothetical scenario. So what? The proper question is one of overall benefits and harms on balance and in the balance of probabilities.

13. #13 BBD
March 26, 2013

D. B .B.

Ocean SSTs set the land temperatures.

Yes, and as we know, land surface temperatures are higher and rising faster than SSTs and this is expected to continue, which is why I wonder if discussion of impacts would be more informative if it concentrated more on LSTs.

14. #14 BBD
March 26, 2013

You claim that 395ppmv – 550ppmv = +1.2C.

I think you are mistaken. Climate response so far = 0.7C.

Climate response at equilibrium to 550ppmv (assuming ECS = 2.5C) = 2.5C

2.5C – 0.7C = 1.8C

Not 1.2C.

TCR vs ECS.

What you are refusing to admit is that you should have *added* the lagged response for 275 – 395ppmv CO2 to the 1.2C linear response (395 – 550ppmv) to get to the correct equilibrium response (+1.8C *not* +1.2C).

As I keep saying: TCR vs ECS.

15. #15 Lionel A
March 26, 2013

BBD

As I keep saying: TCR vs ECS.

Indeed, and will Keyes ever grok this? Not as long as his fundament points downwards if he fails to consult some of the sources of enlightenment pointed to by David B Benson [1] , myself and others.

Neither does he seem to grasp the fragility of an ecosystem that has developed over a few tens of thousands of years whilst climatic swings were modest compared to what our accelerated development has set in train, which is nothing less than the breaking down, in a few short centuries, of most of the fossil fuel that was billion’s of years in creation into its component parts to provide energy for what has become nothing less than wanton consumption.

The above being encapsulated in the dedication of David J C MacKay’s book Sustainable Energy – without the hot air, ‘to all those who will not have the benefit of two billion years’ accumulated energy‘.

[1] Will he admit to falsely conflating you two at that.

March 26, 2013

Lionel:

Will he admit to falsely conflating you two at that.

Will BBD admit to falsely conflating me and Chameleon?

Also, what’s this “Keyes” bollocks, Lionel? I thought we were past that in our relationship. It saddens me that you believers are so principled, formal and unrelenting in your unpleasantness. Why do warmists have the coldest hearts? 🙁

March 26, 2013

As I keep saying: TCR vs ECS.

Indeed. And as I keep saying when BBD subtracts 0.7 from 2.5, apples minus oranges. Will the penny ever drop for BBD, and if so, when? Who knows. That’s what keeps this game so interesting!

March 26, 2013

BBD:

What you are refusing to admit is that you should have *added* the lagged response for 275 – 395ppmv CO2 to the 1.2C linear response (395 – 550ppmv) to get to the correct equilibrium response (+1.8C *not* +1.2C).

This new mathematics is intriguing.

Let’s round off the current CO2 concentration to 395 ppm, as you’ve done.

Let’s now address the question posed by the website I quoted: “Are you ready for a 400 ppm world?”

Please estimate (in newmath) how much warmer a 400 ppm world will be, assuming ECS = 2.5 K.

19. #19 BBD
March 26, 2013

BK

Apples and oranges.

I still disagree. The lagged element of the response to 275 – 395ppmv CO2 needs to be added to the CO2-only response to 395 – 550ppmv to arrive at the correct equilibrium value for 2xCO2 (275 – 550ppmv).

We can’t just ignore it as you appear to do.

20. #20 David B. Benson
March 26, 2013

Last time climate was ner equilibrium was when CO2 concentration was 275 ppm. Everything since then has been a transient response.

Sometimes, I suppose, LST is more suitable than LST+SST. Either way the actual numbers are not placed in context until one understands something of the increases/decreases in precipitation and changes in extreme weather events.

March 26, 2013

Your translation of this is pretty good:

haben das Papier für das Forschungsinstitut Vniigaz des Gazprom-Konzerns erarbeitet, eine Adresse, die von Lobbyinteressen sicher nicht gänzlich freizusprechen ist.

I’d say: “developed the paper for the Vniigaz Research Institute of the Gazprom Group, an address that certainly isn’t entirely innocent of lobbying interests”

March 26, 2013

“not exactly free of the suspicion of vested interests” is more elegant, but less literally correct IMHO.

23. #23 BBD
March 26, 2013

David B. Benson

Last time climate was ner equilibrium was when CO2 concentration was 275 ppm. Everything since then has been a transient response.

As I suggest to BK.

24. #24 BBD
March 26, 2013

BK

Reviewing the discussion here and elsewhere, I wonder if you aren’t clear about what is meant by the ‘lagged element’ of the response to 275 – 395ppmv CO2.

This is the energy that has already accumulated in the climate system in response to 275 – 395ppmv CO2. Most (>90%) of this energy is in the ocean (Levitus et al. 2012). The transient increase in *surface air temperature* to date has been 0.7C but OHC has increased by ~25 x 10^22 Joules over the last half century. That energy is *here now*. It doesn’t just go away.

25. #25 Vince Whirlwind
March 27, 2013

And as I keep saying when BBD subtracts 0.7 from 2.5, apples minus oranges.

Nope, he doesn’t get it.

Subtracting 0.7 from 2.5 is a meaningful operation that gives a meaningful answer: 1.8.

1.8 is the remaining temperature increase at equilibrium after one CO2 doubling.

Your 1.2 on the other hand is meaningless. Maybe you can explain it to us – without references to crank bloggers.

26. #26 Vince Whirlwind
March 27, 2013

Then again – maybe not.

3 years studying the art of talking bullshit with other Arts students seems to have sapped Brad’s ability to emit anything meaningful.

27. #27 David B. Benson
March 27, 2013

I think I should have stated 285 ppm:
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2hq8k1z&s=7

28. #28 David B. Benson
March 27, 2013
29. #29 Bernard J.
March 27, 2013

Keyes, get over your overweening narcissism.

I was under a misapprehension, for which I freely apologised (you could learn a little grace yourself, by the way.) My conclusion was valid given the impression that I was given by my correspondent, so your juvenile gloating is rather unbecoming. I am happy to admit my mistakes, whether they arise from my own errors or otherwise, and I do so with no hesitation.

If you were to follow my example you might be held in rather more regard than you currently are. Of course that would require a completely separate thread, lest the page numbering capacity of this blog is exceeded…

Also, my underlying point stands. There is a baseline concentration of atmospheric CO2 to which the phenomenon of climate sensitivity refers, and the size of this baseline (that is, the concentration immediately pre-Industrial Revolution) is relevant when referring to how much warming occurs per doubling.

If you dispute this, let’s go back to the mathematics and discuss.

Also, you have yet to credibly support your claim that warming of the scale that humans are putting in train will not be not harmful to plants, animals, and humans. Why do you persist in avoiding any substantiation of your notion?

30. #30 Bernard J.
March 27, 2013

Oh, and Keyes…

Why do you think that you were booted off Skeptical Science?

31. #31 chameleon
March 27, 2013

BJ at# 29.
Look again at Brad Keyes’ comment # 12 re the burden of evidence.
Why are you asking him to disprove a negative?
What IS the definite & quantifiable net harm to plants, animals and humans?
Why IS 275ppm the PREFERED and/or OPTIMAL figure?

March 27, 2013

Oh, and Keyes…

Why do you think that you were booted off Skeptical Science?

1. What’s this “Keyes” nonsense, Bernard? Haven’t we been through enough campaigns together? Call me Brad for god’s sake.

2. In what way have I been ungracious (to you) in victory? Have I gloated? Not over you, particularly much. In fact I’ve referred to you in impeccably respectful tones at the blog where I’m debating Dominic. When BabyBraD says,

“You claimed that the temperature response 395ppmv – 550ppmv is 1.2C and you are WRONG.”

“Only, the funny thing is, when I asked ecologist Dr Bernard J. the question…

If the temperature response to every doubling of atmospheric CO2 is 2.5° Celsius, what will the temperature response to an increase in atmospheric CO2 from 396.8 ppm to 550 ppm be?

“… he [eventually] agreed with my answer. To quote ecologist Dr Bernard J.:

I quite happily and freely admit that you are correct in your original claim.

“As you know—given my science background—I’d never argue from authority, but still, I wouldn’t want to change places with you right now, Dominic.”

How can this possibly be described as gloating (over you), Bernard?

3. I know exactly why I was relieved of my commenting privileges at SS and it was for exactly the same reason as at STW last year.

I won’t put you on the spot by asking you what the reason was, because you couldn’t possibly know. The answer is as follows. I embarrassed the moderator. (Someone called JH.)

How?

By repeatedly and unapologetically asking where my deleted comments had disappeared to, why everybody was talking about non-existent comments, and why JH deemed my remarks about Stephen Schneider to be so off-topic as to deserve summary deletion without a trace when:

1. I was merely answering a question another commenter directly addressed to me, which had been allowed to stay up

2. JH was allowing other commenters to malign, mischaracterise and sucker-punch my ex-comment in absentia

3. these dishonest, cowardly and/or confused attempts at rebutting my “off-topic” comment were deemed “on topic”!

Unfortunately JH is a craven, lying turd—as you’d expect from someone who sees himself as belonging, not to the ancillary staff of an unpopular science blog, as to a “conspiracy to save humanity”—and fails to tell you any of the above, and there’s precious little I can be bothered doing about it, since the only thing I got out of my 24 hours of registration at that “site” was an intense desire to shower.

March 27, 2013

Vince,

you obviously occupy the same evolutionary rung, below idiots, morons and cretins, as your “cohort” Wow.

Your 1.2 on the other hand is meaningless. Maybe you can explain it to us – without references to crank bloggers.

No, unfortunately I can’t explain it to you—though I’ve already explained it to the literate and numerate readers of this blog.

And no, http://co2now.org is not a contrarian outpost of the libertarian-right crankosphere.

34. #34 Wow
March 27, 2013

“you obviously occupy the same evolutionary rung, below idiots, morons and cretins”

Yup, humourless cultist.

35. #35 BBD
March 27, 2013

Just when you thought Bradley could sink no lower…

After being shown up for the posturing buffoon that he is at Tara’s, Bradley’s desperation to delegitimise me in some way gets completely out of control:

Meanwhile I note in passing the only remotely interesting thing about your comment: you fail to condemn, or even mention, racism. I wonder why that would be, Dominic? 🙂 Hmmm? You don’t mind me bringing up the problem of racist blog commenters, do you Dominic? I mean: you wouldn’t object if I suggested to Tara that she keep a particular eye on visitors with a known propensity for, and history of, ethnic-supremacist outbursts, would you Dominic? 😉

A contemptible toe-rag, is our Bradders.

36. #36 Lionel A
March 27, 2013

So, without appreciating the irony and hypocrisy Keyes accuses BBD of racist blog comments when in this post he writes:

Or when I described Cook as a cartoonist? As Lewandowsky’s mongoloid henchboy?

Why did he not make his opinion clear in his first post at SkS? Doing so would have saved other contributors there much time.

And BTW Keyes it is and Keyes it will remain, first name terms are for family, close friends and those I respect, you fit in none of those categories Keyes.

37. #37 Ian Forrester
March 27, 2013

Keyes once again shows how dishonest he is. Here is what he dishonestly claims were the reasons he was barred from posting at SkS:

By repeatedly and unapologetically asking where my deleted comments had disappeared to, why everybody was talking about non-existent comments, and why JH deemed my remarks about Stephen Schneider to be so off-topic as to deserve summary deletion without a trace when:

1. I was merely answering a question another commenter directly addressed to me, which had been allowed to stay up

2. JH was allowing other commenters to malign, mischaracterise and sucker-punch my ex-comment in absentia

3. these dishonest, cowardly and/or confused attempts at rebutting my “off-topic” comment were deemed “on topic”!

Here is the real reason he was barred:

There can be no place in this forum for those who abuse the presumption of inherent honest and integrity. Especially for those who torture the truth, stretching and distorting it beyond all recognition.

Keyes is the most dishonest person who has ever posted on this blog and that says a lot when you think of the innumerable trolls who have tried to spread their rubbish here. My very first comment about Keyes was describing how dishonestly he twisted my words on a post I made here. He has not changed his MO since. Surely dishonesty and insults should be a reason for having him barred from this site since he has been banned from a number of sites for these very reasons.

March 27, 2013

My very first comment about Keyes was describing how dishonestly he twisted my words on a post I made here. He has not changed his MO since.

LOL… I remember it almost verbatim, as if it were just the other month!

IIRC, you said that, “any denier who says consensus is not science should be ridiculed“.

I abused, tortured, stretched and distorted your statement beyond all recognition to: “Ian says consensus is science.”

How… devious of me!

ROFL!

🙂

March 27, 2013

Lionel:

And BTW Keyes it is and Keyes it will remain, first name terms are for family, close friends and those I respect, you fit in none of those categories Keyes.

You must be a raging success at parties!

March 27, 2013

Bernard J:

I am happy to admit my mistakes […] and I do so with no hesitation.

A commendable quality of yours, Bernard. I can’t quite claim to be happy to admit my mistakes, but I’m willing to do so without hesitation (see comment #12 for some examples).
In rē: logarithms and the supposedly crucial role of “starting” values,

If you dispute this, let’s go back to the mathematics and discuss.

I dispute this. The whole premise of logarithmic growth is that, given a particular ECS—whether 2.5C, as in my example (which is smack inside the range David B Benson cites, FWIW), or something higher / lower—that value tells us the equilibrium-shifting effect of a doubling from 275 to 550, 550 to 1100 and 1100 to 2200, or 400 to 800, 800 to 1600 and 1600 to 3200, or 280 to 560, or 276 to 552, or 2760 to 5520, or any other doubling of a past / future CO2 concentration.

41. #41 David B. Benson
March 27, 2013

#31 chameleon — 275 ppm is the pre-industrial concentration; it had been close to that value for a long time. Changes need to be slow, millennial scale.

42. #42 David B. Benson
March 27, 2013

Brad Keyes — Your formula is fine provided you wait long enough for equilibrium to be reached, a millennium or more. At that time scale the way you do sums is fine.

43. #43 BBD
March 27, 2013

David B. Benson

A1B? A1F1? A2? None of them? What do you think?

44. #44 BBD
March 27, 2013

(For BK)

Projected transient temperature response under various emission scenarios from IPCC AR4.

45. #45 David B. Benson
March 27, 2013
46. #46 David B. Benson
March 27, 2013

Brad Keyes — More precisely, start with 285 ppm to compute what the equilibrium temperature will be if concentrations are held constant at, say, 400 ppm. After waiting the required millennium then increase to, say, 580 ppm; wait another millennium for equilibrium.

47. #47 BBD
March 28, 2013

David B. Benson

There’s no arguing with agnosticism 😉

March 28, 2013

Look out, everyone—chek’s swivelled his loose cannon around 180 degrees and is now targeting believers instead of deniers! LOL…

But it is useful to know what they’re being fed. And how stupid they need to be to not only accept it but proselytise it to the world like the true fuckwitted believers they are to a man.

49. #49 Vince Whirlwind
March 28, 2013

March 27, 2013

Vince,

you obviously occupy the same evolutionary rung, below idiots, morons and cretins, as your “cohort” Wow.

Your 1.2 on the other hand is meaningless. Maybe you can explain it to us – without references to crank bloggers.

No, unfortunately I can’t explain it to you—though I’ve already explained it to the literate and numerate readers of this blog.

So….no, you can’t explain it.

50. #50 David B. Benson
March 28, 2013

What can I say?
htttp://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/03/laughing-at-those-who-laugh-at-science.html?showComment=1364438215294#c5464131083730013154

51. #51 David B. Benson
March 28, 2013
52. #52 Wow
March 28, 2013

“So….no, you can’t explain it.”

But remember, it’s EVERYONE ELSE’S fault. Not his. Never his.

The self-centred little prick.

March 28, 2013

Lionel,

I see the phrase “Lewandowsky’s mongoloid henchboy” is still exercising you.

What is it like to have no sense of the poetic? Sad, I assume.

You’re drawing a bit of a long etymological bow when you construe it as a racist epithet. In fact it took me a while to figure out what you were getting all righteous about, as Genghis Khan was the furthest thing from my mind when intimating that John Cook was mentally subnormal.

Nonetheless, just as the word “slave” and its cousin “ciao” are potentially offensive to people of Slavic heritage, perhaps I should add the m-word to the growing list of those it would be better to avoid. Thank you for this valuable life lesson, A!

54. #54 BBD
March 28, 2013

More lies from BK:

I can’t quite claim to be happy to admit my mistakes, but I’m willing to do so without hesitation

This from the man who said:

Emissions (or rather, atmospheric CO2) will obviously rise over 550ppm in all plausible futures […] And that is not even one doubling of the current concentration. So your worldview unambiguously calls ~1K of warming ‘catastrophic.’

Keyes was wrong about the evolution of TCR toward equilibrium right from the start of this conversation. It suited him to be wrong because it allowed him to misrepresent both the rate and size of future temperature change under higher emissions trajectories. Remember that Keyes thinks emissions regulation is ‘stupid’ because he believes future temperature increase will be relatively trivial:

My climate-change position is that there is no evidence that AGW is going to be hugely net-dangerous unless emissions are reduced, and therefore emissions regulation is ‘stupid’.

He has done everything in his power to avoid admitting that he does not understand how TCR will evolve towards equilibrium and he still has not admitted it, despite having it pointed out to him again and again and again on two different blogs.

55. #55 Wow
March 28, 2013

“My climate-change position is that there is no evidence that AGW is going to be hugely net-dangerous unless emissions are reduced,”

So where is his evidence that there’s such a thing as Catastrophic AGW Mitigation (CAM)?

56. #56 Wow
March 28, 2013

“I see the phrase “Lewandowsky’s mongoloid henchboy” is still exercising you. ”

Look up that meaning of the word, dimwit.

PS all someone has to say to make you froth at the mouth and scream like the maniac you are is mention Lewandowsky. Seems like his paper still “exercises” you.

57. #57 Lionel A
March 28, 2013

We now return you to the Year 7 Kidz Maths Olympiad Challenge.

Why is this exercising you so much Keyes, could it be that you have to return because you keep failing said challenge?

BTW I didn’t realise that you were trying for stand-up comedian.

58. #58 David B. Benson
March 28, 2013

For hugely dangerous try 6 K: read Peter Ward’s “Under a Green Sky” and Mark Lynas’s “Six Degrees”:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/apr/23/scienceandnature.climatechange

59. #59 BBD
March 28, 2013

And there’s the Zachos Curve.

March 29, 2013

So where is his evidence that there’s such a thing as Catastrophic AGW Mitigation (CAM)?

You mean, other than the tens of billions of dollars that should have been spent on oncogenetics research instead? That’s only considering the US government’s profligacy, by the way.

PS all someone has to say to make you froth at the mouth and scream like the maniac you are is mention Lewandowsky.

Is it? That’s nice.

Seems like his paper still “exercises” you.

Yawn.

Oh and: a Happy Easter to friends and foes alike!

To many of us it’s little more than a long weekend and an excuse for a chocolate bender, but let’s not forget the Reason for the Season. Take a moment to think of Spartacus and the thousands of crucified slaves on the Appian Way, who suffered under Marcus Crassus that we might be redeemed from bondage.

61. #61 BBD
March 29, 2013

I see the infestation has now spread to Eli’s. How happy the bunnies must be.

62. #62 Lionel A
March 29, 2013

On climate sensitivity, a couple of starters for Keyes for the weekend:

Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective, note the comment by the Rabett who knows his carrots from his onions. I notice that Cardinal Puff has lobbed in his two groats worth.

and the similar, but not the same,

March 29, 2013

Lionel A:

“We now return you to the Year 7 Kidz Maths Olympiad Challenge.”

Why is this exercising you so much Keyes, could it be that you have to return because you keep failing said challenge?
It’s not exercising me. It’s over. The challenge is over, A. It’s been over from the moment I wrote:

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!

Or did you miss that?

Dr Bernard J won the challenge by being the first deltoid with the necessary combination of grace and intelligence to concede that my answer (~1.18 K) was correct.

The only high-school level maths question that remains unanswered by any of you people—perhaps because the teacher hasn’t supplied the solution this time—is the one I keep asking BBD in vain:

Assuming (for the sake of argument) an ECS of 2.5C and a current atmospheric CO2 concentration of 395ppm, how much warmer will a 400ppm world be?

If you’d like to be hailed as an intellectual god among believalists, A, correctly solve that high-school-level maths question. Showing your working, obviously.

As the website says, “Are you ready for a 400ppm world?” 🙂

March 29, 2013

Lionel A:

“We now return you to the Year 7 Kidz Maths Olympiad Challenge.”

Why is this exercising you so much Keyes, could it be that you have to return because you keep failing said challenge?

It’s not exercising me. It’s over. The challenge is over, A! It’s been over from the moment I wrote:

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!

Or did you miss that?

Dr Bernard J won the challenge by being the first deltoid with the necessary combination of grace and intelligence to concede that my answer (~1.18 K) was correct.

The only high-school level maths question that remains unanswered by any of you people—perhaps because the teacher hasn’t supplied the solution this time—is the one I keep asking BBD in vain:

Assuming (for the sake of argument) an ECS of 2.5C and a current atmospheric CO2 concentration of 395ppm, how much warmer will a 400ppm world be?

If you’d like to be hailed as an intellectual god among believalists, A, correctly solve that high-school-level maths question. Showing your working, obviously.

As the website says, “Are you ready for a 400ppm world?”

March 29, 2013

D’oh.

Moderators, please delete the first copy (which was misformatted). Thanks.

Also, you don’t really need to keep moderating me. You can stop now. I appreciate that you have busy lives and more important things to do.

66. #66 BBD
March 29, 2013

The usual Sticky Bishop/Nic Lewis double-act. But let us not forget that Lewis’s stuff is nothing more than a guest post at Bishop Hill. And until it is published in a mainstream, reviewed journal, it remains what all informed commenters have said it is – systematically biased low because Lewis has used every trick he can find to make it so.

NL needs to publish or shut up. His endless touting of his guest post at a denialist blog as if it had real scientific merit is getting tiresome.

67. #67 BBD
March 29, 2013

Prattlers like Keyes need to have a good, long look at the Zachos curve then read Rohling et al. (2012) and the draft Hansen et al. paper posted on arxiv which expands on his team’s contribution to the PALAEOSENS project presented in Rohling (2012).

Of course I linked both these studies for our resident Master of Science and he declined to so much as glance at them. ‘Boring’, he said, IIRC.

Being wrong while sneering at the supposed scientific illiteracy of others will remain Bradley’s forte until he does some work instead of preening away on the internet day in, day out.

March 29, 2013

Dominic:

Prattlers like Keyes

Hmmm. You know my first [screen] name. By not using it, you come across as almost… well, annoyed with me for some reason, buddy.

Was it something I said?

69. #69 Lionel A
March 29, 2013

Prattlers like Keyes

turn up in all sorts of places now accusing John Mashey of ‘conspiracist ideation’.

So a stand up comic he is but one who’s jokes are so, well er, toilet (equates to infantile). What’s up Keyes, has Mashey got close to some of your personal truths? You are clearly no more interested in the truth about the scientific consensus on climate change (and no, don’t kick off and that one again your hole is deep enough there) these posts at the Rabett’s is further evidence showing up your dishonest stance here.

Have the Heartlanders taken you to their heart, after all your brand of Orwell-speak and tortured semantics would be welcome there – one of the home of obfuscation and illusion they being. You will need a new box of squirrels though.

70. #70 Lionel A
March 29, 2013

Keyes seems ‘exercised’ by this

‘Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it…’

Where Keyes is either ignorant of the back story here wrt a the barrage technique of FoI request used by the likes of McIntyre and despite what he thinks Keyes fails to understand that scientists authenticate their work via a different process than FoI and that their organisations are ill-equipped to deal with such from lack of resources. They don’t have large admin’ staffs like top flight lawyers or mining executives.

This has been chewed over extensively here, bring yourself up to date and use ‘More Posts‘ or ‘Next for more, and more and more. You will notice a few stunners like ‘McIntyre had the data all along‘, ‘McIntyre’s Tricks‘, ‘Steve McIntyre’s DOS attack on GISS‘ and many more nuggets.

Other places where this has been thrashed out were indicated in this piece Debate with Steve Easterbrook where we find, my emphasis but do not neglect sections between:

Steve writes:

George: Good points – I’ve conflated a number of things, and you’re right “flooding with FoI requests” is not strictly accurate. What I meant to say was that the FoI requests were just the most visible part of a much longer campaign, going back at least a decade. When Phil Jones writes “The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years” it’s clear that we’re coming late into an ongoing battle, and Jones is already pretty pissed off with the whole thing. Taken out of context, the email reads like an attempt to cover up misdeeds. But in the context of many years harassment by people who have no interest in constructive criticism, a long track record in misrepresenting the science, and no obvious sign of ever backing off, well, it looks much more like letting off steam in private with trusted colleagues (particularly as there’s no evidence that he ever did destroy any data).

It’s clear from reading the accounts from Mann and Santer that they were under constant bombardment, and that they’d already come to understand that rebutting each criticism is pointless. Mann and Santer have been much more effective in getting their side of the story on record; Jones hasn’t communicated this so well, and I think he has been slow to understand the game that was being played, and a little foolish in what he said about it in the emails. But it’s wrong to say that if the CRU hadn’t blocked the early requests for data none of this would have happened. The original station data was tied up with restrictive licenses, because it’s commercially useful in the forecasting community. It’s not clear that Jones could ever have handed this over to M&M, and in the early days, it appears Jones offered constructive suggestions for how to get hold of the data directly from source (as the CRU never owned this data in the first place). But M&M saw this as a smokescreen, and went on the attack, and things just went downhill from there.

The real story that needs to be told is why M&M went after Jones in the first place. John Mashey has been investigating who they work with and why; his dossier is here:

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/plagiarism%20conspiracies%20felonies%20v1%200%201.pdf

and DeepClimate has been exploring how M&M systematically distort the evidence – see for example:

http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/10/mcclimategate-continues-yet-another-false-accusation-from-mcintyre-and-mckitrick/

I remain convinced that the more important story is an examination of the motivation and sponsorship for M&M’s attacks, the impacts they have had on the scientists who have been the victims, and an account of how the science has stood up robustly to everything they’ve thrown at it. I don’t think endless examinations of the contents of Phil Jones’ emails serves any useful purpose.

And given that none of this changes the science in anyway whatsoever, I can only conclude that as a way of distracting everyone’s attention, it has been a remarkably successful propaganda exercise.

Indeed. A remarkably successful, and criminal, propaganda exercise.

March 29, 2013

Lionel,

The real story that needs to be told is why M&M went after Jones in the first place. John Mashey has been investigating who they work with and why; his dossier is here:

Mashey’s conspiracy theory is… interesting; thanks, Lionel.

72. #72 BBD
March 29, 2013

Lionel @ 65

I saw that. I also noticed that Keyes simply *asserted* that JM was guilty of conspiracist ideation. JM on the other hand *demonstrated* the chain of payments from Donors Trust to The James Partnership and CA.

Perhaps Bradley thinks everyone at Eli’s is stupid. He says not, but his actions don’t tally with his behaviour there.

73. #73 BBD
March 29, 2013

Earlier:

“Nic Lewis needs to publish or shut up. His endless touting of his guest post at a denialist blog as if it had real scientific merit is getting tiresome.”

According to the Economist:

Nic Lewis, an independent climate scientist, got an even lower range in a study accepted for publication: 1.0-3.0°C, with a mean of 1.6°C.

I thought NL was a ‘semi-retired financier’ or something like that. Nor did I know that his blog post at Bishop Hill had been accepted for publication. If this is correct, it will be interesting to see what the reviewers make of NL’s submission. It will be interesting to see what numbers make the final cut.

74. #74 chek
March 29, 2013

accusing John Mashey of ‘conspiracist ideation’.

“Brad’s” doing his smear tactic thing in the hope that others will be too stupid to understand the difference between the mindset exposed by Lewandowsky and Cook (which for some reason chafes “Brad” and his fellow cranks something chronic like an itchy communal thong), and the secret – or at the very least underhand – channelling of money to groups attempting to subvert democratic government. The kind of thing that some likely would call an actual conspiracy.

In “Brad’s” world, it seems we’re all Karen’n’Cammy style dumb.

75. #75 David B. Benson
March 29, 2013
March 30, 2013

I know this is a believalist site, but would anyone mind if we took a brief intermission from conspiracism to discuss science?

“Are you ready for a 400ppm world?” 🙂

Assuming (for the sake of argument) an ECS of 2.5C and a current atmospheric CO2 concentration of 395ppm, how much warmer will a 400ppm world be?

Come on. It shouldn’t be this difficult. Some of you claim to have teenaged kids, so get their help.

77. #77 Wow
March 30, 2013

You believe so, therefore it is?

78. #78 Lionel A
March 30, 2013

Come on. It shouldn’t be this difficult. Some of you claim to have teenaged kids, so get their help.

Keyes, you are in no position to ask such questions here since you have not adequately, if at all, answered a number put to you.

Try working that out for yourself, but here are some things to consider: Two Key Climate Change Concepts Are ‘Misunderstood’.

This would be a better use of your time than thrashing around at the Rabett’s and elsewhere. Your lack of appreciation of how science is carried out, combined with your non existent understanding of the development of the ‘Brownlash’, and how scientists were ill equipped to deal with it, is telling.

BTW what do you know about ‘The Hunt for Zero Point‘? Just saying.

79. #79 BBD
March 30, 2013

# 76

When are you going to admit that you were wrong about the way TCR evolves towards equilibrium response? Considerable effort went into trying to point out your error but as yet, you have failed to acknowledge that you were incorrect.

Popping up making irrelevant but noisy demands that *we* answer *your* questions is inappropriate at present.

Here’s a quick review of how you screwed up:

– Most of the energy (>90%) that has accumulated in the climate system in response to 275 – 395ppmv CO2 is now in the ocean (Levitus et al. 2012).

– The transient increase in *surface air temperature* to date has *only* been 0.7C but OHC has increased by ~25 x 10^22 Joules over the last half century.

Some of that stored energy will contribute to *future* atmospheric warming *additional* to the direct response to the increase from 395 – 550ppmv CO2.

– That is how we get from 0.7C response in surface air temperature at 395ppmv to 2.5C at equilibrium to 550ppmv. A total increase of 1.8C. Not 1.2C.

You either didn’t understand the way TCR evolves towards equilibrium response or were pretending not to. In either case, please have the good grace finally to admit your mistake.

***

Levitus (2012):

The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 1022 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C. This warming corresponds to a rate of 0.27 W m−2 per unit area of earth’s surface. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–700 m layer increased by 16.7 ± 1.6 × 1022 J corresponding to a rate of 0.27 W m−2(per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.18°C. The World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955.

March 30, 2013

Surely You’re Joking, Mr A-man!

Keyes, you are in no position to ask such questions here since you have not adequately, if at all, answered a number put to you.

Yes I have. And more than my fair share at that. With Chameleon missing I’m the sole spokesmodel for the realist population on this thread. Don’t tell me I haven’t been fielding questions.

Anyway I understand if maths isn’t your thing, A.

Could you at least clear up a linguistic mystery: what’s invalide a reference to?

81. #81 David B. Benson
March 30, 2013

dT = 2.5ln(400/280)/ln(2)

March 31, 2013

David,

thanks for your answer about “a 400ppm world,” but you appear to have misinterpreted the question slightly. It assumed some informal premises about English usage, and perhaps I needed to be more explicit.

I’m not asking how much warmer it will be compared to the Golden Age of Amish culture but how much warmer than it is today.

March 31, 2013

The first rule of organised denial: deny the existence of organised denial

A bit like the first rule of being the Messiah, eh Loth? 😉

84. #84 chameleon
March 31, 2013

I’m missing because I’m thoroughly sick of having my comments languish in moderation for 24 hours and longer.

March 31, 2013

BBD:

Perhaps Bradley thinks everyone at Eli’s is stupid.

Come on, don’t exaggerate! One guy, called cRR or ccR or something, seemed to have half a brain. And that’s not even counting me.

He says not, but his actions don’t tally with his behaviour there.

How confusing of me. My actions don’t tally with my behaviour, you say. I hate when that happens!

March 31, 2013

A,

Try working that out for yourself, but here are some things to consider: Two Key Climate Change Concepts Are ‘Misunderstood’.

I read it, interesting stuff. Which of those two concepts did you think I’d failed to understand, and why?

March 31, 2013

BBD:

You do understand that when your comments come out of moderation en bloc it buggers up the existing comment numbering? Or did we miss that?

Maybe you should have thought of said buggering-up effects before you went crying to the moderators about me and got me punitively delayed. There was a time, a few weeks ago, when all I had to do was wander off-plantation for a minute and you’d have an expletive-laden convulsion about how uppity I was.

Our once-sparkling repartee now flows like molasses.

March 31, 2013

David:

For hugely dangerous try 6 K: read Peter Ward’s “Under a Green Sky” and Mark Lynas’s “Six Degrees”:

But how many millennia will that temperature response take? More than long enough to adapt as we focus our financial and intellectual resources on solving real problems, I should think.

89. #89 Lionel A
March 31, 2013

Keyes once again shows his ignorance with this little exchange at The Rabett’s,

LA wrote:

There is another possibility: “If your prediction is wrong, your hypothesis has been incompletely tested”

Much like Alfred Wegener and continental drift.

Writing which highlights the bait and switch in a statement of yours @ 30/3/13 8:51 AM by equating the rapid rate of current warming with said continental drift which later being a now defunct hypothesis itself. But did you know that?

to which Keyes responded,

No, I didn’t remember (though I learned it long ago, in high school) that we weren’t strictly supposed to call the movement of the supermarine parts of the tectonic plates “continental drift.”

.

Which highlights a couple of things, that Keyes has not understood the basic flaw in Wegener’s hypothesis which is that a fundamentally different mechanism is involved to that posited by Wegener. Now anybody who has been studying the literature in order to fully understand, as far as current understanding goes, the Earth systems that have a bearing on the topic of global warming and climate change would have come across this.

See e.g. writings by Ruddiman and Garrison.

The other thing it highlights is his continued evasiveness when caught out on a point of fact.

In a subsequent reply to a. n. other Keyes then writes this:

So the next problem for you is: why didn’t the IPCC admit its hypothesis was wrong when the “voodoo science” of Himalayan glaciology was brought to its attention?

Which displays his total ignorance about the true FUNCTION and NATURE of the IPCC. It also demonstrates his over-blowing of the case in point – which is following that of the worst elements of the blogosphere and which most of us have consigned to history because it alters not the path of events that are unfolding on the ground.

Indeed the one example of slightly incorrect infornation that has been lambasted so much looked almost like a typo. If Keyes would bother to follow up on tracking down the contentious points then maybe he would be able to quote, with citations, here.

I know where to look, does he.

Keyes strikes me as one who has come to this party late and as he blunders along throwing out factually incoherent statements on every blog he visits he has become one of ‘those laughing at science‘ who we are now ‘Laughing at‘. To use the words forming the title of the subject post at the Rabett’s.

As for ‘invalide’, I am sure a man of words of your calibre could work that out.

90. #90 Wow
March 31, 2013

Since he

a) insists that one typo in an IPCC report invalidates EVERYTHING it stands for
and
b) he admits having made a mistake asserting someone’s statements to another

Does that not mean Bray’s entire stance is now invalidated?

March 31, 2013

A:

Keyes has not understood the basic flaw in Wegener’s hypothesis which is

Oh goody! It’s one of those rare comments that educates the reader instead of just disproportionately insulting some pseudonymous interlocutor! This is my favorite part about being wrong—which I should really try to do more often!: being set straight by someone who knows more about the topic than me.

Learning is fun!

Anyway, I didn’t mean to interrupt, Professor Lionel—do go on. You were telling us (from your extensive comprehension of the literature) what the basic flaw in Wegener’s hypothesis was.

that a fundamentally different mechanism is involved to that posited by Wegener.

Ah, of course! How did I forget? What Wegener failed to realize was that a fundamentally different mechanism was involved to that posited by Wegener. Cheers, Lionel, that’s been bugging me all night—I’ve been racking my brains trying to remember what my Science teacher explained to us in Year 7; thank you so much for clearing that up.

There ya go, folks—a fundamentally different mechanism was involved.

You’re obviously no mere geological dilettante, Lionel! I feel privileged and humbled just to have been in an argument with such a guru. The chief bane of the climate blogosphere is that it’s infested with blustering bunnies who brag and bluff and affect an air of expertise but, when it comes down to it, are just full of, er, caecotrophs. Not you though, Lionel—you clearly know your, er, crap.

The other thing it highlights is his continued evasiveness when caught out on a point of fact.

Evasiveness?

ROFL. This is what passes for “evasiveness,” apparently, dear readers: Professor A corrects me on a matter of pedantics ’n’ semantics, demanding…

But did you know that?

…and I despicably dodge the question, like the denialist I am:

No, I didn’t remember (though I learned it long ago, in high school) that we weren’t strictly supposed to call the movement of the supermarine parts of the tectonic plates “continental drift.”   Thanks for the reminder, A.

That’s right: it’s evasion by gratitude! What a genius for evil I have.

It gets even more amusing, readers. When reminded of the notorious Himalayan prediction, Lionel half-tries to trivialize it:

Indeed the one example of slightly incorrect infornation that has been lambasted so much looked almost like a typo.

*Sigh.* Nobody cares what it “almost looks like,” Lionel. Are you really naive or audacious enough to tell us, with a straight face, that it was a typo, or aren’t you? I’m happy either way—you just need to commit, otherwise it’s just painfully obvious that you lack [the courage of your] conviction. C’mon, Lionel, I promise I won’t make too much fun of you: if you sincerely think it was “a typo,” then say so. 🙂

Fun and games aside, what’s so fascinating about the above attempt at—to use BBD’s favorite word—delegitimising me (LOL) is the detail Lionel chooses to omit. 😉

Namely, that the whole conversation started because Lionel refuses to accept “the key to science”:

B-b-b-but, Lionel says,

There is another possibility: “If your prediction is wrong, your hypothesis has been incompletely tested”

Uh, no. Sorry. I never thought I’d say this, Lionel, but I have to side with Richard Feynman on this. I think he’s got you here.

Of course it’s perfectly understandable that you’re reluctant to face this—most civilians are. But science isn’t for muggles. Science is a harsh mistress.

More importantly there’s also the fact that you’re a climate believalist—an IPCC agreer, a hypercapnophobe, an adherent to the idea of CAGW. Pretend all you want; we both know you consider future AGW to be catastrophic.

And like all catastrophists I’ve ever known, you baulk at the conditions of entry on the roller coaster that is science.

Is it just a coincidence that (as far as anyone knows*) climate catastrophists invariably think they know better than Feynman about the scientific method? Or is there a systematic relationship there; do you need to break away from 250 years of scientific reasoning in order to take The Science™ of climate alarmism seriously?

* I’d be DELIGHTED for this premise be proven wrong, by the way—PLEASE, if you’re a believalist and you read this and think: “Hey! I accept the unadulterated scientific method, no ifs, ands, or buts—no excuses for those who cut corners, no passing off non-evidence as evidence, and all the rest of it,” then by all means, speak up. Otherwise nobody will know you exist and a false theory—that climate alarmism necessarily (if not sufficiently) comes from a rejection of modern science itself as a system of inquiry—will needlessly persist.

March 31, 2013

Wow:

b) he admits having made a mistake asserting someone’s statements to another

Hmm. You may have a good point here. Of course we’ll never know until you write it in English.

March 31, 2013

BBD:

When are you going to admit that you were wrong about the way TCR evolves towards equilibrium response?

When I realize I was wrong.

When will that happen?

94. #94 BBD
March 31, 2013

# 79?

March 31, 2013

Uh, no.

Try again.

And don’t just guess this time, BBD.

96. #96 Lionel A
April 1, 2013

Thanks for that rant (#91) dipstick Keyes that has made my day for I must have hit a sore spot smack on.

Your wording WRT Wegener indicated that you had a poor grasp of the difference between continental drift and plate tectonics, a cognitive framework distortion that you have now confirmed. This includes your continued lack of understanding of the role and structure of the IPCC.

Nearly every post you make shows up how little you know about this topic and also the confusion campaign that has left you this way – believing all sorts of strange things that have been argued over for, in some cases, decades and others since the faux-scandal of Climategate and the ‘gates that quickly followed of which Himalayan Glaciers was but one example.

It would be refreshing if you were to provide a straight answer a question, until then your are pissing in the wind and making yourself look not only ignorant on several avenues of climate change literature but rather unbalanced at that. Performing the goat may be a laugh at parties, but the audience will be laughing at you not with you but your lack of self-awareness prevents you appreciating the difference but it does not do here.

Your continued obsession with Feynman, where you persists in mischaracterisation, is but one example of how you have hold of the wrong end of the arguments. Just because Feynman did not offer an alternative does not mean the alternative is invalid, only somebody with an invalide cognitive framework would attest otherwise.

April 1, 2013

It seems chek now has a serious rival in the CFC emissions stakes! hahaha

98. #98 Wow
April 1, 2013

Blah blah blah blah blah.

Cut and paste and assign to Bray and you have his entire screed in easy-to-assimilate form.

99. #99 BBD
April 1, 2013

So, Brad. Too stupid to see the error, or too unpleasant to admit to it?

100. #100 BBD
April 1, 2013

Bradley – do you think the equilibrium temperature response will happen during the year that 400ppmv is reached?

Or some time thereafter?

See it yet?