Posts by Rik Myslewski 157 publicly visible posts • joined 3 Jan 2009
I'm sorry, Art, but quoting an article from Anthony Watts' often debunked and wildly propagandistic "Watt's Up With That?" — self-described quite erroneously and self-aggrandizingly as as "The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change" — is hardly to be considered to be citing an unbiased, objective source, wouldn't you agree?
Señor Anguila:
1) If you're interested in the physical mechanics of radiative forcing, let me point you to some recent research untangling that observable but not yet fully understood physical reality. Here's one from the popular press (https://bit.ly/4idJwjt), and here's the paper from which that article is based (https://bit.ly/4gPP5TT).
b) Y'know, sometime asserting the logical fallacy identified as the "appeal to authority" masks the simple fact that the authority in question is based on verifiable data, solid reasoning, and experimental verification, as is true in this case. Authorities also claim that the Earth is a globe which has a marginally elliptical orbit around the sun — are you dismissing that conclusion merely due to its assertion by an "authority"? No, of course not. You're not an idiot.
iii) You ask, "Any particular reason you chose the heavier line weight and color for your 2024 line?" Sigh ... of course: simply to make the most recent year stand out and thus be easier for readers to identify among all the squiggles populating the chart. Must you find a nefarious intent behind simple attempt at graphical clarity?
§) You also ask, one can only assume snarkily, "Will you be presenting this paper at the next AGU?" Uh ... no ... primarily because it's old news to any self-respecting climate scientist, but also because it's not primary research but instead merely a popular-press discussion of others' research and data-gathering. And, if you don't mind me responding in an equally snarky manner, "Grow the %$#@! up, bro ..."
A quick favor, Art: Please disprove the simple and basic physics behind the absorption and re-radiation of the energy of long-wave radiation by large, active molecules such as CO2, CH4, N2O, and the like, and how that re-radiation warms the troposphere in quite easily measurable and quantifiable amounts while measurably cooling the stratosphere, as has been well-demonstrated for many decades? Also, if it weren't for the Earth's greenhouse-gas blanket, the simple Stefan-Boltzmann black-body equations prove that the Earth would be at, oh, about -15ºC. Thanks to those gasses (and, of course, water vapor), we average around 15ºC. What our rapid addition of more CO2, CH4, and N2O into the troposphere is doing is mucking with that fine balance. We're cooking ourselves.
If you have empirical proof that climate change science is "rotten to the core", please give a call to the following folks, and tell them that they can save the time and money they have spent and are planning to spend on the irrefutable reality of human-caused global warming: the vast majority of insurance professionals, the Pentagon, NATO, NASA, NOAA, the US Pacific Command, the US Department of the Navy, the US Coast Guard, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Institute for Defense Analyses, the US Army War College, the United States Joint Forces Command, the DoD Office of Net Assessment, the National Intelligence Council, the National Research Council, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Federation of American Scientists, the Geological Society of America, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, the World Health Organization, the World Meteorological Association, plus over 100 major US corporations, including Google, Facebook, Apple, Coca Cola, AT&T, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Walmart, and General Motors. I'm sure they'll all be happy to learn that their efforts are unneeded, and to hear your insightful analyses.
Finally, here's a convivial invitation: I regularly attend the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union, where over thirty-thousand of the world's top geophysical scientists gather to talk shop, many of whom who are deeply involved in actual climate-science research, not mere theorizing. The next AGU gathering will be in The Big Easy in December 2025 — a fun town. I'll be there, and I can absolutely guarantee you a session in which you can present your research, your data, and your conclusions. Afterwards, I'll take you out for a beer on Bourbon Street to introduce you to some of the climate scientists who would be very interested in your research — hell, I'll even buy!
An excellent report. Thanks. However, I have to note that at the recent American Geophysical Conference I talked with a number of climate scientists who were not as sanguine about the IEA's prediction of a leveling-off of GHGs, especially in light of the U.S.'s abdication of leadership in transitioning to non–fossil fuel energy sources. I hope the IEA will prove to be correct, but I fear they may be rather optimistic.
Defending one's own article is a sad admission that said article wasn't sufficiently convincing ... but ... hey ... here I go ...
I’ve got a couple of quick request for you folks who deny the reality of man-made climate change:
First, please disprove the simple and basic physics behind the absorption and re-radiation of the energy of long-wave radiation (IR) by large, active molecules such as CO2, CH4, N2O, and the like, and how that re-radiation warms the troposphere in quite easily measurable and quantifiable amounts while measurably cooling the stratosphere, as has been well-demonstrated for many decades. If it weren't for the Earth's greenhouse-gas blanket, simple physics (the Stefan-Boltzmann black-body equations, for you fellow nerds out there) proves that the Earth's temperature would average about -15ºC. Thanks to those gasses (and, of course, water vapor), we average around 15°C globally — though that number has been steadily rising since mid-last century, and the rate of that rise is measurably increasing. What our rapid addition of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere is doing is mucking with that fine balance. We're cooking ourselves. No argument. Provable. Simple as pie, physically speaking.
Second, also explain how it's meaningless that this warming not only correlates quite smoothly with the steep increase in radiative-forcing CO2 in the troposphere in the last century, as well as being mathematically and demonstrably well-fitted through multiple well-sourced and peer-reviewed analyses to prove that such other forcings as volcanoes, solar activity, aerosols, and other niceties can't account for the same global temperature rises.
Third, how about irrefutably disproving all of the easily correlated temperature measurements by multiple independent international sources, such as NOAA, NASA, the UK Met Office, BEST, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and others over the past half-century or more. Y'know, the ones that unarguably prove that global temperatures are rising faster than at any other time that science can determine during the past 800,000 or so years.
You won't be able to answer those questions without conspiratorial silliness or unvetted analyses. Anthropogenically initiated climate change is a problem — a real, quantifiable, demonstrable, and most importantly solvable problem. Luckily, we humans are smart. We’re inventive. We’re innovative. We can fix it — if we hurry.
We can fix it, that is, as long as we understand, carefully examine, and vet the data-driven science, and don't confuse it with politics. Science is science — it's neither left nor right, neither conservative nor liberal. How we respond to the reality of global warming and its concomitant climate change ... well ... that's policy, not science — and as such it's well within the arguable political arena. So let's argue about that, shall we?
Interesting. I’m a psychopathic criminal. What’s more, I frequently associate with many other psychopathic criminals. Who knew? I think I’ll spend the evening on a gleeful spree of rape, plunder, murder, and rooting for Real Madrid over Man City. Thanks for the by-your-leave …
One quick comment about biomass: According to most biomass studies, only a small percentage would be from burning wood, and that wood would largely be waste from industrial logging. The vast majority of biomass energy conversion would be from urban and rural waste — food waste (of which there is an enormous amount) and other waste. Don’t worry about forests; they’ll be fine (and necessary).
You do know, of course, that your analyses are quite incorrect, and that the vast, vast majority of qualified, objective climate scientists are more than merely aware of your errors, they can pick them apart with precision. I can't help but wonder what your motivations might be. An interesting psychological experiment, to be perfectly honest.
I find it interesting that you make outlandish, unsupported assertions without even attempting to provide data that confirms your theses. Let me join in the fun: You are clearly an Ionesco rhinoceros, interested only in destruction of logic rather than reasonable, fact-based discussion. Prove me wrong, Perissodactyla Rhinocerotida ...
I can only provide verifiable data for wildfires in the U.S. since 1983 — when such data began to be centralized — but acreage has most definitely increased: https://www.nifc.gov/fire-information/statistics/wildfires
Oh, and you want to talk about how climate science is a "religion"? Tell you what: The next AGU annual conference will be in Washington DC in late 2024. Come meet me there, and I'll buy you a beer and introduce you to some of the better-informed, data-supported scientists studying this challenge, and see whether after an honest discussion you can still dismiss the understanding of the climate challenge as a "religion". My treat.
Oh, and trust me, American beer is vastly improved since the last time you may have visited our shores.
Ah, the old "Scientists and rapacious IPCC members are raking in squllions of Euros for telling governments the lies they want to hear!!"
Hmm ... the most recent IPCC report had 270 main authors from 67 countries. How were they paid? By whom? How much did each member of the "IPCC management" receive? And if it''s only those insidious scientists being paid off, exactly who is paying them? How much? And what evidence 'do you have to track the "billions per years" that you claim are being distributed?
You silly, silly man ...
You might investigate this concept called "science" someday. It's based upon data, analysis, and the reasonable intersection of both. Wild-eyed speculation is right out.
You write, "Every climate model existing is and has been wrong so far." I'm sorry, but I do believe that a careful, properly objective analysis of that statement might be best expressed as "Bullshit!"
Do spend a wee bit of time examining the backcasting successes of CMIP6 — or even CMIP5 — and NCAR's CSEM2 (both WACCM6 and CAM6), then get back to me, m'kay?
Hmm ... I'd be interested to see your data on how the recent measurable increases in vapor pressure deficits and their clear attribution to climate change–exacerbated warming and evapotranspiration have had no effect on the increase in wildfires in the western United States and southwestern Canada.
"Oil companies don't use fossil fuels - people do".
Let me edit that, if you don't mind: "Heroin, fentanyl, and meth dealer don't use drugs - people do."
Sure, let's allow anyone to produce anything they want at any volume they want, and blame their products' ill effects on the users of those products.
Seriously, though, every rational planner working to mitigate the adverse impacts of climate change agrees that we humans need the freedom — nay, the necessity — "to be able to travel around, heat their homes and eat food." Duh. The question is how to manage a carefully calibrated transition from today's clearly provable warming-exacerbating GHG flood to a less destructive energy basis.
That's the challenge. Luckily, many members of our species are not only rational, but resourceful.
You are, quite simply and easily provably, incorrect.
A quick bit of ... uh ... science: If it weren't for the Earth's greenhouse-gas blanket, simple physics (the Stefan-Boltzmann black-body equations, for you nerds out there) proves that the Earth's temperature would average about -15ºC. Thanks to those gasses (and, of course, water vapor), we average around 15ºC globally — though that number is steadily rising. Y’see, loosely bound molecules such as CO2 and CH4 are excited by IR radiation reflecting off the Earth’s surface, and thus re-radiate some of that energy back into the troposphere, measurably warming that atmospheric layer while simultaneously cooling the stratosphere, as has been observed for decades. Just true.
What our rapid addition of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere is doing is mucking with that fine balance. We're cooking ourselves. No argument. Provable. Simple as pie.
Luckily, we humans are smart. We’re inventive. We’re innovative. We can fix it — if we hurry — and make a boatload of money doing so.
Okay, you clearly don’t understand the simple physics behind the unarguable fact that our addition of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere is warming the world — or perhaps you know something other than that which nearly every competent climate scientist understands to be true. Or perhaps you believe in some whacko conspiracy lunacy such as “They’re trying to control us!” or “The scientists are all in it for grant money!” crapola.
Do you disagree with the “Well, duh …” clear bit of physical reality that underpins climate science? If so, and if you have proof of the errors you see in that experimentally provable reality, perhaps you should share your well-documented findings with the scientific community. I’m certain they’d find your insights of interest and value.
Uh, no …
The First Amendment merely — and wisely — disallows governmental suppression of speech. Independent entities such as you, me, Facebook, or your local newspaper are perfectly free to present, support, or champion any ideas that they — we — may wish to stand behind or they — we — may refuse to offer them a platform. Compelling you, me, Twitter, or Truth Social to provide a platform for ideas they deem dangerous or utter bollocks is intellectual tyranny.
There are assholes in this world. There are sniveling dickheads. There are embarrassments to humanity. There are worthless wastes of eons of human evolution. There are puke-inducing turdmen who make reasonable folks weep to be members of their species.
And then there's Martin Shkreli ...
"Overall, it is insulting to pretty much anyone who isn't James Damore."
Beautiful line — that is, if one defines "beautiful" to mean, "My sentiments. exactly."
Damore, as you explain and to which I concur, is not the most subtle, most nuanced sandwich at the picnic, tool in the toolbox, knife in the drawer. He may be able to code and/or architect efficiently, but I — if I were a Google manager — would keep him far, far away from any interactions with Actual Humans™.
Fire him? Well, not a bad idea — although such a decision is, of course, dependent upon who else is in his workgroup, if he plays well with others on a daily basis, or if his skills are commiserate with his salary.
But, all in all, it's Google's decision — and Damore certainly didn't help his case by proving that he's not exactly the world's most cogent thinker.
Heaven forfend! Do you actually mean to imply that the Republican-controlled FCC and its minon-master Ajit Pai is actually favoring monopoly business over Average Americans™?! Stop the presses! The populace must be informed! I'm sure that once they realize they're being screwed, they'll rise up against their corporate masters, armed with the requisite pitchforks and torches.
Seriously, though, Kieren, thanks for your careful and detailed report about how the GOP is, yet again, screwing us Americans in ... well ... the opening at the end of the alimentary canal through which solid waste matter leaves the body.
Chris, thanks for an excellent, readable, thorough, and eminently understandable article. Having left El Reg over two years ago, and having since devoted all my tech energies towards climate-change science rather than computing, it was pure pleasure to catch up on what many of us in the tech world have seen for decades as the Holy Grail — well, one Grail, at least ("He's already got one! It's very nice ...") — of HPC: the eventual merging of mass storage and direct CPU-addressable memory, preferably in multi-server fabrics (is that still a reasonable bit of descriptive prose? [I'm frightfully out of the loop ...]).
Two quick questions, though: you mention phase-change memory — is that still undead? And how's Crossbar and their ReRAM doing, financially?
Just a quick question, Big John — well, three, actually:
First, please disprove the simple and demonstrable physics behind the blockage, absorption, and re-radiation of long-wave (IR) radiation by large, active molecules such as CO2, CH4, N2O, and the like, and how that blockage and re-radiation warms the troposphere in quite easily measurable and quantifiable amounts while concomitantly and measurably cooling the stratosphere, as has been well-demonstrated for many decades.
Second, please explain how it's meaningless that that warming not only correlates quite smoothly with the steep increase in radiative-forcing CO2 in the troposphere in, say, the last century, as well as being mathematically and demonstrably well-fitted through multiple well-sourced and peer-reviewed analyses to prove that such other forcings as volcanoes, solar activity, aerosols, and other niceties can in no way account for the same global temperature increases.
Third, challenge and refute all of the easily correlated temperature measurements, such as those by NOAA, NASA, UK Met Office, BEST, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and others over the past half-century or more.
Or would simply prefer to ignore the well-vetted and carefully analyzed science created — and thoroughly argued over, trust me — by thousands of researchers from a broad range of countries? Or maybe you would go as far as to imply that all of those thousands of scientists' work is somehow an insanely complex and conspiratorial fraud? Might you be one of the "climate science is political" folks who hide behind ludicrous “lib’ruls wanna steal our freedoms ’n‘ guns” arguments? Or might you desperately latch onto crazy ’n‘ unprovable solar-variability theories, or some other non-empirical claptrap?
It's science, dear boy — measurable, testable, and replicable. And the only reason we of scientific training and practice find a need to defend it is because unscientific folks such as yourself — who in your silliness describe our understanding of scientific results, analyses, and recommendations as a "religion" — are so vociferous in your politicized, unscientific, data-starved attacks.
What do you fear?
Please, sir, just go away. Go away. And, might I humbly request, go away quickly. There are other websites that I do believe at which you might find more comfort and cursor: Breitbart? Infowars? World News Daily? The Daily Caller?
You'll be happier there amongst your science-denying peers, those of the "Don't blind me with facts 'n' data!" ilk. And we'll all be happier when you focus your energies there, seeing as how we won't have to deal with you hateful simplicity anymore, and you won't have to deal with our pointing out such silliness as, "It's obvious the science is wrong because the models are complete bullshit."
Silly, silly man ...
G'bye. Be well. And don't forget to write when you find work ...
@Big John: "Get back to us when the temps start to rise again, okay?"
Hmmm ... here's one dataset in which you might be interested: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Or do you not believe that one simply because it's "from duh gub'mint?" If not, how 'bout http://bit.ly/1ot2Lpu
Still too governmental? Then how 'bout the satellite dataset that climate-science deniers — okay, "contrarians" — seem to prefer: http://bit.ly/2hQksAC
Or what datasets are you talking about?
I'm quite sorry, but you are quite seriously, scientifically, and undeniably quite in error. You assert without evidence.
If you could do me the kind favor of citing peer-reviewed, well-supported, and non-moronic papers supporting your silliness, I'd be more than happy to refute them, one by one.
M'kay?
Quick question: wouldn't it be reasonable to call someone who disputes the reality of evolution a person who "denies" evolution? Would you call someone who disputes the reality of heliocentrism a "denier" of heliocentrism?
The basic — and may I repeat that? thanks: "basic, basic, basic, basic" — and irrefutable physics behind the blockage, absorption, and re-radiation of long-wave radiation by large, active molecules such as CO2, CH4, N2O, and the like, and how that blockage and re-radiation warms the troposphere, surface, and ocean in quite easily measurable and quantifiable amounts while concomitantly and measurably cooling the stratosphere, have been well-demonstrated for many decades. Someone who calls that solid physics into question — oh, and not the intense and active squiggling around the margins regarding future effects and considered solutions, which many reasonable scientists still debate — are, quite simply, deniers of irrefutable facts. "Truth," one might even say.
"Deniers" is not a "pejorative" term. It's simply an accurate identification.
Oh, and when you have a free nanosecond, hop aboard some of the right-wing wacko websites and see who really are the "fanatics" who want to burn their enemies "at the stake." It ain't the scientists, kiddo.
"And people say real men are a dying breed. What could possibly give them that idea..."
Ah yes, real men let twits with no understanding of economics, let alone international trade and regulatory subtleties kick them in their employment-chances bollocks without a complaint or a whimper.
"Please, sir, may I have another? I'm a Real Man™!"
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
