|
Post by lenardo on Jul 31, 2011 0:43:06 GMT
see that is the problem
the sun DOES rise from the east...and if real climate says it. i wouldn't believe them- even if they said something that was correct, i wouldn't believe it due to how to censor.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jul 31, 2011 2:00:47 GMT
Richard: Actually, Judith blows real climates analysis out of the water, and the comments in regard to S&B completely blow Real climate out of the water. Real climate is about worthless anymore. Sad to witness the total lack of scientific discussion there. Has turned out to be a rah rah party with no credibility. Thats what happens when you censor comments. I have actually found this board to more knowledgeable and informative, and certainly thought provoking than RC ever could be. Funny how the realists, the actual skeptics pick things apart, while looking at the value as well. From reading the paper again, with Judiths comments in mind....this paper has tremendous value. TREMENDOUS value. It shows the observations trump the models. Aren't you just amazed? And most importantly, it really does show that Dressler is all wet. He IS flat out totally wrong. And his comment that science isn't important anymore, that it is the governments job now.....shows that he wasn't a scientist to begin with. Yes, I am amazed. It is astounding that you can say such things with a straight face. Are you talking about this blog? judithcurry.com/2011/07/30/spencer-braswells-new-paper/If so, Judith did NOT agree with Spencer. She agreed with RC and others that " TF attempt to reproduce S&B’s results, and make a key point that the comparison depends critically on which climate models you select. If you select climate models that do not simulate El Nino’s very well, you will get a poor comparison, whereas you get a good comparison using the best models." Yep, over 10 years ENSO dominates. We knew that, but apparently Spencer doesn't. Judith also said, " How to translate all of this into a conclusion that climate models are producing incorrect sensitivity to greenhouse warming is not at all clear." Yep, more arm waving by skeptics. No basis in reality, even as judged by a skeptical scientist. Judith goes on, "The paper makes a useful contribution, but in the end they make the same error in interpretation that they accuse others of making. In my opinion it is not correct to infer from their analysis that global temperature variations were largely radiatively forced." There ya go. Spencer's paper is fatally flawed on a basic level. It is worthless.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jul 31, 2011 3:22:22 GMT
Richard: Actually, Judith blows real climates analysis out of the water, and the comments in regard to S&B completely blow Real climate out of the water. Real climate is about worthless anymore. Sad to witness the total lack of scientific discussion there. Has turned out to be a rah rah party with no credibility. Thats what happens when you censor comments. I have actually found this board to more knowledgeable and informative, and certainly thought provoking than RC ever could be. Funny how the realists, the actual skeptics pick things apart, while looking at the value as well. From reading the paper again, with Judiths comments in mind....this paper has tremendous value. TREMENDOUS value. It shows the observations trump the models. Aren't you just amazed? And most importantly, it really does show that Dressler is all wet. He IS flat out totally wrong. And his comment that science isn't important anymore, that it is the governments job now.....shows that he wasn't a scientist to begin with. Yes, I am amazed. It is astounding that you can say such things with a straight face. Are you talking about this blog? judithcurry.com/2011/07/30/spencer-braswells-new-paper/If so, Judith did NOT agree with Spencer. She agreed with RC and others that " TF attempt to reproduce S&B’s results, and make a key point that the comparison depends critically on which climate models you select. If you select climate models that do not simulate El Nino’s very well, you will get a poor comparison, whereas you get a good comparison using the best models." Yep, over 10 years ENSO dominates. We knew that, but apparently Spencer doesn't. Judith also said, " How to translate all of this into a conclusion that climate models are producing incorrect sensitivity to greenhouse warming is not at all clear." Yep, more arm waving by skeptics. No basis in reality, even as judged by a skeptical scientist. Judith goes on, "The paper makes a useful contribution, but in the end they make the same error in interpretation that they accuse others of making. In my opinion it is not correct to infer from their analysis that global temperature variations were largely radiatively forced." There ya go. Spencer's paper is fatally flawed on a basic level. It is worthless. Even Spencer thinks the title is a bit over the top. "COMMENTS ON THE FORBES ARTICLE BY JAMES TAYLOR I have received literally dozens of phone calls and e-mails asking basically the same question: did James Taylor’s Forbes article really represent what we published in our Remote Sensing journal article this week? " But now the argument seems to be about Taylor's Headline while quickly avoiding the facts. "Fallout from Our Paper: The Empire Strikes Back" Checkout figure three as Dr. Spencer suggests. www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer_Misdiagnos_11.pdfwww.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/fallout-from-our-paper-the-empire-strikes-back/
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jul 31, 2011 3:30:05 GMT
Richard: Actually, Judith blows real climates analysis out of the water, and the comments in regard to S&B completely blow Real climate out of the water. Real climate is about worthless anymore. Sad to witness the total lack of scientific discussion there. Has turned out to be a rah rah party with no credibility. Thats what happens when you censor comments. I have actually found this board to more knowledgeable and informative, and certainly thought provoking than RC ever could be. Funny how the realists, the actual skeptics pick things apart, while looking at the value as well. From reading the paper again, with Judiths comments in mind....this paper has tremendous value. TREMENDOUS value. It shows the observations trump the models. Aren't you just amazed? And most importantly, it really does show that Dressler is all wet. He IS flat out totally wrong. And his comment that science isn't important anymore, that it is the governments job now.....shows that he wasn't a scientist to begin with. Yes, I am amazed. It is astounding that you can say such things with a straight face. Are you talking about this blog? judithcurry.com/2011/07/30/spencer-braswells-new-paper/If so, Judith did NOT agree with Spencer. She agreed with RC and others that " TF attempt to reproduce S&B’s results, and make a key point that the comparison depends critically on which climate models you select. If you select climate models that do not simulate El Nino’s very well, you will get a poor comparison, whereas you get a good comparison using the best models." Yep, over 10 years ENSO dominates. We knew that, but apparently Spencer doesn't. Judith also said, " How to translate all of this into a conclusion that climate models are producing incorrect sensitivity to greenhouse warming is not at all clear." Yep, more arm waving by skeptics. No basis in reality, even as judged by a skeptical scientist. Judith goes on, "The paper makes a useful contribution, but in the end they make the same error in interpretation that they accuse others of making. In my opinion it is not correct to infer from their analysis that global temperature variations were largely radiatively forced." There ya go. Spencer's paper is fatally flawed on a basic level. It is worthless. Richard, Excellent points, but don't expect the denialsts on this forum to be persuaded by logic. Still it is worth asking. Denialists out there. Spencer's paper is illogical. Do you have some scientific literature support, or is Spencer all you got?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 31, 2011 3:42:37 GMT
Thermostat:Richard: I think it would behoove you to read the rest of what Judith Curry wrote as well. And also read the comments section related to this post. IT is extremely interesting. One thing that you both are missing is what this paper shows, but somehow that does not surpprise me at all.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jul 31, 2011 3:47:14 GMT
Checkout figure three as Dr. Spencer suggests. OK. The first big error I see is that Spencer averaged models together. This doesn't work because some of the models accurately handle ENSO and others don't. He should have plotted the models that accurately handled ENSO, since ten years is such a short period as to be dominated by ENSO. What in figure three makes you think climate sensitivity is estimated too high by climate science?
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jul 31, 2011 3:57:22 GMT
Checkout figure three as Dr. Spencer suggests. OK. The first big error I see is that Spencer averaged models together. This doesn't work because some of the models accurately handle ENSO and others don't. He should have plotted the models that accurately handled ENSO, since ten years is such a short period as to be dominated by ENSO. What in figure three makes you think climate sensitivity is estimated too high by climate science? Richard, I appreciate your reply. Nevertheless, being scientifically correct is neither here nor there on this forum. Science is not the issue here. Rather the issue is denialist ideology.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jul 31, 2011 5:15:55 GMT
Thermostat:Richard: I think it would behoove you to read the rest of what Judith Curry wrote as well. And also read the comments section related to this post. IT is extremely interesting. One thing that you both are missing is what this paper shows, but somehow that does not surpprise me at all. OK. Tell us how the paper proves that climate sensitivity is grossly overestimated. I read what Judith Curry wrote and it doesn't add diddly to the conversation except to buttress the claims of the real climate scientists. I posted much of her comments, and of course, there were NO replies on SC24.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 31, 2011 13:59:26 GMT
Thermostat:Richard: I think it would behoove you to read the rest of what Judith Curry wrote as well. And also read the comments section related to this post. IT is extremely interesting. One thing that you both are missing is what this paper shows, but somehow that does not surpprise me at all. OK. Tell us how the paper proves that climate sensitivity is grossly overestimated. I read what Judith Curry wrote and it doesn't add diddly to the conversation except to buttress the claims of the real climate scientists. I posted much of her comments, and of course, there were NO replies on SC24. Ok.....here is the most important feature of the paper, and even the criticisim of it. NO one is stateing that the measurements themselves are not valid.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 31, 2011 14:05:30 GMT
As far as sensativity, that is a wide open question. Kinda like shooting ducks in a barrel. It is confined to an area, and the scatter within that area has feathers, but there is no right shot, nor no wrong shot, because any shot will get you a dead duck. At this time an arguement for 1.2 is as valid as an arguement for 6.2 for a doubling of co2.
The observations are pointing to the 1.2, but the time period is too short for that number to be a certain dead duck. One thing for certain tho, is the shotgun is going to give you a dead duck when the trigger is pulled.
And that shotgun is the measurement of outgoing radiation.
So, yes, the methodology of this paper is poor, but the importance of establishing an accepted measurement is huge.
Now, we can build upon that.
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Jul 31, 2011 15:09:23 GMT
. . . He should have plotted the models that accurately handled ENSO . . . Oh, Jeez, my aching ribs. Thanks for the laugh Richard. Keep taking the tablets. Where's ENSO heading this next year, Richard, you unapologetic moron?
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jul 31, 2011 19:51:40 GMT
. . . He should have plotted the models that accurately handled ENSO . . . Oh, Jeez, my aching ribs. Thanks for the laugh Richard. Keep taking the tablets. Where's ENSO heading this next year, Richard, you unapologetic moron? Now why ask such a silly question? We'll find out next year. By the way, your insult describes yourself.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jul 31, 2011 19:54:23 GMT
As far as sensativity, that is a wide open question. Kinda like shooting ducks in a barrel. It is confined to an area, and the scatter within that area has feathers, but there is no right shot, nor no wrong shot, because any shot will get you a dead duck. At this time an arguement for 1.2 is as valid as an arguement for 6.2 for a doubling of co2. The observations are pointing to the 1.2, Where'd you pick that number from? It doesn't fit with the observations at all. The rise and fall of temperature over the millennia simply won't work with such a low sensitivity.
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Jul 31, 2011 22:26:54 GMT
Away for so long, and still thermostat is a bigoted little twit, with his 'denier' bs. Shove it, t'stat. Here is what Curry said, in full: "The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations.”
I agree with this statement. However, if there is no solution to measuring feedback, I would say that SB are concluding too much from their analysis about feedback, sensitivity, and the performance of models." The basic tent of Spencer's work holds up: that there is fundamental weakness in the assertions of the AGW promotion community.
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Jul 31, 2011 22:28:22 GMT
AGW has always been about true believers like thermostat seizing onto climate science to have an apocalypse to make a scary theology about.
|
|