|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 11, 2011 6:32:46 GMT
That's just common sense. Any paper which purports to overthrow vast reams of the literature should be examined very closely. One should think three or four times before publishing such a thing because, as was shown in the S&B paper, revolutionary papers tend to be wrong. How naive! Why not give up the song and dance and just advocate burning books! Absolutely! One should ignore the science and trust in a bad paper because it supports a denial of science. LOL. You've never once given us the details of what is wrong with Spencer's paper. Would you opine? I'm still waiting for the reams of documents that validate climate models. Having trouble finding them, or should we wait until they get the cloud problem figured out? |
|
|
|
Post by hankslincoln on Sept 26, 2011 17:37:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hankslincoln on Sept 27, 2011 15:39:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hankslincoln on Oct 3, 2011 23:19:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Oct 4, 2011 1:15:08 GMT
Absolutely! One should ignore the science and trust in a bad paper because it supports a denial of science. LOL. You've never once given us the details of what is wrong with Spencer's paper. Would you opine? I'm still waiting for the reams of documents that validate climate models. Having trouble finding them, or should we wait until they get the cloud problem figured out? actually I have a few times. Perhaps you should read and retain better |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 4, 2011 2:31:49 GMT
You've never once given us the details of what is wrong with Spencer's paper. Would you opine? I'm still waiting for the reams of documents that validate climate models. Having trouble finding them, or should we wait until they get the cloud problem figured out? actually I have a few times. Perhaps you should read and retain better actually I have a few times. Perhaps you should read and retain better Actually you haven't on either point. There, the gauntlet is thrown. From everything I recall, all you did was post links to Barry Bickmore and SkepticalScience, said Spencer's paper was garbage, the editor made a mistake etc, his model was like Mann's hockey stick algorithm, complained about using ten years of data (IPCC based part of their conclusion on Hansen 2005 that used ten years of values) and continued on with the SOP ad hominem. Nobody has yet refuted the crux of Spencer's findings. BTW, you still don't understand what the Wood experiment was about. Don't feel alone, many don't. |
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Oct 4, 2011 3:00:46 GMT
actually I have a few times. Perhaps you should read and retain better actually I have a few times. Perhaps you should read and retain better Actually you haven't on either point. There, the gauntlet is thrown. From everything I recall, all you did was post links to Barry Bickmore and SkepticalScience, said Spencer's paper was garbage, the editor made a mistake etc, his model was like Mann's hockey stick algorithm, complained about using ten years of data (IPCC based part of their conclusion on Hansen 2005 that used ten years of values) and continued on with the SOP ad hominem. Nobody has yet refuted the crux of Spencer's findings. BTW, you still don't understand what the Wood experiment was about. Don't feel alone, many don't. No, I won't do your work for you. I've said my peace on Spencer's POS. Go back and read the posts (and maybe the underlying science!) yourself. I've never commented on Woods' paper (which one?  ), so how can you say that? Perhaps if YOU actually commented on Woods' papers instead of just whining you'd get more traction. You've never posted about Arrhenius' papers either. Perhaps if you posted ANYTHING with substance you'd do a bit better. "Woods was right and Arrhenius was wrong" is meaningless. Woods was right about WHAT? Arrhenius was wrong about WHAT? So here's the gauntlet: Post what Arrhenius claimed, then what Woods claimed, and WTF it means to modern science. Just whining that a 100+ year old dispute about some unknown subject allegedly took place without any facts at all is just plain stupid. If you want to make a point, make it. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 4, 2011 3:54:44 GMT
actually I have a few times. Perhaps you should read and retain better Actually you haven't on either point. There, the gauntlet is thrown. From everything I recall, all you did was post links to Barry Bickmore and SkepticalScience, said Spencer's paper was garbage, the editor made a mistake etc, his model was like Mann's hockey stick algorithm, complained about using ten years of data (IPCC based part of their conclusion on Hansen 2005 that used ten years of values) and continued on with the SOP ad hominem. Nobody has yet refuted the crux of Spencer's findings. BTW, you still don't understand what the Wood experiment was about. Don't feel alone, many don't. No, I won't do your work for you. I've said my peace on Spencer's POS. Go back and read the posts (and maybe the underlying science!) yourself. I've never commented on Woods' paper, so how can you say that? Perhaps if YOU actually commented on Woods' paper instead of just whining you'd get more traction. You've never posted about Arrhenius' paper either. Perhaps if you posted ANYTHING with substance you'd do a bit better. "Woods was right and Arrhenius was wrong" is NOT sufficient. So here's the gauntlet: Post what Arrhenius claimed, then what Woods claimed, and WTF it means to modern science. Just whining that a 100+ year old dispute allegedly took place without any facts at all is just plain stupid. If you want to make a point, make it. We've discussed Arrhenius/Wood at length in the past, so you're going to lose on that point alone. That you don't even know the importance of Arrhenius despite the myriads of examples I gave is pretty obvious you aren't as informed on climate "science" as you portend. I gave you what, a few dozen examples of how it is claimed a glass greenhouse works and is compared to exactly how the atmosphere works, yet you continued to pretend they don't exist. Shall I provide a few dozen more? greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/Arrhenius' first error was to assume that greenhouses and hotboxes work as a radiation trap. Fourier explained quite clearly that such structures simply prevent the replenishment of the air inside, allowing it to reach much higher temperatures than are possible in circulating air (Fourier, 1824, translated by Burgess, 1837, p. 12; Fourier, 1827, p. 586). Yet, as we have seen in the previous quotation of Arrhenius, this fundamental misunderstanding of greenhouses is attributed by Arrhenius to Fourier. And you still can't figure out why the missing "hot spot" is important or why the linked experiment replicating Wood is important? Like many topics, when you can't respond substantively, you simply say you don't care about it or attack your opponent with insults. I don't mind insults, but why they are empty words, you're going to get it doubled back; like they say, what comes around goes around. Models don't matter to you? The entire AGW fairy tale depends on them. Your tactics can be summed up in this post: solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=globalwarming&thread=1804&post=74845For instance, you linked to a RealClimate article on the 'hot spot', apparently without even knowing what the subject is really about. That post was from 2008. All you did was go mining for a quote or thread that you think is supportive of your POV. You hadn't the foggiest how horribly deceptive RC (Santer 08) was. I'll give you one hint and will bet others who do know and want can chime in. From your RC source: For 1979-1999....... That's it. 13 letters. They left out 8 years of data! When extended to 2008, the year Santer 08 was published, the results were the models were 200-400% wrong!! And you have the nerve to call Spencer's paper garbage? Get over it. The hot spot doesn't exist as advertised; AGW "theory" failed. I've already posted the paper(s) ad nauseum that completely obliterate Santer 08. A new one was published recently that concludes the same thing; the data doesn't support the hypothesis. I'm sure if you search at RC they'll have it all handy ;D Your mining expedition, with no maps or directions, found fool's gold, and like a blind squirrel you thought you found a nut when it was only a stone. Why not just go back to 1998 and post Michael Mann's tree ring "study" from Nature and proudly proclaim it as proof temperature record for the last 1000 years really is shaped like a hockey stick and ignore all the contradicting evidence. You could also go mining for OHC as "proof" of AGW ala Hansen 2005 despite it failed as well. |
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Oct 4, 2011 6:49:38 GMT
We've discussed Arrhenius/Wood at length in the past, so you're going to lose on that point alone. That you don't even know the importance of Arrhenius despite the myriads of examples I gave is pretty obvious you aren't as informed on climate "science" as you portend. I gave you what, a few dozen examples of how it is claimed a glass greenhouse works and is compared to exactly how the atmosphere works, yet you continued to pretend they don't exist. Shall I provide a few dozen more? greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/Arrhenius' first error was to assume that greenhouses and hotboxes work as a radiation trap. Fourier explained quite clearly that such structures simply prevent the replenishment of the air inside, allowing it to reach much higher temperatures than are possible in circulating air (Fourier, 1824, translated by Burgess, 1837, p. 12; Fourier, 1827, p. 586). Yet, as we have seen in the previous quotation of Arrhenius, this fundamental misunderstanding of greenhouses is attributed by Arrhenius to Fourier. And you still can't figure out why the missing "hot spot" is important or why the linked experiment replicating Wood is important? Like many topics, when you can't respond substantively, you simply say you don't care about it or attack your opponent with insults. I don't mind insults, but why they are empty words, you're going to get it doubled back; like they say, what comes around goes around. Models don't matter to you? The entire AGW fairy tale depends on them. Your tactics can be summed up in this post: solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=globalwarming&thread=1804&post=74845For instance, you linked to a RealClimate article on the 'hot spot', apparently without even knowing what the subject is really about. That post was from 2008. All you did was go mining for a quote or thread that you think is supportive of your POV. You hadn't the foggiest how horribly deceptive RC (Santer 08) was. I'll give you one hint and will bet others who do know and want can chime in. From your RC source: For 1979-1999....... That's it. 13 letters. They left out 8 years of data! When extended to 2008, the year Santer 08 was published, the results were the models were 200-400% wrong!! And you have the nerve to call Spencer's paper garbage? Get over it. The hot spot doesn't exist as advertised; AGW "theory" failed. I've already posted the paper(s) ad nauseum that completely obliterate Santer 08. A new one was published recently that concludes the same thing; the data doesn't support the hypothesis. I'm sure if you search at RC they'll have it all handy ;D Your mining expedition, with no maps or directions, found fool's gold, and like a blind squirrel you thought you found a nut when it was only a stone. Why not just go back to 1998 and post Michael Mann's tree ring "study" from Nature and proudly proclaim it as proof temperature record for the last 1000 years really is shaped like a hockey stick and ignore all the contradicting evidence. You could also go mining for OHC as "proof" of AGW ala Hansen 2005 despite it failed as well. No, you've NEVER stated what Arrhenius or Woods claimed. Mostly, your posts that analogies are wrong are just plain stupid. Analogies are just analogies. Post all the analogies you want. So what? Duh. yes, Spencer's paper is total garbage. Dessler's paper shredded it. Get over it, or actually post something worthwhile. The hot spot issue is NOT specific to AGW, and does NOT negate AGW. The big signature of AGW is a cooling stratosphere. How about a comment on that? Again, you spout without any facts about a 100+ year old hypothetical argument. Arrhenius said WHAT? Woods said WHAT? HOW does either matter to modern science? Perhaps a shred of relevancy? Remember, we're talking about the atmosphere, NOT glass greenhouses. Arrhenius was researching CO2's absorbtion and re-emission of energy, NOT glass greenhouses. Your attempt to change the subject to glass greenhouses is irrelevant and immaterial. Glass greenhouses DO NOT have any relevancy to climate science. If you're saying that Arrhenius didn't understand glass greenhouses, then big whup. Who cares? Maybe he didn't. Maybe he did. So what? That is totally irrelevant to climate science. So again, what did Arrhenius say about the atmosphere, and what did Woods say about the atmosphere, and what relevance does it have to modern science? Please post SOMETHING with ANY relevance. You seem to be confused about glass greenhouses. Here's a hint: They have NOTHING to do with climate science and your attempt to make them the be-all and end-all is just plain wrong. I'll be waiting for you to post ANYTHING about Arrhenius' or Woods' thoughts on the real atmosphere. So far, you've posted NOTHING. Of course, if Arrhenius was completely wrong (about what, we don't know), so what? You've got to give some sort of indication about how modern climate science is wrong. I don't care whether Arrhenius was wrong or not about glass greenhouses, and I don't care about glass greenhouses today either. Nobody else does either, except you. Just to make it clear, glass greenhouses have NOTHING to do with modern climate science and ANYBODY (including you) who thinks otherwise is just plain wrong. if you're saying that you and others who think glass greenhouses are exact descriptions of climate science are wrong, then YAY, we're on the same page. The three people on the planet who who think that they are are just plain wrong. You are arguing about a non-issue. We're talking about climate science, which is a totally different subject. |
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Oct 4, 2011 7:35:46 GMT
"The big signature of AGW is a cooling stratosphere. How about a comment on that?" www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.htmlAGW's big signature hasn't been seen for a decade-and-a-half. How about a comment on that?
|
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Oct 4, 2011 7:41:51 GMT
"The big signature of AGW is a cooling stratosphere. How about a comment on that?"www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.htmlAGW's big signature hasn't been seen for a decade-and-a-half. How about a comment on that? If that's a plot of stratospheric temperatures, then it shows exactly that. If not, perhaps you should label your posts. |
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Oct 4, 2011 19:32:13 GMT
Commonsense,
Surprisingly, it is stratospheric temperatures. The source is in the link. The stratosphere has stopped cooling. The two big high spikes are El Chichon and Pinatubo.
The tropical tropospheric hotspot doesn't exist and the stratosphere is not cooling.
The models have no skill.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 5, 2011 2:55:22 GMT
Commonsense, Surprisingly, it is stratospheric temperatures. The source is in the link. The stratosphere has stopped cooling. The two big high spikes are El Chichon and Pinatubo. The tropical tropospheric hotspot doesn't exist and the stratosphere is not cooling. The models have no skill. Hairball: We know the models have no skill. The people that write the models plainly indicate that they have no skill and are only beginnings of how to put our limited knowledge together to try and tweak out the errors and eventually have something useful. There is no shame in that. The problem has been for some time that people have grasped at straws in the models. You have to look at the uncertainty bars. They are huge......HUGE......which the modelers know fully and understand. The models are not verification of anything. Anyone who has studied climate science knows that the Tropical hot spot has not been measured. Part of the reason for this is the ability to actually measure it. Another part of the reason is that there is not even a hint of it showing up. As far as the stratosphere, once again. Anyone who reads the literature knows the stratosphere has not cooled. Remember tho, the cooling that was suppose to happen was deduced from models that are far far from complete enough to make any type of long term prediction based on the current science. |
|
|
|
Post by hankslincoln on Oct 17, 2011 20:56:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hankslincoln on Oct 24, 2011 23:35:03 GMT
|
|
), so how can you say that? Perhaps if YOU actually commented on Woods' papers instead of just whining you'd get more traction. You've never posted about Arrhenius' papers either. Perhaps if you posted ANYTHING with substance you'd do a bit better. "Woods was right and Arrhenius was wrong" is meaningless. Woods was right about WHAT? Arrhenius was wrong about WHAT? So here's the gauntlet: Post what Arrhenius claimed, then what Woods claimed, and WTF it means to modern science. Just whining that a 100+ year old dispute about some unknown subject allegedly took place without any facts at all is just plain stupid. If you want to make a point, make it.
