@TMTisFree

Quote:

If you really want to give a link about CO² history, better offer a site build up by someone not from the "hockey-stick" team [Weart is from Schmidt & Mann UnRealClimate crew]. His biased view does not deserve any credibility.

a biased point of view I do not concur with.

Noel

The SKY is Falling !!


Apologies if that link had already been posted/discussed

_________________
******************************************
I dont suffer from Insanity - I enjoy it

******************************************

@NoelFuller

Quote:

a biased point of view I do not concur with.

I am not teaming with any parties. I made and still make my opinion myself based on observations, readings and calculations. I'm certainly biased by having my own opinion, as everyone else.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@The_Editor

Errm, that post was pure mischief making. Sensor drift is a well known problem with satelite measures and in this case the problem arose during January this year and persisted between 4 & 6 weeks. The post however implied it had been there for a much longer period and in particular rubbished predictions on ice cover made in May 2008. Again the reference to more extensive ice cover in 2009 for which there are explanations about, ignores the major question of how thick or thin the ice is. Normally the Russians have easily found enough thickness (old ice) to put up camps on the ice for their research. Last year they had to settle for a precarius position that they had to eventually abandon rather huriedly.

Greater cold this northern winter plus more incoming meltwater from nearby glaciers has resulted in more new ice. Ice mass is another and more difficult matter (trying to recall various reads about this over last few months).

Noel

@NoelFuller

7 signs of Pseudoscience

@Plaz

An interesting survey of what that satelite was about and what can currently compensate for its loss is here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/02/its-wrong-to-wish-on-space-hardware/#more-655

Among the comments near the end is an abstract of a paper on space debris that makes a fascinating point about the future safety of space ops.

Noel

@BrianK

Interesting, Al Gore, J. Hansen and the UnRealClimate folkloric troop get 7/6/6 of 7, respectively.

Edit: typo

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 26-Feb-2009 at 07:36 AM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@The_Editor, NoelFuller

Old news. It was first reported here, here and here 10 days ago. UnRealClimate is like CO², lagging.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

7 signs of Pseudoscience

I was interested to note he gave himself an out. I thought I could add a few more signs.

Noel

@TMTisFree

Quote:

UnRealClimate

Yet another example of a predjudicial statement intended to disuade readers from examining the thought there.

Noel

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Interesting, Al Gore, J. Hansen and the UnRealClimate folkloric troop get 7/6/6 of 7, respectively.

Always interesting how people view this. I would not give RealClimate a 6 but at best a 2.


1) Direct to media: Not really. They have done the work and the articles were out there for what a decade before their first post? It was a site established to explain to non-scientists why scientists were accepting that observation and theories. The science they have here was first accepted into scientific journals.

2) I don't believe Real Climate made this claim.
3) This is true to anti-agw and pro-agw claims to some extent. We as humans are combining multiple systems to come up with a complex model of operation to understand an even more complex system.

4) Ancedotal evidence.. (Side point on ancedote I can't think of a larger one in this thread then some weatherman who spent ~2 years in Antarctica and made the completely unsupported claim that helicopters could not be used so therefore it was the coldest evar! )

6) Belief credible because it endured for centuries? Definitely no the 'belief' of man's ability to change the climate of the planet is an occurrance that is recent. The thought that man may impact the environment dawned in the 1970s.

7) New laws of nature proposed. I'd say no for Real Climate.

So again at most 2....

@NoelFuller

Quote:

NoelFuller wrote: @TMTisFree Quote: UnRealClimate Yet another example of a predjudicial statement intended to disuade readers from examining the thought there. Noel

Prejudicial for who? As I review the UnRealClimate site quite frequently myself (I am currently parsing a 450 posts thread for some jewels) to forge my own opinion about the current state of the pseudo-science in the model and statistics area, I also, of course and heartily, encourage everyone to visit the site to have his own opinion (beware, dissent or questioning posts not allowed, that is, snipped).

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

I was not playing this game, but as this really easy...

Quote:

1) Direct to media: Not really. They have done the work and the articles were out there for what a decade before their first post? It was a site established to explain to non-scientists why scientists were accepting that observation and theories. The science they have here was first accepted into scientific journals.

The last Steig's paper was in the cyberspace (and by a large extend) while not yet published in Nature. 1/7.

Quote:

2) I don't believe Real Climate made this claim.

If I had time I could possibly find quote by Mann or Schmidt about Big Oil, but let agree. 1/7.

Quote:

3) This is true to anti-agw and pro-agw claims to some extent. We as humans are combining multiple systems to come up with a complex model of operation to understand an even more complex system.

So if this is true for everyone, 2/7.

Quote:

4) Ancedotal evidence.. (Side point on ancedote I can't think of a larger one in this thread then some weatherman who spent ~2 years in Antarctica and made the completely unsupported claim that helicopters could not be used so therefore it was the coldest evar! )

Last paper of Steig (I'm studying it right now), the slight natural warming in the end of the last century, etc. 3/7.

Quote:

6) Belief credible because it endured for centuries? Definitely no the 'belief' of man's ability to change the climate of the planet is an occurrance that is recent. The thought that man may impact the environment dawned in the 1970s.

Based on an hypothesis by Arrhenius, manipulated data by Callendar, build as a dogma by Revelle (spiritual father of Al Gore), UnRealClimate pseudoscience in climatology works fundamentally as a religious belief at the present time. This is number 5 in the original text. 4/7.

6) We stays at 4/7.

Quote:

7) New laws of nature proposed. I'd say no for Real Climate.

Of course they propose a new one. It is the perpetual movement. Their concept of greenhouse effect is physically flawed and is build upon a concept of perpetual movement, thus breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamic. In addition, the heavy parametrization of the models they use does not account for any real world data and is thus unphysical. 5/7.

So 5/7 not 6/7. Probably a typo .

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

The last Steig's paper was in the cyberspace (and by a large extend) while not yet published in Nature

It'd be interesting to find it significantly else where besides nature. By 'significantly' I mean something more than a couple of weeks. If it's that minor of a difference I'd say the acceptance in a publication was likely waiting for the publication cycle for it to hit print. Is it 'unfair' to release it a couple of weeks early if it's established to be coming out in a publication? Depends how fine you want to split the hair. I'll split you 1/2 point...

Quote:

Last paper of Steig (I'm studying it right now), the slight natural warming in the end of the last century

Observed readings of the thermometers is not antedotal. Others can prove or disprove by accuracy of the data itself by viewing the actual data from Steig and comparing to the actual data from the logs. West Antarctica was warming in the thermometers. East was cooling. This is reflected in Steig. And, if you read the conclusion there's nothing in Steig itself that says 'man is the cause'. Instead it reports the observed effect. It leaves how/why to other scienists as yet to be explored. So while some GW proponents wish to use this paper to show man=made causes it's a misuse because it's not in the conclusion of the paper. An antedote is the wrong conclusion -1 point.

Quote:

UnRealClimate pseudoscience in climatology works fundamentally as a religious belief at the present time

Ah yes the moonbat theory of the 'Cult of Gaia'... You can have 1/2 pt for your sense of humor.

Quote:

Their concept of greenhouse effect is physically flawed and is build upon a concept of perpetual movement, thus breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamic.

The misapplication of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is always good humor. The problem here is the 2nd law says the entropy of the isolated system will increase. If the earth were an isolated system no energy could enter (sun would have no heating effect) or leave (earth can't radiate energy). Clearly the earth is not an isolated system. -1 for misapplication of physics.

So we met on 3/7.

@BrianK

Quote:

It'd be interesting to find it significantly else where besides nature. By 'significantly' I mean something more than a couple of weeks. If it's that minor of a difference I'd say the acceptance in a publication was likely waiting for the publication cycle for it to hit print. Is it 'unfair' to release it a couple of weeks early if it's established to be coming out in a publication? Depends how fine you want to split the hair. I'll split you 1/2 point...

Ok. Here is the press release by Mann about its 'revived' hockey stick (date: 1 septembre 2008). But published:
Mann et al. (2008). Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia. PNAS September 9, 2008 vol. 105 no. 36. So I get full point.

Quote:

Observed readings of the thermometers is not antedotal. Others can prove or disprove by accuracy of the data itself by viewing the actual data from Steig and comparing to the actual data from the logs. West Antarctica was warming in the thermometers. East was cooling. This is reflected in Steig. And, if you read the conclusion there's nothing in Steig itself that says 'man is the cause'. Instead it reports the observed effect. It leaves how/why to other scienists as yet to be explored. So while some GW proponents wish to use this paper to show man=made causes it's a misuse because it's not in the conclusion of the paper. An antedote is the wrong conclusion -1 point.

This paper is completely de-constructed in ClimateAudit and other statisticians. These sites shows that the statistical method (PCA) with the (auto-correlated) data used by Steig leads to an artefactual and thus anecdotal conclusion over the whole Antartica. His paper is anecdotal, as are the hockey stick papers, etc.... Full point.

Quote:

Ah yes the moonbat theory of the 'Cult of Gaia'... You can have 1/2 pt for your sense of humor.

Nobody disproves the facts I point out with references and quotes from respected scientists on the subject. They also believe more in their flawed computer GIGO models than normal physicists have to. +1/2.

Quote:

The misapplication of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is always good humor. The problem here is the 2nd law says the entropy of the isolated system will increase. If the earth were an isolated system no energy could enter (sun would have no heating effect) or leave (earth can't radiate energy). Clearly the earth is not an isolated system. -1 for misapplication of physics.

This is a possible explanation. Another simpler one is that a cold body can't heat up a warm body and it is impossible to have a process that transfers heat from cool objects to warm objects without using work. This process is not 100% efficient, which implies that some amount of energy is always converted/lost in heat. The current greenhouse effect supported by alarmists implies that the 50% of downwards re-radiated longwave (LW) photons by CO² towards the surface induced an increase in temperature. It is not possible as the surface is already warmer than the atmosphere. The only mechanism by which downwards LW photons can interact with the surface is by absorption and instantaneous re-emission of a photon with the same characteristic, that is to say a LW photon for which the atmosphere is transparent and thus escapes directly to outer space. Additionally as the number of CO² molecules in a column of atmosphere is many orders of magnitude higher than the number of IR photons initially radiated by surface after a solar irradiation, the number of excited CO² molecules can not be changed by adding more CO² molecules. Thus an increase of temperature can not occur by a modification of the number of CO² molecules but only by modifying the number of radiated photons by the surface and then only by the solar irradiation. Thus, adding CO² molecules can not increase temperature and GHG effect is not based on physical science. Full point.

We still are at 5/7.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Ok. Here is the press release by Mann about its 'revived' hockey stick (date: 1 septembre 2008). But published: Mann et al. (2008).

Is it 'unfair' to release it a week early if it's established to be coming out in a publication? Depends how fine you want to split the hair. I'll split you 1/2 point... Compare RealClimate to something like WattsUp site. An interesting comparision as WattsUp isn't a climatologist. Also it appears his climate stuff hits the news and web and never seem to make it in the scientific publications...

Quote:

sites shows that the statistical method (PCA) with the (auto-correlated) data used by Steig leads to an artefactual and thus anecdotal conclusion over the whole Antartica

No. This is simply a misapplicaton of the definition of anecdotal. Anecdotal : Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis. The data Steig used was done w/ rigorous scientific analysis. Now if he handled it wrong (which I'd disagree with your conclusion) it doesn't magically change into casually observed. -1.

Quote:

They also believe more in their flawed computer GIGO models than normal physicists have to. +1/2.

Glad you agree to the 1/2 point and no full points here.

Quote:

This is a possible explanation.

The requirement of an isolated system is not 'a possible explanation'. It is THE explaination. Sorry your misapplication isn't helped by trying to redefine things... -1.

Last edited by BrianK on 28-Feb-2009 at 12:15 AM.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

It is not possible as the surface is already warmer than the atmosphere

You must have not experienced seasons? Here we're moving from 0C temperatures on the surface. (Covered in snow and ice) Into spring. Recently this has brought us 10C atmosphere. Strangely the 0C water (snow) melted when exposed to the 10C atmosphere. This state you claim here is NOT the state everywhere on the planet at every time.

Quote:

Thus an increase of temperature can not occur by a modification of the number of CO² molecules

So if we remove all H20 and replace it with CO2 there will be no change to temps? Truly we thought the imagined Cult of Gaia was crazy talk....

@BrianK

Quote:

Is it 'unfair' to release it a week early if it's established to be coming out in a publication? Depends how fine you want to split the hair. I'll split you 1/2 point... Compare RealClimate to something like WattsUp site. An interesting comparision as WattsUp isn't a climatologist. Also it appears his climate stuff hits the news and web and never seem to make it in the scientific publications...

What is unfair is I gave you 2 examples with 2 different people from UnRealClimate and you refuse to give the point. Btw WUWT does not, for the moment, the Science but rather discusses it. Tentative from you to miscompare WUWT with UnRealClimate to makes appear the later better is punished of a full point.

Quote:

No. This is simply a misapplicaton of the definition of anecdotal. Anecdotal : Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis. The data Steig used was done w/ rigorous scientific analysis. Now if he handled it wrong (which I'd disagree with your conclusion) it doesn't magically change into casually observed. -1.

Given the track record of the UnReal Team in its use of statistics to find data where there were not, as the Steig's paper falls in the absence of 'rigorous or scientific analysis' (misunderstanding of statistical tests with serially autocorrelated data and other misunderstanding of statistics), and one of the meaning of 'casual' (according to my dictionary) is 'unimportant' or 'insignificant', UnRealClimate really deserves this full point.

Quote:

Glad you agree to the 1/2 point and no full points here.

Reread. I wrote +1/2. With your 1/2 this gives 1 full point.

Quote:

The requirement of an isolated system is not 'a possible explanation'. It is THE explaination. Sorry your misapplication isn't helped by trying to redefine things... -1.

The definition (explanation) I gave is perfectly correct. A requirement of a law is not an explanation or a definition of this law. The isolated system is required in an ideal world: there is obviously no such thing. Do you think that as Earth is an open system, the 2nd law does not apply? What most people do not understand that the 2nd law deals with heat, not energy. The 2nd law does not care about energy. The 2nd law prevents a cooler object to warm a warmer object (without work). The very hypothesis that a cold atmosphere can warm a warm surface contradicts the 2nd law. Acknowledging this hypothesis is unphysical. Full point.

Still 5/7.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

You must have not experienced seasons? Here we're moving from 0C temperatures on the surface. (Covered in snow and ice) Into spring. Recently this has brought us 10C atmosphere. Strangely the 0C water (snow) melted when exposed to the 10C atmosphere. This state you claim here is NOT the state everywhere on the planet at every time.

As the atmosphere is at 10°C (warm) and the surface at 0°C (cold) the 2nd law is applicable. That is why the ice melts. It is strange that such a simple law is so difficult to understand.

Quote:

So if we remove all H20 and replace it with CO2 there will be no change to temps? Truly we thought the imagined Cult of Gaia was crazy talk....

Geo-engineering is the most stupid invention of the greenies to resolve a non-problem. Anyway it is not possible as the oceans recover 70% of the Earth. The interesting question is "So if we remove CO² back to the supposed industrial level, there will be no change to temperature?" My response is yes.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

What is unfair is I gave you 2 examples with 2 different people from UnRealClimate and you refuse to give the point. Btw WUWT does not, for the moment, the Science but rather discusses it.

Again I ask if the article is approved and comes out 2 weeks earlier than the publication are we not simply waiting for the presses to role? I think the situation is different (read worse) if the science doesn't come to publication for months later or even worse if it never comes to publication. WUWT as you said 'discusses' the science. Of course this is by someone who never worked in climatology, puts his own spin on it (I'll recycle your twisted definition of ancedote here), and never makes publication in scientific journals.

Quote:

is 'unimportant' or 'insignificant', UnRealClimate really deserves this full point

The point of the post was one of ancedotal evidence. I understand you feel their work is statisically unsound this is different than an ancedote. (Again read the claim of a non-helicopter use due to cold and no backing with scientific measure as simple as a thermometer) RealClimate doesn't lose points to ancedotes. They might lose points in your mind due to mishandled stats. But, that was no where on the chart. You'll have to make a #8 for that. (Oh and if you do give a +1 for WUWT too)

Quote:

Nobody disproves the facts I point out with references and quotes from respected scientists on the subject

I was nice enough to extend you 1/2 point for you to be allowed to keep your paranoia of the big brother cult of gaia. The reason no one 'disproved' your facts is that it's really not worth anyone's time to have a logical discussion against a point established by emotional paranoia.

Quote:

The isolated system is required in an ideal world: there is obviously no such thing. Do you think that as Earth is an open system, the 2nd law does not apply

While the earth is a non-isolated system the 2nd law can apply. However, your point discards the influcence of outside and other factors and in hand misuses the 2nd law.

Quote:

"What most people do not understand that the 2nd law deals with heat, not energy. The 2nd law does not care about energy.

"Thermo"= heat, "dyanmics"=power. It is the law of increased entropy. The first law says total matter/energy does not change. The second law says that entropy increases. This is the move of energy from usable to unusable states. Heat is the transfer of kinentic energy from one state to another. So I'm sure how you believe you can get away with claiming heat and energy are unreleated as we see above. Well again except for a misconception and misuse of the laws.

Quote:

As the atmosphere is at 10°C (warm) and the surface at 0°C (cold) the 2nd law is applicable

What? You are accepting this? But, yet you told us Quote:

It is not possible as the surface is already warmer than the atmosphere.

Either you're holding some conflicting views or one of these 2 claims is wrong. Hint: there are many times when the atmosphere is warmer and thus does warm the surface.

Quote:

Geo-engineering is the most stupid invention of the greenies to resolve a non-problem.

Perhaps. But as a response to understanding that H2O and CO2 clearly have different properties as proven by physics it is misdirection. Instead of answering the question you give an unrelated statement hoping this will to be accepted.

Quote:

So if we remove CO² back to the supposed industrial level, there will be no change to temperature?" My response is yes

Physics prove you wrong. H2O and CO2 have different properties. They boil and freeze at different temps for example. In this particular case the wavelenghts and amount of energy that is absorbed and released are different because, no surprise, different chemicals have different reactive properties with their environment.