Tom –
Thanks for you “evidence” that proves the “scientific theory” that proves that the Bible is correct about the age of the Earth.
Based on that cogent analysis you just provided on the age of the Earth, I am looking forward to your further analysis of the evidence regarding climate change.
I feel your pain! If you follow this discourse as much as I do, you should have a very low regard for the likes of say, um ……Michael Mann and his apologists. He used (deliberately?) data in his 2008 paper from a Finnish scientist (Tiljander) that was upside down from what the data actually said. When this is pointed out to them, they categorically refuse to acknowledge the error, even going so far as to say the claim is bizarre! And we have a president that actually listens to him!!!
Interesting times.
Joshua, I asked David and scientists like yourself, if Peter is right. I just suggested a theory. Your math is better than mine. Also Joshua, how many ‘ages’ & the duration of each please… I am still unclear about all of that, too. So you aren’t alone, there.
“Sky-dragons”?
Robert suggested “sky-hydras” (JC liked it)
Edim proposed “sky-demons”
I like “sky-goblins”.
As in Mencken:
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/hlmencke101109.html
Max
lolwot continues to dig a deeper hole.
According to TK, “backradiation” is 333 W/m2, ground emission is 396 W/m2. Are you, lolwot, seriously suggesting that 333 W/m2 concentrated to thousands of Watts per centimeter squared is exceeded by unconcentrated 396 Watts per meter squared blocked from the ground?
If so, you have passed the physics exam for climate scientists.
“As far as I can tell, people arguing don’t really know what a “blackbody” is. Colose claims a blackbody is something with an emissivity of 1. I understand blackbody vs greybody applies to an ideal radiative spectrum which is a different concept from absorptivity/emissivity.
Can someone who knows please clarify?”
There are 3 ways to transfer energy: conduction, convection, and radiation.
In vacuum of space, radiation is how energy is transferred.
{Or no other way is considered significant or relevant.}
A blackbody would absorb all the radiation that hits it. So if blackbody was a meter square, and sunlight was 1000 watts per sq meter, a blackbody would absorb the 1000 watts of this energy. Once this blackbody were to reached a temperature it would emit 1000 watts per one square meter. At a temperature it absorbs and it emits all the energy. And it emits the energy in the spectrum of the Planck Curve- which varies depending on temperature of emitting body.
All matter emits and adsorbs radiation and max value of either is 1.
A blackbody has this maximum values of 1 for both emission and absorption. Since it absorbs all radiation, a blackbody doesn’t reflect any energy, it just absorbs and emits.
Or:
“black body, in physics, an ideal black substance that absorbs all and reflects none of the radiant energy falling on it. Lampblack, or powdered carbon, which reflects less than 2% of the radiation falling on it, approximates an ideal black body”
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/black+body
In contrast a greybody reflects and/or transmits some of the radiate energy.
It’s reflective and/or transparent to the radiation. Or loosely, not quite a blackbody 
Or a bodyblack or greybody is nonexistance thing, but acts as absolute value- it’s a measuring stick.
Our sun, all stars, and planets roughly behave as blackbodies or can compared against a ideal blackbody.
Emission values of some materials:
http://www.omega.com/literature/transactions/volume1/emissivitya.html
Spacecraft designers design spacecraft of materials and structures which channel and moderate temperatures [due to heat created in the craft or radiation from exterior sources- the Sun and/or planetary bodies]
If this is the way you are going to discuss things, please STFU. You are helping give all us Bruces a bad name.
Bart R
The “what if” and “how willing” arguments are both straw men.
Max
It is my impression that MEP gets rapidly to intersting and potentially insightful results but then further progress becomes much more difficult.
That is true insofar as doing the variational approach with more constraints, the complexity quickly increases.
One of the most interesting domains recently has been in quantifying ecological biodiversity. It works so well that some researchers have suggested giving up detailed modeling of individual species (the explanatory) and simply use the statistical which doesn’t purport to explain succession or niches.This is a state space approach and the species fill up the state space consistent with maximizing entropy.
lolweot
You missed the key part of Norm’s statement and got into debating figures{
No amount of discussion about the philosophy of science can change the fact that the input forcing parameter of the climate models is nothing more than a contrived fabrication or the fact that the output from models using this input are also contrived fabrications.
Max
Arfur Bryant | August 20, 2011 at 4:37 pm |
And then had to revise that to 1.5-2º C
Svante Erroneous
Pekka
You may not like his conclusions, but Willis’ logic is impeccable.
Max
Let me play the fool (I’m well-equipped for the role) and ask the some idiot questions:
What is the leading “scientific” theory of the origin of the universe and what is the scientific evidence of the theory?
Why is ID (not Biblical Creationism) excluded as a “scientific” theory of the origins of the universe? That is, why is ID an inherently “unscientific” theory?
Joshua
It is a cop-out to concentrate on “tone” versus “logic”.
Willis has presented a well-reasoned argument to counter the premise by Fred Moolten that we face a forced choice to make a climate policy decision.
See if you can counter the logic, rather than concentrating on the tone.
Max
TB – The fallacies in your argument have been detailed in the original SkyDragon thread, which makes clear why back radiation contributes more to ocean thermal energy than direct solar radiation. The fallacy of “non-penetration” is a fallacy regardless of the multiple mechanisms by which the absorbed surface IR is translated into an increase in thermal energy at depth – this involves the diurnal convective cycle, turbulent mixing, and inhibited conduction and convection in general. Some of these mechanisms involve physical bulk mixing (which we know is substantial from the shallow mixed layer gradient), and some do not, but they all contribute to the thermal energy within the entire mixed layer and below. This entails actual warming during the daytime (via combined solar/back radiation effects) and reduced net cooling at night, even though absorbed back radiation remains substantial at night. I’m not sure why a mechanism that has been so well discussed earlier, and well documented by the measured fluxes and gradients, needs to be regurgitated here, but anyone interested can see my own contributions to the discussion in the original thread by searching for my name, and can also find links to relevant references that I won’t repeat here..
In a general sense, this is a non-issue, although in theory, some discussion would be justified as to how close the substantial mixing of solar and IR effects comes to 100 percent.
Dave –
Perhaps you could explain how the health outcomes of Marijuana smoking is relevant to the discussion at hand?
J.C. writes: “As for the uncertainty monster surrounding the climate change issue, I can only hope this paper and the forthcoming issue in Climatic Change on framing and communicating uncertainty for the IPCC will help, and pave the way for the IPCC to do a better job of characterizing and assessing uncertainty.”
Kudos on your paper Dr. C… which seems to me goes to the very heart of the discussion. Or at least, the heart of the discussion we should be having. The only deniers in this debate are the warmists who refuse to admit the science is as far from settled (to say the least)… Let’s hope the paper causes a great hue and cry from the alarmists as that’s the best way to ensure the paper gets the attention it deserves…
I remember this and some responses thereafter (‘heretic’,etc)
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/6/28/josh-25-jude-of-arc.html
I do hope the broader scientific community pays attention to this and gives a positive response, and some good professional backup to the inevitable negative responses 
http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/download/Right_of_reply.jpg
http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/download/Right_of_reply.jpg
I am using R Studio. You did a very good job of aligning and normalizing the data, so it was easy to import the tab-delimited output files and do the R CCF stat function on the two sets.
plot(ccf(t_had[2],co2_ml[2],lag.max=360))
BTW, All the extra fine structure in the cross-correlation function is the matching of the somewhat periodic disturbances of dCO2 with the temperature fluctuations. That is a sign of further correlation. For example you would see that same structure if you did a cross-correlation of a sine curve with a cosine curve, albeit that would also show an obvious lag.
The overall envelope tells us about the impulse response, which is a disordered damped function.
Hi Judy -
Congratulations on its acceptance! It is a much needed contribution.
On the BAMS editorial process, your experience with the quick receipt of a Comment on your paper differs quite a bit with the BAMS handling of the Comment that I submiited on
Hurrell, J., G. A. Meehl, D. Bader, T. L. Delworth, B. Kirtman, and B. Wielicki, 2009: A unified modeling approach to climate system prediction. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 90, 1819–1832.
My comment languished for quite a few months, and ultimately appeared in 2010;
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2010: Comment on ” A Unified Modeling Approach to Climate System Prediction”, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 91, 1699–1701, DOI:10.1175/2010BAMS2975. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/r-360.pdf
They would not process my Comment (and not start the Reply process from Hurrell et al) until after their paper actually appeared.
Hopefully, your experience demonstrates that BAMS is now more timely than in the past.
Roger Sr.
