tempterrain
You apparently do not even realize how arrogant and foolish you sound when you brush off a paper by Willis Eschenbach, which Roger Pielke Sr. calls ““an excellent new analysis” just because it has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Max
Didn’t Roger Pielke Sr claim Watts 2012 paper was “game changing” and then had to back down when fundamental errors were uncovered?
So yeah I am with tempterrain. Absolute sht gets published at WUWT. Get back to me when someone competent has given it the green light.
tempterrain | December 29, 2012 at 2:39 am |
“You’ve never published any peer-reviewed work on the topic and yet somehow you’ve convinced yourself that mainstream science has it all wrong.”
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT. Wrong.
Dumbass.
“They don’t trust their own eyeballs, which show the temperature going up and down slightly, but largely remaining the same.”
“Drawing conclusions from data without performing a statistical test is referred to by researchers as eyeballing. The problem is that you can’t trust your eyeballs.”
http://www.actualanalysis.com/eyeball.htm
+2
“That is a very lame excuse. The ‘skeptics’ are not a monolithic tribe. There are serious skeptical questions/arguments that are dismissed by trying to lump all skeptical concerns with silly skydragon arguments.”
If only the skydragons were the only skeptics making silly arguments!
Eli’s characterization of skeptics as throwing spaghetti against a wall seems a correct analogy to me: The tribal nature of skeptics as one of food throwers trying to smear a target with their missiles in order to disrupt a food hall.
Skeptic A is throwing potatoes and skeptic B is throwing spaghetti, but they are part of the same team, the same tribe, attacking the same target with the same agenda and patting each other on the back for doing so. There may be minor squabbles in the ranks, but overall they are a team.
The skeptic tribe will disperse when they receive unwanted attention, disassociating themselves from each other to avoid blame. A kind of “it wasn’t us sir! We weren’t throwing spaghetti (we were throwing other food!)” excuse when someone asks who the hell got spaghetti on the door frame.
nice post
E&E doesn’t count. It has let trough most terrible crap.
Neither does a short comment on a published paper.
We saw this with BEST to give just one example.
When Muller presented the BEST results that showed this was quite reasonably presented as a vindication of the existing surface temperature records from a number of attacks made by the climate skeptic in preceding years.
The skeptic tribe responded to this by claiming they had always accepted the results BEST found and had never thrown food, therefore accusing Muller of making a strawman.
This marvelous lie was accomplished by getting skeptics who had never thrown spaghetti to write articles stating that they hadn’t thrown spaghetti, with all the skeptics who had been throwing spaghetti standing quietly behind them.
Pekka is myopic to the perversions of peer review documented in the ClimateGate emails, but peers through his electron microscope @ E&E.
=================
Get back to me when someone besides lolwot calls Pielke Pere incompetent.
===========
Pekka said, “E&E doesn’t count. It has let trough most terrible crap.”
Yeah, seems to require a bit a discretion before deciding what to site now a days. Luckily, the big name journals have a rigorous peer review process that insures crap free papers.
Judith, Arthur C Clarke expressed it well
the human mind’s capacity for self-deceit is beyond belief
one wonders if this be too intellectual a concept for some!
No microscope is needed to see that E&E publishes so bad papers that most scientist would consider a paper published there a discredit.
I’m sure not all are equally bad but some that have been brought up in climate discussion have been really terrible beyond limits of imagination.
Willis Eschenbach posts “To start with, I never ever trust a man who claims to have evidence, but doesn’t cite or link to even the slightest shred of it.”
[ … a lengthy essay giving *ZERO* citations and *ZERO* links follows … ]
Gosh Willis, it appears that by the time you finished composing your long post, you entirely forgot its beginning premise. WUWT, eh?
The American Institute of Physics website Further Uses of Primitive Calculations is a well-reasoned, respectfully-written, student-friendly, abuse-free, impersonal learning resource that is citation-filled and link-rich.
The AIP’s admirable scientific/historical review well-repays careful study, isn’t that so Willis?
Uh … and the weight of its scientific evidence rather thoroughly rebuts your (citation-free, link-free) chain of reasoning, eh?
Webby
If you extrapolate ANY trend 200 years, you are silly.
I have not seen Girma do that, by the way.
Max
Max,
Thanks for getting that all wrong, and not even being able to come up with a range above 6, let alone anything even remotely like ‘hyping’ of a CS >6.
You save the best bit for last where, with a denialists extraordinary ability for logical contortions, you declare Mosher ‘probably right’.
All on a topic about ‘can we avoid fooling ourselves?’
What delicious entertainment.
More please.
Myrrh | December 30, 2012 at 6:18 am | Reply
Have you figured out yet there’s no difference between a blue photon from the sun and a blue photon from a laser? Both will thermalize anything which absorbs them. Has to. Conservation of energy law at work.
WHT wrote: “Another example of harnessing the infrared properties of CO2.”
————————————————————————————————–
I suggest you read up about what the supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle is all about before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
Willis Eschenbach posts “I know of no other complex flow system which has the quality that the output is a linear function of the input.”
If you reflect upon your surprising claim, Willis, you’ll realize that everyone is familiar with plenty of complex flow systems [like aircraft and their jet engines] for which the [flight path and thrust] output is a linear function of the [pilot control and throttle] input. WUWT, eh Willis? ![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries???}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%3F%3F%3F%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffffee&fg=ff0000&s=1 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries???}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
And there is plenty of excellent mathematics associated to this everyday practical reality! That’s good, eh? ![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries???}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%3F%3F%3F%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffffee&fg=0000dd&s=1 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries???}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
So maybe small inputs to radiative balance (like CO2) are like small inputs to the flight controls of a landing aircraft? Namely, they (1) elicit a linear response, that if ill-applied (2) can crash an aircraft … or a planetary ecosystem.
That kind of science-and-engineering makes plenty of sobering sense, eh Willis? ![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\frown}\,\diamondsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries???}}\,\diamondsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\frown}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Cfrown%7D%5C%2C%5Cdiamondsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%3F%3F%3F%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cdiamondsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Cfrown%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffffee&fg=ff0000&s=1 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\frown}\,\diamondsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries???}}\,\diamondsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\frown}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffffcc&fg=0000ee&s=1 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffffcc&fg=00ee00&s=1 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
