Don’t address the evidence Brandon – name calling is the extent of Brandon’s ‘respect for evidence’.
Comment on Trusting (?) the experts by Michael
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Doug Cotton
In still air in adiabatic conditions any region of the atmosphere has a propensity towards isentropic conditions such that molecules move retaining PE+KE=constant in free path motion between impacts. This means there must be a thermal gradient, not formed by convection but by diffusion. Convection can form it, but is not essential. Venus temperatures can only be explained by diffusion which has ensured isothermal conditions in horizontal planes right around the globe, but temperature gradients in vertical planes. The gravity induced gradient in the troposphere is then reduced by up to about a third due to intra-atmospheric radiation from warm to cool layers above.
There never can be no radiation absorbed or emitted by any atmosphere. Even hypothetical pure nitrogen and oxygen atmospheres would absorb and re-emit some UV and visible radiation, this being the source of heat for such atmospheres at all altitudes. The heat then diffuses where necessary to “perfect” the gradient in calm adiabatic conditions. Obviously weather conditions cause variations, but these are just like waves on the top of the ocean – everything settles down to the required level in calm conditions.
I have summarised all this in a new article just published on Principia Scientific International entitled “The 21st Century New Paradigm in Climate Change Science” which should be able to be found on Google soon. You can of course just go to the PSI Home page and use the link top left.
It’s all there, and you should find answers to all the above questions that several have asked. The key issue is to consider the atmosphere as it is, and the effect of variations, such as additional water vapour causing more intra-atmospheric transfer of heat from warm to cool layers, thus reducing the thermal gradient and hence the surface temperature.
There’s also my paper on “Planetary Surface Temperatures. A Discussion of Alternative Mechanisms” which provides cited papers, experiments etc in support of this.
I’ll be in hospital tomorrow, so won’t be answering questions for a while. As I said, you should find all you want to know about what we all at PSI are now talking about in this new paradigm shift, whereby radiation reduces the thermal gradient, whilst oxygen and nitrogen play the main role supporting the surface temperatures.
And that’s the way it has to be, because nothing else keeps within all the laws of physics and explains all observations (even on other planets) as does this hypothesis.
↧
Comment on Trusting (?) the experts by andrew adams
Brandon,
You say that Michael’s argument that other reconstructions have supported Mann’s conclusions is somehow invalid because there are overlaps in the particular proxies used. I don’t doubt that’s true in some cases, and it’s not really surprising as there is a finite number of proxy records in existence, but I don’t see how that necessarily contradicts Michael’s argument given that many of the criticisms of Mann are based on his statistical methods. If others are getting similar results using some of the same proxies but different statistical methods then that is surely significant.
↧
Comment on Trusting (?) the experts by kim
Split bark, newly vertical shoots, and disturbed sediments. Once it’s settled, it’ll all be clear.
==========
↧
Comment on Trusting (?) the experts by Beth Cooper
Yeah Kim,
Disturbed sediments, split bark, sometimes it ain’t easy rootin’
out root causes of hockey sticks. Tea leaves, chicken entrails?
↧
↧
Comment on Trusting (?) the experts by Michael
Andrew,
We gave BS different proxies and different methods – he still twists and squirms.
↧
Comment on Trusting (?) the experts by kim
Fear and guilt are the root of some evil.
==========
↧
Comment on Trusting (?) the experts by manacker
Beth
The root cause of any shtick – is the “shtick”.
(Riddle: “What came first, the…….?”)
Max
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by gbaikie
“Asking my fellow skeptics, what do you guys think? Am I crazy? Just about every time I get into an argument with a warmist, the word “consensus” comes up. It’s their most cherished argument. Why not prove them wrong?”
I looked replies to your question, and the best seemed to be, the one given by manacker
| January 12, 2013 at 12:12 pm | :
“A better question would simply be to summarize the key IPCC “CAGW” claims for the future and see if the scientists agreed with ALL of the claims made.”
But I make questions simpler.
Such as:
Have read the reports given by IPCC ?
Do you agree that IPCC has approached the issue
in a proper scientific manner?
Do you agree with it’s recommendations?
What would there better consequences for the world in general if
these recommendations followed?
What would be harmful consequences if these recommendations
were not followed?
Is there anything you are aware of regarding the IPCC that needs improvement?
↧
↧
Comment on Trusting (?) the experts by manacker
BBD
You state you are “sceptical about low estimates for ECS to 2 x CO2 because of paleoclimate behavior”.
Huh!
You have 3 independent studies, all based on real-life physical data from the past 160-year record on one hand, but you prefer the subjective interpretations of dicey proxy data taken from carefully selected periods of our geological past,using argument from ignorance to assess attribution (i.e. “we can only explain X if we assume Y”)?
Ouch!
Don’t you see how silly that makes you look?
Unbelievable!
Get used to the new lower 2xCO2 ECS values. They will become the new paradigm.
Max
↧
Comment on Trusting (?) the experts by Beth Cooper
Root causes Kim and Max?
“Seed before shoot,
Except after loot..”
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by manacker
Jim D
Now it’s the “bar” that you are questioning?
Get serious.
The list of individuals who have openly stated that they do not support CAGW per AR4 includes climatologists, meteorologists, physicists, and others, who are knowledgeable in effects and impacts of climate change.
To wildly assume that those who “signed on” to CAGW per AR4 are “more highly qualified” to have a valid opinion than the others is simply unsubstantiated arm-waving.
The data you cited shows that those openly supporting CAGW per AR4 are significantly less than the claimed 97% of total – probably somewhere between 55% and 75%.
Still a majority, Jim, but not an overwhelming one.
I don’t usually get involved in the “head counting” game – unless someone comes up with a totally ludicrous claim like the 97% posit that someone (I forget who) made up-thread and you seemed to support..
But let’s let this “dead dog” lie.
Max
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by Vaughan Pratt
@DM: <i>It’s part of the game, Mike.</i>
Mike has made a plea for civility which you're ignoring, Don.
@DM: <i>You can’t win.</i>
Mike can if he stays civil. You can't because civility is clearly not your thing so far. Only you can change that
↧
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by Vaughan Pratt
@DM: Pratt is a prisoner of the IPCC.
With equal logic the California Highway Patrol could drag in a motorist they dislike on the ground that he’s a prisoner of the Sicilian Mafia, even if he’d never heard of them.
I have no connection whatsoever with the IPCC or anyone in the slightest bit related to it. If they lie as much as you do, Don, then I hate them as much as you do.
↧
Comment on Draft U.S. Climate Assessment Report by manacker
WaPo reports that “Federal” study predicts increased hot days for DC by mid-century.
“Predicts?”
“Mid-century?”
Huh?
Judith’s point (I believe ) is that, as a result of the politically fostered CAGW hysteria, this totally “non news” item gets a full article in WaPo, when it isn’t worth (pardon the expression) “the paper it’s printed on”.
And I’d agree with her.
Max
↧
Comment on Draft U.S. Climate Assessment Report by manacker
Michael
You apparently missed David’s point (if your eyes are rolling).
Let’s go through it again slowly, step-by-step (bold type by me).
- A fresh pie in the baker’s window is proof that the baker is baking today.
- No pie in the window is evidence that the baker is not baking today. But it is not proof, for exactly the reason you stated (among other possibilities).
“Or maybe the pie is still in the oven.”
Got it?
Max
PS It is my understanding that “proof” doesn’t exist in science, but in a courtroom sufficient “evidence” can be considered legal “proof”.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by BBD
Not much of a ‘MWP’ is there? The proxy evidence generally suggests several brief regional warming episodes around the NH over a period of ~400y and that the term Mediaeval Warm Period was an unfortunate misnomer.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by gbaikie
“How will the “skeptics” deny this?”
Perhaps the same mistakes were made.
The graph indicates very cold period around the decades of 1800
and very steep long rise after this.
I wonder if this reflect actual temperature, what caused such dramatic cooling?
↧
Comment on Geek manifesto by manacker
thomaswfuller2
Check the list of folks receiving real Nobel prizes (not the Crackerjack “Peace Prize” variety handed out by another panel by the hundreds of millions): a large percentage of the recipients are “balding, middle-aged men”.
Of course, there are also many non-balding women, as well (age is not discussed in this category).
Max
↧
Comment on Geek manifesto by DocMartyn
science “is provisional, always open to revision … comfortable with your changing your mind … anti-authoritarian: anybody can contribute, and anybody can be wrong … [tries] to prove the most elegant ideas wrong … [and] is comfortable with uncertainty.”
Perhaps science is, but scientists are not. Any working scientist will tell you that pig-headedness is a marker of both successful and unsuccessful scientists.
Spend a life-time proving the existence of quasicrystals and you get a Nobel Prize, spend a life-time proving the existence of ‘squiggle’ or ‘super-strings’, and you end up a failure.
Now many would like to put it down to intellect, but success in many cases is a matter of luck.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
