Yet you psychotically demand to see it again fresh from every person you engage in conflict, and act as if it hasn't alread been said to you.
How about indulging me just once “more” and refuting what I posted above that literally no one addressed?
I assume you mean the composite graphics that you posted? It's really difficult to figure out what those show, with misaligned axes and no detail, in most cases, on what is being displayed. Part of the problem, I suspect, is that you are automatically rejecting any refinement of analysis as falsification.
You make one interesting statement though:
Quote:
Never mind that before the early 1980s, NASA repeatedly reported that there’s no greenhouse effect from CO2 beyond a certain amount, whether environmental or manmade.
That would be very interesting if true - do you have a citation for it?
How about indulging me just once “more” and refuting what I posted above that literally no one addressed?
You're like a Pokemon speaking his one catch word "Charizard...Charizard...Charizard..." I don't understand your Pokemon catch word language. I don't know how to speak to you in a way you'll understand, just like I'm not going to be receptive to anything you say. Why do you want to even continue? Is this like a real life Pokemon battle to you? You gotta catch 'em all or something? Why do you insist on a Pokemon battle until the end?
The runaway greenhouse effect does not occur because the 15 nanometer band, the main source of absorption, saturates and the addition of CO2 does not substantially increase the infrared opacity of the atmosphere.
I’ll take a look for more. I know I’ve seen several other NASA-sponsored papers that actively mention this exact topic.
And - check PMs.
Saw ‘em; thanks for that. I know it’s a ton to get through; I don’t expect you to be able to read them all in any short amount of time (or ever, really; it’d take too long). The point was to show that there’s a full scope of dissent with the majority (whether by survey or published volume ) opinion (or “opinion”, as the case may be).
Originally Posted by latifbp
You're like a Pokemon speaking his one catch word "Charizard...Charizard...Charizard..."
I prefer Gardevoir.
I don't understand your Pokemon catch word language.
Then let me spell it out for you.
When you make a claim, you have to support that claim.
You made the claim that NASA is not perpetrating fraud.
I gave evidence that they are, which proves your claim false.
You have the option of believing what I presented, which is the truth, or refuting what I presented.
If what I presented is false, then you should be able to refute it easily, as the truth will prove it wrong.
If what I presented is true, then you will not be able to refute it.
Pretending that I did not present it at all is not an option. This is what you are doing now.
I'm not going to be receptive to anything you say.
That doesn’t sound like something that someone who cares about the truth says. That sounds like a dogmatist.
Why do you want to even continue?
Truth matters.
Why do you insist on a Pokemon battle until the end?
It's really difficult to figure out what those show, with misaligned axes and no detail
They say right away what they are. Sea level, temperature, tide gauges. All the data is modified.
...you are automatically rejecting any refinement of analysis as falsification.
My rejection is only of the idea that analysis can be refined.
If I go out right now and take a temperature reading, it will say 42 degrees F. That’s the temperature for 10:37 PM on Thursday, November 12, 2015.
If I go out tomorrow and take a new temperature reading, that does not change the temperature reading for right now.
If I go out 50 years from now and take a new temperature reading, that does not change the temperature reading for right now.
You can’t change the past. What was was. The downward manipulation of past temperatures is, at best, treason to science itself.
So I understand why that is an appealing point of view, but it is an oversimplification. You have made no effort to estimate the random or systematic errors in your measurement of the actual air temperature, nor whether local effects need to be taken into account if your measurements are to be used in assessing a time-resolved, geographically-averaged local temperature. The analysis methods address those issues and, as more information and better techniques are developed, those methods evolve. It is perfectly defensible scientifically, if done properly, so the debate should be whether it is done properly, not about the fact that it is done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by muppetry
That would be very interesting if true - do you have a citation for it?
The runaway greenhouse effect does not occur because the 15 nanometer band, the main source of absorption, saturates and the addition of CO2 does not substantially increase the infrared opacity of the atmosphere.
I’ll take a look for more. I know I’ve seen several other NASA-sponsored papers that actively mention this exact topic.
That was a good effort back in 1971, but the base assumptions were oversimplified. What you don't mention is that Schneider redid his calculations and retracted those conclusions in 1974, and later became a noted advocate for limiting CO2 emissions to avoid AGW.
It was the 15 µm band, by the way - 15 nm is way up in the UV.
So I understand why that is an appealing point of view, but it is an oversimplification. You have made no effort to estimate the random or systematic errors in your measurement of the actual air temperature, nor whether an local effects need to be taken into account if your measurements are to be used in assessing a time-resolved, geographically-averaged local temperature. The analysis methods address those issues and, as more information and better techniques are developed, those methods evolve. It is perfectly defensible scientifically, if done properly, so the debate should be whether it is done properly, not about the fact that it is done.
That was a good effort back in 1971, but the base assumptions were oversimplified. What you don't mention is that Schneider redid his calculations and retracted those conclusions in 1974, and later became a noted advocate for limiting CO2 emissions to avoid AGW.
It was the 15 µm band, by the way - 15 nm is way up in the UV.
Oh - apologies - I thought that you were familiar with this subject area. The absorption spectrum indicates relative absorption as a function of wavenumber or frequency. The fact that a particular wavenumber is within an absorption band does not mean that all energy at that frequency is absorbed, and the fact that the absorption spectra overlap would only mean that more CO2 made no difference if the water vapor were already absorbing all the radiation at those frequencies - i.e. the atmosphere were already opaque in that band, which it is not. As a result, increasing either the concentration of water vapor (which is determined entirely by the vapor pressure of water as a function of temperature), or increasing the concentration of CO2, both result in greater absorption, and thus increased radiative forcing.
A bit lame, your first sentence, and untrue of course.
I understood that water vapor absorbs almost all radiation when present and CO2 does almost nothing, so that's why I stated it this way.
I'm sure if you (can) do an actual measurement it will show that that is the case, and CO2 (with 400 parts per million) has almost no effect.
So in theory your right but in a practical sense it isn't the case.
You know that current CO2 absorption calculations don't include the fact that the warming caused by it isn't linear with the concentration?
Think about that.
You know the whole CO2 focus and climate warming is one big non issue.
It's also a big distractor for issues that really cause a change (like over population and the extreme loss of habitat of almost all animals) and really cause pollution like Diesel engines (that cause cancer etc.).
The solution is simple, even if you believe in climate warming: don't produce kids, don't take a plane to travel and don't eat meat (and drive electric).
Funny that no one takes action in this obvious direction, it's like seeing the splinter in someone's eye but don't see the beam in your own eye.
I would have characterized the situation slightly differently - I would say that every trick in the book is being used to discredit the science.
There is obviously some effort in that direction too, it's denying the opposite that's wrong and very typical for this discussion.
The scientific community has developed a culture that's very repressive about alternative views about the climate, it is also proven that this is the case.
Science is a cultural phenomenon, denying this is very stupid (think for example about what happend when cold fusion was 'discovered').
There is obviously some effort in that direction too, it's denying the opposite that's wrong and very typical for this discussion.
The scientific community has developed a culture that's very repressive about alternative views about the climate, it is also proven that this is the case.
Science is a cultural phenomenon, denying this is very stupid (think for example about what happend when cold fusion was 'discovered').
There are complete idiots who want science to adopt the view that the world began with Adam and Eve. That is not repressive, fairy tales are a different subject of study than science... Maybe Liberal Arts at best, but nowhere near the scientific field. It's absurd perspectives like this that numnuts clamor to be included as "the opposite view." In no way does that reflect oppression at all.
There are complete idiots who want science to adopt the view that the world began with Adam and Eve. That is not repressive, fairy tales are a different subject of study than science... Maybe Liberal Arts at best, but nowhere near the scientific field. It's absurd perspectives like this that numnuts clamor to be included as "the opposite view." In no way does that reflect oppression at all.
This is the flaw of democracy written here: 'My opinion is valid.' And a large enough group of ignorami has democratic right to be heard. Too bad democracy fails to recognise context: religion is for faith; science is for truth, and ne'er the twain shall meet.
Oh - apologies - I thought that you were familiar with this subject area. The absorption spectrum indicates relative absorption as a function of wavenumber or frequency. The fact that a particular wavenumber is within an absorption band does not mean that all energy at that frequency is absorbed, and the fact that the absorption spectra overlap would only mean that more CO2 made no difference if the water vapor were already absorbing all the radiation at those frequencies - i.e. the atmosphere were already opaque in that band, which it is not. As a result, increasing either the concentration of water vapor (which is determined entirely by the vapor pressure of water as a function of temperature), or increasing the concentration of CO2, both result in greater absorption, and thus increased radiative forcing.
A bit lame, your first sentence, and untrue of course.
I understood that water vapor absorbs almost all radiation when present and CO2 does almost nothing, so that's why I stated it this way.
I'm sure if you (can) do an actual measurement it will show that that is the case, and CO2 (with 400 parts per million) has almost no effect.
So in theory your right but in a practical sense it isn't the case.
You know that current CO2 absorption calculations don't include the fact that the warming caused by it isn't linear with the concentration?
Think about that.
You know the whole CO2 focus and climate warming is one big non issue.
It's also a big distractor for issues that really cause a change (like over population and the extreme loss of habitat of almost all animals) and really cause pollution like Diesel engines (that cause cancer etc.).
The solution is simple, even if you believe in climate warming: don't produce kids, don't take a plane to travel and don't eat meat (and drive electric).
Funny that no one takes action in this obvious direction, it's like seeing the splinter in someone's eye but don't see the beam in your own eye.
I'm sorry, but you don't get to rewrite the physics behind EM interactions with matter just because it doesn't fit with the nonsense that you have read about this subject. So you understood wrong, as both measurement and calculation would show you if you were not too lazy to read and comprehend the literature.
And quit with the stupid references to linearity, which you obviously don't even remotely understand either. Of course it's not linear across all atmospheric compositions because it is described by an inverse, asymptotic relationship but, (1) that doesn't mean that it is not approximately linear at the low end of the range and (2) just because it becomes non-linear does not, per se, mean that it does not have a significant effect.
If you can't talk intelligently about science then you are wasting your time trying to participate in this discussion.
I would have characterized the situation slightly differently - I would say that every trick in the book is being used to discredit the science.
There is obviously some effort in that direction too, it's denying the opposite that's wrong and very typical for this discussion.
The scientific community has developed a culture that's very repressive about alternative views about the climate, it is also proven that this is the case.
Science is a cultural phenomenon, denying this is very stupid (think for example about what happend when cold fusion was 'discovered').
Cold fusion was not discovered, because it doesn't exist. Despite the obvious flaws in the original work, the process of science took over and other groups attempted to replicate the results in case current theory was wrong, and it was really possible. It wasn't. So this is actually almost a perfect counter-example to the point that you are trying to make. Par for the course.
Cold fusion was not discovered, because it doesn't exist. Despite the obvious flaws in the original work, the process of science took over and other groups attempted to replicate the results in case current theory was wrong, and it was really possible. It wasn't. So this is actually almost a perfect counter-example to the point that you are trying to make. Par for the course.
It wasn't, you should try to think why.
You really underestimate my arguments maybe you can appreciate similar arguments from Freeman Dyson.
Cold fusion was not discovered, because it doesn't exist. Despite the obvious flaws in the original work, the process of science took over and other groups attempted to replicate the results in case current theory was wrong, and it was really possible. It wasn't. So this is actually almost a perfect counter-example to the point that you are trying to make. Par for the course.
It wasn't, you should try to think why.
You really underestimate my arguments maybe you can appreciate similar arguments from Freeman Dyson.
I'm not playing silly games of riddles with you. Either present your arguments or don't.
I'm sorry, but you don't get to rewrite the physics behind EM interactions with matter just because it doesn't fit with the nonsense that you have read about this subject. So you understood wrong, as both measurement and calculation would show you if you were not too lazy to read and comprehend the literature.
And quit with the stupid references to linearity, which you obviously don't even remotely understand either. Of course it's not linear across all atmospheric compositions because it is described by an inverse, asymptotic relationship but, (1) that doesn't mean that it is not approximately linear at the low end of the range and (2) just because it becomes non-linear does not, per se, mean that it does not have a significant effect.
If you can't talk intelligently about science then you are wasting your time trying to participate in this discussion.
Wow, so stupid means I was right, that it isn't incorporated in the models, because it's not significant (so you claim).
I used the same argument with regard to CO2 not being relevant in current concentrations when water vapor is present.
Seems to be very valid and not at all deserving the comment that EM interactions have to be rewritten.
It seems you are severely irritatated by my comments being true and unnerving.
I bet you have kids (and otherwise will have them later).
You really should learn something about being polite though.
I'm sorry, but you don't get to rewrite the physics behind EM interactions with matter just because it doesn't fit with the nonsense that you have read about this subject. So you understood wrong, as both measurement and calculation would show you if you were not too lazy to read and comprehend the literature.
And quit with the stupid references to linearity, which you obviously don't even remotely understand either. Of course it's not linear across all atmospheric compositions because it is described by an inverse, asymptotic relationship but, (1) that doesn't mean that it is not approximately linear at the low end of the range and (2) just because it becomes non-linear does not, per se, mean that it does not have a significant effect.
If you can't talk intelligently about science then you are wasting your time trying to participate in this discussion.
Wow, so stupid means I was right, that it isn't incorporated in the models, because it's not significant (so you claim).
I used the same argument with regard to CO2 not being relevant in current concentrations when water vapor is present.
Seems to be very valid and not at all deserving the comment that EM interactions have to be rewritten.
It seems you are severely irritatated by my comments being true and unnerving.
I bet you have kids (and otherwise will have them later).
You really should learn something about being polite though.
End of discussion.
I'm irritated by your inability to comprehend even simple scientific concepts, by your attempts to pronounce on subjects of which you demonstrate complete ignorance, and by your resort to what I assume you think are clever sounding cryptic comments in response to detailed explanations of why you are completely wrong. I'm additionally irritated now because obviously I'm arguing with a kid, something I somehow failed to pick up on earlier.
I'm slightly amused that having asked for some reputable published scientific work supporting the counter-position, rather than right-wing, think tank propaganda, you turned up with a discredited study by a non-scientist who is big in several right-wing think tanks, ably supported by an engineer from the mining industry. Was that all you could find? I'm pretty sure that I can do better than that.
Except I did do better: I provided evidence; you did not. McKitrick and McIntyre's paper was indeed published in GRL. Nature did not because it would have gone over the 500 word limit they were going to give them. If there are any research papers that directly answer McIntyre's and McKitrick's work, by all means provide a link in your answer.
You do realize that McIntyre was interested in Mann's work because Mann, obviously a climate scientist, was using statistics to prove his point. McIntyre took on the analysis of Mann's statistical methodologies because McIntyre is a statistician; Mann is not. McIntyre started this work out of his own time and interest; nothing more, and found serious errors in Mann's math.
You have made no effort to estimate the random or systematic errors in your measurement of the actual air temperature, nor whether local effects need to be taken into account if your measurements are to be used in assessing a time-resolved, geographically-averaged local temperature.
You realize that this isn’t relevant to the point, right? The point is that once you have your temperature, it doesn’t magically change.
...those methods evolve...
Then the methods evolve for future readings. It is impossible to go back in time and remeasure the temperature, so any tampering after the fact is disingenuous.
the debate should be whether it is done properly, not about the fact that it is done.
So has it been? NASA, NOAA, GISS, the IPCC; they’re all modifying the data.
It was the 15 µm band, by the way - 15 nm is way up in the UV.
Oh, that’s micro, isn’t it? My King Henry Died A Drinkin’ Chocolate Milk Under Norville’s Porch is how I learned them; should’ve run it again.
Originally Posted by latifbp
I think you just Tim Cooked him
You have a question to answer. Either answer it or be reported.
I'm slightly amused that having asked for some reputable published scientific work supporting the counter-position, rather than right-wing, think tank propaganda, you turned up with a discredited study by a non-scientist who is big in several right-wing think tanks, ably supported by an engineer from the mining industry. Was that all you could find? I'm pretty sure that I can do better than that.
Except I did do better: I provided evidence; you did not. McKitrick and McIntyre's paper was indeed published in GRL. Nature did not because it would have gone over the 500 word limit they were going to give them. If there are any research papers that directly answer McIntyre's and McKitrick's work, by all means provide a link in your answer.
You do realize that McIntyre was interested in Mann's work because Mann, obviously a climate scientist, was using statistics to prove his point. McIntyre took on the analysis of Mann's statistical methodologies because McIntyre is a statistician; Mann is not. McIntyre started this work out of his own time and interest; nothing more, and found serious errors in Mann's math.
No - you provided one paper by an economist and a mining engineer (with a background in statistics, agreed), that has been largely discredited (in terms of its significance) in the aftermath of the controversy that it started, that addressed just the validity of the temperature record in the 1400s, and you are attempting to portray it as refuting the entire body of work on GW.
Their work was reviewed by multiple investigatory committees and a number of research groups, most of whom found that while their criticisms were not completely unfounded from a theoretical point of view, they did not significantly affect the reduced data. Notable, in that they addressed McIntyre and Mckitrick directly:
Huybers, P., "Comment on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" by S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick", (2005) Geophysical Research Letters 32, 20.
Wahl, Eugene R.; Ammann, Caspar M., "Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence" (2007), Climatic Change 85 (1-2): 33–69.
You have made no effort to estimate the random or systematic errors in your measurement of the actual air temperature, nor whether local effects need to be taken into account if your measurements are to be used in assessing a time-resolved, geographically-averaged local temperature.
You realize that this isn’t relevant to the point, right? The point is that once you have your temperature, it doesn’t magically change.
...those methods evolve...
Then the methods evolve for future readings. It is impossible to go back in time and remeasure the temperature, so any tampering after the fact is disingenuous.
OK - I'm running out of ideas on how to explain this. Once you have your readings (raw data) then no - those do not change. But raw data are not what you think they are. They always have to be adjusted locally for calibration and systematic errors and then assigned margins for random errors. Now you have your best estimate of the absolute, local temperature at your site based just on your instrument.
Beyond that, if they are to be used as part of broader datasets, the included data must be corrected at least for local geographic variations. The issue of urban heating is a good example - if you live in a city then the local heat output and typically higher absorption of solar radiation will produce locally higher readings that would skew the geographical mean of a larger region. Those urban readings need not be completely discarded though, because a comparison of local urban and rural readings allows the systematic offset to be estimated, and the urban readings can still be used to offset random errors once the systematic bias has been removed. That's what you read about back in February in Hansen's paper and that you said that you understood at the time.
So, as more datasets are incorporated, and more information is found, for example on the urban/rural normalization as a function of location, the data reduction methods are improved, and old data absolutely can be re-analysed to give more accurate reconstructions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by muppetry
the debate should be whether it is done properly, not about the fact that it is done.
So has it been? NASA, NOAA, GISS, the IPCC; they’re all modifying the data.
That is exactly the correct question to ask. Most of the studies (see my other post) confirm that the methods are sound, and broadly concur on the reconstructions. There have been dissenting opinions, such as McIntyre and McKitrick, which have been examined and found wanting. I'm not aware of any outstanding, significant dissent at this time, but that is not to say that someone will not find problems not currently identified.
No - you provided one paper by an economist and a mining engineer (with a background in statistics, agreed), that has been largely discredited (in terms of its significance) in the aftermath of the controversy that it started, that addressed just the validity of the temperature record in the 1400s, and you are attempting to portray it as refuting the entire body of work on GW.
Their work was reviewed by multiple investigatory committees and a number of research groups, most of whom found that while their criticisms were not completely unfounded from a theoretical point of view, they did not significantly affect the reduced data. Notable, in that they addressed McIntyre and Mckitrick directly:
Huybers, P., "Comment on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" by S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick", (2005) Geophysical Research Letters 32, 20.
Wahl, Eugene R.; Ammann, Caspar M., "Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence" (2007), Climatic Change 85 (1-2): 33–69.
Wow. I provided a link to far more than one paper, which leads me to the conclusion that you did not actually view the page. It is McKitrick's own page which is full of links to papers and articles that tell the whole story of his and McIntyre's work in critiquing Mann's hockey stick and the melee that followed. The first citation you make in reply (Huybers) was accepted by GRL, and M&M revised some calculations that did not change their final, original conclusions, and they even critiqued Huyber's own comment. Here's the link:
The second paper you cite was actually rejected by GRL in 2005. After rewriting it, it was submitted to Climatic Change and accepted in time to be included in the the IPCC's AR4, because, after all, it's the politics that count in this whole debate. Wahl/Amman, just like Mann et al originally, would not allow access to some of the key data, code, and references with which they derived their statistics that formed the basis for their arguments. In Amman/Wahl's case, it was in the Supplementary Information section, and when McIntyre asked Climatic Change for the data/info, they said to contact the authors, most likely because they (Climatic Change) didn't have, and had not seen, that data. McIntyre contacted Ammann directly and asked for it, to which Ammann replied, in essence, "pound sand". You can read McIntyre's own account of the drama here:
I have a problem when scientists can't be open about their work. If I make a claim about how the universe works, the burden of proof is on me to prove that claim, and explain the math, methodologies, and observations that lead to that claim. The AGW cabal, instead of engaging the skeptics, have consistently not been fully open about their work.
We can play this game all day. But if all you can do is refer to a Wikipedia page on climate change, I feel for you, because you're not getting the whole story.
Comments
You’ll want to try that again.
How about indulging me just once “more” and refuting what I posted above that literally no one addressed?
I assume you mean the composite graphics that you posted? It's really difficult to figure out what those show, with misaligned axes and no detail, in most cases, on what is being displayed. Part of the problem, I suspect, is that you are automatically rejecting any refinement of analysis as falsification.
You make one interesting statement though:
That would be very interesting if true - do you have a citation for it?
And - check PMs.
They say right away what they are. Sea level, temperature, tide gauges. All the data is modified.
My rejection is only of the idea that analysis can be refined.
If I go out right now and take a temperature reading, it will say 42 degrees F. That’s the temperature for 10:37 PM on Thursday, November 12, 2015.
If I go out tomorrow and take a new temperature reading, that does not change the temperature reading for right now.
If I go out 50 years from now and take a new temperature reading, that does not change the temperature reading for right now.
You can’t change the past. What was was. The downward manipulation of past temperatures is, at best, treason to science itself.
I think I linked that earlier; hang on...
And here’s the relevant quote from it.
I’ll take a look for more. I know I’ve seen several other NASA-sponsored papers that actively mention this exact topic.
Saw ‘em; thanks for that. I know it’s a ton to get through; I don’t expect you to be able to read them all in any short amount of time (or ever, really; it’d take too long). The point was to show that there’s a full scope of dissent with the majority (whether by survey or published volume
) opinion (or “opinion”, as the case may be).
I prefer Gardevoir.
Then let me spell it out for you.
When you make a claim, you have to support that claim.
You made the claim that NASA is not perpetrating fraud.
I gave evidence that they are, which proves your claim false.
You have the option of believing what I presented, which is the truth, or refuting what I presented.
If what I presented is false, then you should be able to refute it easily, as the truth will prove it wrong.
If what I presented is true, then you will not be able to refute it.
Pretending that I did not present it at all is not an option. This is what you are doing now.
That doesn’t sound like something that someone who cares about the truth says. That sounds like a dogmatist.
Truth matters.
Why do you insist on spewing lies?
They say right away what they are. Sea level, temperature, tide gauges. All the data is modified.
My rejection is only of the idea that analysis can be refined.
If I go out right now and take a temperature reading, it will say 42 degrees F. That’s the temperature for 10:37 PM on Thursday, November 12, 2015.
If I go out tomorrow and take a new temperature reading, that does not change the temperature reading for right now.
If I go out 50 years from now and take a new temperature reading, that does not change the temperature reading for right now.
You can’t change the past. What was was. The downward manipulation of past temperatures is, at best, treason to science itself.
So I understand why that is an appealing point of view, but it is an oversimplification. You have made no effort to estimate the random or systematic errors in your measurement of the actual air temperature, nor whether local effects need to be taken into account if your measurements are to be used in assessing a time-resolved, geographically-averaged local temperature. The analysis methods address those issues and, as more information and better techniques are developed, those methods evolve. It is perfectly defensible scientifically, if done properly, so the debate should be whether it is done properly, not about the fact that it is done.
I think I linked that earlier; hang on...
And here’s the relevant quote from it.
I’ll take a look for more. I know I’ve seen several other NASA-sponsored papers that actively mention this exact topic.
That was a good effort back in 1971, but the base assumptions were oversimplified. What you don't mention is that Schneider redid his calculations and retracted those conclusions in 1974, and later became a noted advocate for limiting CO2 emissions to avoid AGW.
It was the 15 µm band, by the way - 15 nm is way up in the UV.
I understood that water vapor absorbs almost all radiation when present and CO2 does almost nothing, so that's why I stated it this way.
I'm sure if you (can) do an actual measurement it will show that that is the case, and CO2 (with 400 parts per million) has almost no effect.
So in theory your right but in a practical sense it isn't the case.
You know that current CO2 absorption calculations don't include the fact that the warming caused by it isn't linear with the concentration?
Think about that.
You know the whole CO2 focus and climate warming is one big non issue.
It's also a big distractor for issues that really cause a change (like over population and the extreme loss of habitat of almost all animals) and really cause pollution like Diesel engines (that cause cancer etc.).
The solution is simple, even if you believe in climate warming: don't produce kids, don't take a plane to travel and don't eat meat (and drive electric).
Funny that no one takes action in this obvious direction, it's like seeing the splinter in someone's eye but don't see the beam in your own eye.
The scientific community has developed a culture that's very repressive about alternative views about the climate, it is also proven that this is the case.
Science is a cultural phenomenon, denying this is very stupid (think for example about what happend when cold fusion was 'discovered').
There is obviously some effort in that direction too, it's denying the opposite that's wrong and very typical for this discussion.
The scientific community has developed a culture that's very repressive about alternative views about the climate, it is also proven that this is the case.
Science is a cultural phenomenon, denying this is very stupid (think for example about what happend when cold fusion was 'discovered').
There are complete idiots who want science to adopt the view that the world began with Adam and Eve. That is not repressive, fairy tales are a different subject of study than science... Maybe Liberal Arts at best, but nowhere near the scientific field. It's absurd perspectives like this that numnuts clamor to be included as "the opposite view." In no way does that reflect oppression at all.
This is the flaw of democracy written here: 'My opinion is valid.' And a large enough group of ignorami has democratic right to be heard. Too bad democracy fails to recognise context: religion is for faith; science is for truth, and ne'er the twain shall meet.
I'm sorry, but you don't get to rewrite the physics behind EM interactions with matter just because it doesn't fit with the nonsense that you have read about this subject. So you understood wrong, as both measurement and calculation would show you if you were not too lazy to read and comprehend the literature.
And quit with the stupid references to linearity, which you obviously don't even remotely understand either. Of course it's not linear across all atmospheric compositions because it is described by an inverse, asymptotic relationship but, (1) that doesn't mean that it is not approximately linear at the low end of the range and (2) just because it becomes non-linear does not, per se, mean that it does not have a significant effect.
If you can't talk intelligently about science then you are wasting your time trying to participate in this discussion.
Cold fusion was not discovered, because it doesn't exist. Despite the obvious flaws in the original work, the process of science took over and other groups attempted to replicate the results in case current theory was wrong, and it was really possible. It wasn't. So this is actually almost a perfect counter-example to the point that you are trying to make. Par for the course.
It wasn't, you should try to think why.
You really underestimate my arguments maybe you can appreciate similar arguments from Freeman Dyson.
Cold fusion was not discovered, because it doesn't exist. Despite the obvious flaws in the original work, the process of science took over and other groups attempted to replicate the results in case current theory was wrong, and it was really possible. It wasn't. So this is actually almost a perfect counter-example to the point that you are trying to make. Par for the course.
It wasn't, you should try to think why.
You really underestimate my arguments maybe you can appreciate similar arguments from Freeman Dyson.
I'm not playing silly games of riddles with you. Either present your arguments or don't.
Wow, so stupid means I was right, that it isn't incorporated in the models, because it's not significant (so you claim).
I used the same argument with regard to CO2 not being relevant in current concentrations when water vapor is present.
Seems to be very valid and not at all deserving the comment that EM interactions have to be rewritten.
It seems you are severely irritatated by my comments being true and unnerving.
I bet you have kids (and otherwise will have them later).
You really should learn something about being polite though.
End of discussion.
I'm sorry, but you don't get to rewrite the physics behind EM interactions with matter just because it doesn't fit with the nonsense that you have read about this subject. So you understood wrong, as both measurement and calculation would show you if you were not too lazy to read and comprehend the literature.
And quit with the stupid references to linearity, which you obviously don't even remotely understand either. Of course it's not linear across all atmospheric compositions because it is described by an inverse, asymptotic relationship but, (1) that doesn't mean that it is not approximately linear at the low end of the range and (2) just because it becomes non-linear does not, per se, mean that it does not have a significant effect.
If you can't talk intelligently about science then you are wasting your time trying to participate in this discussion.
Wow, so stupid means I was right, that it isn't incorporated in the models, because it's not significant (so you claim).
I used the same argument with regard to CO2 not being relevant in current concentrations when water vapor is present.
Seems to be very valid and not at all deserving the comment that EM interactions have to be rewritten.
It seems you are severely irritatated by my comments being true and unnerving.
I bet you have kids (and otherwise will have them later).
You really should learn something about being polite though.
End of discussion.
I'm irritated by your inability to comprehend even simple scientific concepts, by your attempts to pronounce on subjects of which you demonstrate complete ignorance, and by your resort to what I assume you think are clever sounding cryptic comments in response to detailed explanations of why you are completely wrong. I'm additionally irritated now because obviously I'm arguing with a kid, something I somehow failed to pick up on earlier.
Except I did do better: I provided evidence; you did not. McKitrick and McIntyre's paper was indeed published in GRL. Nature did not because it would have gone over the 500 word limit they were going to give them. If there are any research papers that directly answer McIntyre's and McKitrick's work, by all means provide a link in your answer.
You do realize that McIntyre was interested in Mann's work because Mann, obviously a climate scientist, was using statistics to prove his point. McIntyre took on the analysis of Mann's statistical methodologies because McIntyre is a statistician; Mann is not. McIntyre started this work out of his own time and interest; nothing more, and found serious errors in Mann's math.
You have made no effort to estimate the random or systematic errors in your measurement of the actual air temperature, nor whether local effects need to be taken into account if your measurements are to be used in assessing a time-resolved, geographically-averaged local temperature.
You realize that this isn’t relevant to the point, right? The point is that once you have your temperature, it doesn’t magically change.
Then the methods evolve for future readings. It is impossible to go back in time and remeasure the temperature, so any tampering after the fact is disingenuous.
So has it been? NASA, NOAA, GISS, the IPCC; they’re all modifying the data.
Oh, that’s micro, isn’t it? My King Henry Died A Drinkin’ Chocolate Milk Under Norville’s Porch is how I learned them; should’ve run it again.
You have a question to answer. Either answer it or be reported.
Except I did do better: I provided evidence; you did not. McKitrick and McIntyre's paper was indeed published in GRL. Nature did not because it would have gone over the 500 word limit they were going to give them. If there are any research papers that directly answer McIntyre's and McKitrick's work, by all means provide a link in your answer.
You do realize that McIntyre was interested in Mann's work because Mann, obviously a climate scientist, was using statistics to prove his point. McIntyre took on the analysis of Mann's statistical methodologies because McIntyre is a statistician; Mann is not. McIntyre started this work out of his own time and interest; nothing more, and found serious errors in Mann's math.
No - you provided one paper by an economist and a mining engineer (with a background in statistics, agreed), that has been largely discredited (in terms of its significance) in the aftermath of the controversy that it started, that addressed just the validity of the temperature record in the 1400s, and you are attempting to portray it as refuting the entire body of work on GW.
Their work was reviewed by multiple investigatory committees and a number of research groups, most of whom found that while their criticisms were not completely unfounded from a theoretical point of view, they did not significantly affect the reduced data. Notable, in that they addressed McIntyre and Mckitrick directly:
Other than that, you can find a long list of publications with similar findings on the Wikipedia page on climate reconstruction studies, so I won't bother to list all those here.
You have made no effort to estimate the random or systematic errors in your measurement of the actual air temperature, nor whether local effects need to be taken into account if your measurements are to be used in assessing a time-resolved, geographically-averaged local temperature.
You realize that this isn’t relevant to the point, right? The point is that once you have your temperature, it doesn’t magically change.
Then the methods evolve for future readings. It is impossible to go back in time and remeasure the temperature, so any tampering after the fact is disingenuous.
OK - I'm running out of ideas on how to explain this. Once you have your readings (raw data) then no - those do not change. But raw data are not what you think they are. They always have to be adjusted locally for calibration and systematic errors and then assigned margins for random errors. Now you have your best estimate of the absolute, local temperature at your site based just on your instrument.
Beyond that, if they are to be used as part of broader datasets, the included data must be corrected at least for local geographic variations. The issue of urban heating is a good example - if you live in a city then the local heat output and typically higher absorption of solar radiation will produce locally higher readings that would skew the geographical mean of a larger region. Those urban readings need not be completely discarded though, because a comparison of local urban and rural readings allows the systematic offset to be estimated, and the urban readings can still be used to offset random errors once the systematic bias has been removed. That's what you read about back in February in Hansen's paper and that you said that you understood at the time.
So, as more datasets are incorporated, and more information is found, for example on the urban/rural normalization as a function of location, the data reduction methods are improved, and old data absolutely can be re-analysed to give more accurate reconstructions.
So has it been? NASA, NOAA, GISS, the IPCC; they’re all modifying the data.
That is exactly the correct question to ask. Most of the studies (see my other post) confirm that the methods are sound, and broadly concur on the reconstructions. There have been dissenting opinions, such as McIntyre and McKitrick, which have been examined and found wanting. I'm not aware of any outstanding, significant dissent at this time, but that is not to say that someone will not find problems not currently identified.
No - you provided one paper by an economist and a mining engineer (with a background in statistics, agreed), that has been largely discredited (in terms of its significance) in the aftermath of the controversy that it started, that addressed just the validity of the temperature record in the 1400s, and you are attempting to portray it as refuting the entire body of work on GW.
Their work was reviewed by multiple investigatory committees and a number of research groups, most of whom found that while their criticisms were not completely unfounded from a theoretical point of view, they did not significantly affect the reduced data. Notable, in that they addressed McIntyre and Mckitrick directly:
Other than that, you can find a long list of publications with similar findings on the Wikipedia page on climate reconstruction studies, so I won't bother to list all those here.
Wow. I provided a link to far more than one paper, which leads me to the conclusion that you did not actually view the page. It is McKitrick's own page which is full of links to papers and articles that tell the whole story of his and McIntyre's work in critiquing Mann's hockey stick and the melee that followed. The first citation you make in reply (Huybers) was accepted by GRL, and M&M revised some calculations that did not change their final, original conclusions, and they even critiqued Huyber's own comment. Here's the link:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL023586/full
The second paper you cite was actually rejected by GRL in 2005. After rewriting it, it was submitted to Climatic Change and accepted in time to be included in the the IPCC's AR4, because, after all, it's the politics that count in this whole debate. Wahl/Amman, just like Mann et al originally, would not allow access to some of the key data, code, and references with which they derived their statistics that formed the basis for their arguments. In Amman/Wahl's case, it was in the Supplementary Information section, and when McIntyre asked Climatic Change for the data/info, they said to contact the authors, most likely because they (Climatic Change) didn't have, and had not seen, that data. McIntyre contacted Ammann directly and asked for it, to which Ammann replied, in essence, "pound sand". You can read McIntyre's own account of the drama here:
http://climateaudit.org/2008/04/11/supplementary-information-and-flaccid-peer-reviewing/
I have a problem when scientists can't be open about their work. If I make a claim about how the universe works, the burden of proof is on me to prove that claim, and explain the math, methodologies, and observations that lead to that claim. The AGW cabal, instead of engaging the skeptics, have consistently not been fully open about their work.
We can play this game all day. But if all you can do is refer to a Wikipedia page on climate change, I feel for you, because you're not getting the whole story.