Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Let's get real about climate models

The graph I linked scales logarithmically from 0.1micrometres to 100 micrometres.

What are all these references to 5mm. Radiation?

Jan 27, 2016 at 4:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Raff,
If you like I'll post your comment and we can see what happens, as I never had a problem with any comments there.

Jan 24, 2016 at 12:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS


and later:
Raff
Why should I get bogged down arguing your point with a third party. It's a bizarre thought, ...

Jan 27, 2016 at 4:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

Bizarre thoughts are perhaps your thing, Sandy.

EM, the 5mm is the wavelength of the 60GHz absorption band of O2 (3e8/6e10 = 5mm) - the frequency used by the satellites and by UAH/RSS to produce what Martin says is NOT a global average temperature (what it is, he has yet to say - I can't wait).

Jan 27, 2016 at 6:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Raff

Sorry. I thought it was related to the "Is O2 a greenhouse gas?" thread.

Martin A has a number of strange ideas regarding statistics.

Jan 27, 2016 at 6:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

What EM, strange ideas like you can't produce meaningful confidence intervals if you don't know whether the data you are dealing with are independent and identically distributed? (The situation that seems to apply whenever you blithely state confidence intervals.)

Or that strange statistical ideas such as that you can't compute meaningful confidence intervals for things that are not random? [Not long ago, you stated your belief that all things that obey the laws of physics are deterministic - ie non-random.]

Raff's "5mm" response was to your apparent belief that O₂ does not absorb/radiate at 5mm wavelength and likewise, your apparent belief that the black body radiation of the Earth does not include radiation at microwave (eg 5mm) wavelengths. I found that a bit strange in someone who has put so much effort into studying the subject of thermal radiation.

EM, a while back, I asked:

Maybe my senility has fogged my memory but I have no recollection of suggesting that "the output of thousands of scientists since ~1816 was a ploy to control the world". Could you please remind me where I said such a thing? (I would not dare to suggest that you had imagined that I said it - even though, in the past, you have been known to imagine things about me and then to state them as if fact.)

Still waiting for you to jog my memory. Is the long wait an indication that perhaps you did imagine it (and it then became your reality, as often seems to happen with the things that you imagine)?

Jan 27, 2016 at 7:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

Martin, I don't know if EM meant that you personally believe that "the output of thousands of scientists since ~1816 was a ploy to control the world" but the idea that climate science is being used in a conspiracy to create world government is certainly something I have seen "skeptics" discuss without apparent embarrassment or push-back by other "skeptics". If you don't want to be tarred by that brush, perhaps you should indicate you disagree with the crazys.

So I'm still waiting to know what you call the measures provided by RSS/UAH and the radiosonde data. The things is, Roy Spencer has a post where he discusses "Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures" and he doesn't say he's presenting "bogus science". The RATPAC data we plotted says it represents "Annual mean temperature anomalies for 7 regions -- hemispheres, globe,tropics..." which, for the "globe" data set looks awfully like your "bogus science" global average temperature. So as you said:

- Satellite measures: possibly useful but I'd want to know a lot more than I do before putting any trust in them.

- Sonde measurements: I imagine they are conducted and recorded in a systematic and professional fashion and less subject to having their history continually re-written.

you'd have to conclude that these measures are in fact also bogus science. Since you reject surface temperature records as "unfit for any purpose whatever" and now the other measures are bogus too, you have rejected all of the main measures by which we can see whether climate is changing. And as you reject GCMs because they are unvalidated (another reason why you must reject satellites and sondes) you have also rejected the main means by which we can study what might happen. Yet you seem to think there is a "pause", like Simple Simon who knows it without looking at the data. That is an odd position for such an apparently educated and clever person to take. It makes me wonder whether instead of you disassociating yourself from the crazies, it shouldn't be the other way round....

Jan 28, 2016 at 12:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

So I'm still waiting...

Raff, please be patient.

Jan 28, 2016 at 9:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

Martin, I don't know if EM meant that you personally believe that "the output of thousands of scientists since ~1816 was a ploy to control the world" ...

Sounded like that to me. EM seems to have a habit of imagining something about me and then stating it as if it were fact.

I had responded to an earlier comment by EM...

"Not surprisingly, models projecting large CO2 increases projected large temperature increases. Runs projecting low CO2 increases projected lower temperature increases..."

Yes, not surprisingly at all. Since they were programmed to do that, it would have been astounding if they had not done so.
Jan 22, 2016 at 12:09 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A


I had assumed it was common knowledge that GCMs are programmed to simulate "trapping of heat" by atmospheric CO₂.

EM retorted

(...) You seem to think that the climate conspiracy decided what results it wanted the model to produce, and then worked backwards, writing software to match.

This is the difference between a genuine criminal trial and a show trial. The former examines the evidence and uses it to derive a verdict. A show trial started with the verdict and then fiddled the evidence to suit.

Are you seriously suggesting that the output of thousands of scientists over 200 years is a deliberate plot by "them" to control the world? If so, " senile old fool " seems entirely inadequate.
Jan 22, 2016 at 1:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Jan 28, 2016 at 9:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

Are you seriously suggesting that the output of thousands of scientists over 200 years is a deliberate plot by "them" to control the world? If so, " senile old fool " seems entirely inadequate.
Jan 22, 2016 at 1:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man
That is a question followed by a conditional (hint: the ? and the 'if'). It is far from a statement of fact.

On the other hand it does seem to be a fact that you reject all of the main temperature indices as bogus science and yet still adhere to the "pause" meme. How do you justify that contradiction to yourself intellectually? Or is it just what Yins call "visceral"?

Jan 28, 2016 at 1:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Raff - You said "Martin, I don't know if EM meant that you personally believe that "the output of thousands of scientists since ~1816 was a ploy to control the world" ...".

I quoted what EM said and, question mark or none, it is clear that he meant me personally.

On the other stuff, as I said not long ago, please be patient.

Jan 28, 2016 at 4:28 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

JC has a good guest post up today about climate models with advice from Karl Popper, and links to the original post at the Fabius Maximus site.

http://fabiusmaximus.com/2016/01/28/karl-popper-advise-about-climate-science-92631/

The points covered match those we've discussed over the past 20 pages of this thread. The conclusions too are very much in sync with those drawn by sceptics here. It's a comforting bit of reading for those of us who are keen to see an improvement in standards in Climastrology and Climatastrophe.

Jan 28, 2016 at 5:17 PM | Registered CommenterSimon Hopkinson

Martin A

If you can confirm unequivacally that you do not believe in any climate conspiracy, I will happily apologise.

Jan 28, 2016 at 6:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Raff
You claimed you couldn't post there (Not A Lot Of People Know That), implying that what you'd said was censored. So as I've never had problems there the thought was that you give me the words and we could see if comments were censored, for Not A Lot Of People Know That blog I have never seen anyone, apart from you, claim that they couldn't post comments. I was skeptical of your claim and wanted to test it.

I said I'd post your comment, I didn't say I'd argue your case.

Jan 28, 2016 at 7:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

If you can confirm unequivacally that you do not believe in any climate conspiracy, I will happily apologise.

Do you believe that Big Oil is pouring millions into the funding of "deniers"?

Jan 28, 2016 at 7:43 PM | Registered CommenterSimon Hopkinson

Sandy, I just posted this on the Decadal Global Temperature Bet thread:

Hi, can anyone point me to the discussion that led to the bet please. It is very odd for a warmist to agree that UAH/RSS are "the best we’ve got" - unless the meaning was that they are the best TLT satellite records we've got (best 2 out of 2).

But when something more interesting than this comes up on his site, I'll take you up on that offer if it still open.

Jan 28, 2016 at 8:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Martin A
If you can confirm unequivacally that you do not believe in any climate conspiracy, I will happily apologise.
Jan 28, 2016 at 6:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Why thank you EM, how kind.

However, conditional or qualified apologies are not really worth having. But you'd require that I confirm that I don't believe in *any* climate conspiracy?

Well, from the conspirators own emails we *know* there was a conspiracy by climate scientists. They conspired to break FOI law.

Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new
email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil

Hi Phil,
… I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@xxx
talk to you later,
mike

...In a statement, the deputy information commissioner Graham Smith said emails between scientists at the university's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) that were hacked and placed on the internet in November revealed that FOI requests were "not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation".

Some of the hacked emails reveal scientists encouraging their colleagues to delete emails, apparently to prevent them from being revealed to people making FOI requests. Such a breach of the act could carry an unlimited fine, but Smith said no action could be taken against the university because the specific request they had looked at happened in May 2008, well outside the six-month limit for such prosecutions under the act....

Guardian

Jan 28, 2016 at 10:18 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Then I am sorry, but my comment stands.

Jan 28, 2016 at 11:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM, you somehow missed my question. Do you think that we sceptics are being funded by Big Oil?

Jan 29, 2016 at 1:07 AM | Registered CommenterSimon Hopkinson

He didn't miss it, he just hasn't stopped laughing yet. To think an oil company would fund people who say idiotic things for a hobby is a joke. You and Martin could perhaps do your double act of divining pauses in data that you don't believe in at the Edinburgh fringe, maybe with the Yins hanging round the back handing out pages of "compelling evidence" for a theory he can't quite put his finger on. It'd be a cracker.

Jan 29, 2016 at 2:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Simon Hopkinson

I don't know whether or not big oil has funded climate change deniers.

At least two DAs in the US are investigating Exxon as we speak.

If they are found to be funding climate change denial while their own scientists were telling them it was happening, a court is liable to find against them for fraud.

Shall we let the court decide?

Jan 29, 2016 at 5:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

So.. yes you do, then. You say you don't know, but you effortlessly make that leap from "DAs in the US are investigating" to "let the courts decide". So you THINK they do, but daren't admit it.

Seems normal for you.

I wonder, why bother with prosecuting the evidence in court? 97% of climate activists already believe it. That makes it true, right?

Jan 29, 2016 at 7:44 PM | Registered CommenterSimon Hopkinson

Simon Hopkinson

Is this what you were asking if I believed?

Wei-Hock Soon, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who routinely denied a connection between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, took $1.2 million from fossil fuel companies, including Southern Company Services, in return for “deliverables.” Soon used the term when describing his research papers on climate change, creating an apparent conflict of interest.

Jan 30, 2016 at 1:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM:

… climate change deniers.
Oh. So you do not mean anyone commenting on this site, or the other sites many visit. That’s good. Perhaps we should get together and seek out these pesky, despicable climate change deniers, and correct their wicked ways. I say that as, to repeat a point I made in a comment on another Discussion thread:
… no-one, but no-one, commenting on this site is denying that global warming has occurred; no-one is denying that the climates have changed and are changing; no-one is denying that laboratories have shown that CO2 can exhibit “greenhouse effect”; no-one is denying that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising, no-one is denying that humans are producing a lot of CO2; no-one is denying that humans could contribute to climates changing.
So, there ain’t no clymitt change d’nyers, here. No, sirree…

However, I suspect your definition of “climate change denier” is a bit different – i.e. anyone who disagrees with you:

All that most are questioning is that the rise in CO2 is solely caused by humans; they question that the rise in CO2 is the principle, driving cause of the rising temperatures and changing climates; they question the assurances that there is anything that humans can do to have any noticeable effect upon the change; and they question whether the changes will be as deleterious as so many assure us it is going to be.
(See the full comment on TheBigYinJames’s “Predictions for 2016” discussion, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:52 AM.)

Jan 30, 2016 at 1:24 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Simon Hopkinson

I don't really do belief, but I do like evidence.

Jan 30, 2016 at 1:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Radical Rodent

I think I just found a climate change denier.

Soon took money to publish false science intended to discredit climate change.

Jan 30, 2016 at 1:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Well done! You have found a climate change denier – and, as you say so, so it must be true – none of the “innocent until proven guilty” nonsense, eh?

Shall we let the court decide?
No need, Entropic Man has him bang to rights! (Who was that masked man?)

Jan 30, 2016 at 1:47 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent