Simple Question About AGW

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
I have NO idea now what you are talking about. Somebody else's post? Somehow related to mine? Somehow? Something about 100 years? Did I quote someone else's post? No? But it is somehow related? To you? Hmm... Perhaps you should connect the dots for us there?

Oh, or you could just forget it, chalk it up to some sort of misunderstanding on your part. I suspect you don't like that idea, thought. Well, whatever.
​

You followed on from Alric and DR disagreeing on what Svalgaard meant when he (Svalgaard) mentioned the last 100 years.

In any case, Svalgaard did not support your opinion about solar being 2x CO2 (or whatever) did he? That was the whole point of my asking him (the first part was obviously true but I didn't want to quote you out of context).

Yes, I think I got it - you were confused by not reading exactly what I said, or thinking it meant something other than exactly what I said, and after being confused about some vague "follow on" impression that you had, you doubled that confusion by confusing a comment that I attributed to "I" to someone else, Svalgaard. Man, that's a mess of confusatory stuff you got there.

I think I'll just continue saying things in a plain and simple way. Well, of course probably I get confused sometimes too.

Okay, so what's this about your now pronouncing something about Svalgaard agreeing or not agreeing with me? Who cares? Did someone say he should agree? Not I. I'm just the guy that suggested to AUP, Alric, others they should all go read the Svalgaard threads at Climateaudit.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

computer models are merely the restatement of a hypothesis in computer language

Completely incorrect. Computer models are simulations of natural physical processes. Of course they are subject to error because of the simplifications inherent in them as well as (normally) the incomplete understanding of the physical process that the model is simulating.

Can you tell me why, if CO2 interacting with IR photons is the operateive process of AGW, the tropics aren't heating? I can see mega-convection if you want to postulate that but that would still require the tropcis to be hotter than the poles.

Polar regions are much more sensitive to changes than tropical regions because of the reflective properties of snow and ice. Snow and ice reflect more than 80 percent of the insolation back into space. Therefore, a decrease in snow and ice extent will lead to an decrease in the amount of insolation reflected and thus an increase in the amount of insolation absorbed. This will amplify the warming.

Tropical regions are also proficient at exporting heat. The rest of the Earth would be cooler if local temperature was solely a function of local processes.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Yes, I think I got it - you were confused by not reading exactly what I said, or thinking it meant something other than exactly what I said, and after being confused about some vague "follow on" impression that you had, you doubled that confusion by confusing a comment that I attributed to "I" to someone else, Svalgaard. Man, that's a mess of confusatory stuff you got there.
​

You said A, correctly summarising Svalgaard. You followed that with B, as if B followed from A and you expected Svalgaard to agree with B. That is all. No confusion: just a misunderstanding.

I think I'll just continue saying things in a plain and simple way. Well, of course probably I get confused sometimes too.

So can we all.

Okay, so what's this about your now pronouncing something about Svalgaard agreeing or not agreeing with me? Who cares? Did someone say he should agree? Not I. I'm just the guy that suggested to AUP, Alric, others they should all go read the Svalgaard threads at Climateaudit.

I'm with you there and I'll be asking him more stuff.​

 

[Megalodon]

At least you brought a gun to the game .

Let's not go that way, or I might get reported again

I think the GWSceptic argument is that such cooling was predicted but isn't happening. (It's hard to be sure; their contributions do tend towards the Delphic).

If by Delphic you mean moronic, then we agree... What I get is that the troposphere is not warming fast enough for some of them, and then you have the other that confuse it with stratosphere... and then the fun starts.

What attracts them to the stratosphere is that they can question the observations and the attributions. And, of course, it's not the surface, where things really aren't going their way. Or the troposphere, where they've had to retreat to the tropics and are hard-pressed even there. So they go higher.

Yes... and I'm guessing they use chemical assistance for that...

 

[TrueSceptic]

If by Delphic you mean moronic, then we agree... What I get is that the troposphere is not warming fast enough for some of them, and then you have the other that confuse it with stratosphere... and then the fun starts.

Delphic |ˈdelfik| (also Delphian |-fēən|)
adjective
of or relating to the ancient Greek oracle at Delphi.
• (typically of a pronouncement) deliberately obscure or ambiguous.

CD's a man of learning, in case you didn't already realise.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Well, that helps a lot...not. CO2 trapping photons and heating up Earth's surface. CO2 exists at the tropics. Highest photon flux at the tropics. No noticeable warming. Explain. Don't give me jibber-jabber when you have mocked my statements that not all is known or understood. You've admitted as much in the above statement anyway. Thanks for playing.

CO2 trapping photons and heating up Earth's surface??? Where did you get that idea from? That is not an accurate summation of the AGW theory. Do you understand this topic?

Can you tell me why, if CO2 interacting with IR photons is the operateive process of AGW, the tropics aren't heating? I can see mega-convection if you want to postulate that but that would still require the tropcis to be hotter than the poles.

Ummm, the tropics are hotter than the poles. And no GW theory is predicting that this will change.

 

[a_unique_person]

Delphic |ˈdelfik| (also Delphian |-fēən|)
adjective
of or relating to the ancient Greek oracle at Delphi.
• (typically of a pronouncement) deliberately obscure or ambiguous.

CD's a man of learning, in case you didn't already realise.

The Greeks invented a lot of things, including how to be a good fortune teller.

 

[CapelDodger]

CD's a man of learning, in case you didn't already realise.

An Old School Classical Education, don'cha know. (Really old; founded in the 17thCE.) A blessing, and a curse .

 

[CapelDodger]

The Greeks invented a lot of things, including how to be a good fortune teller.

They'd like you to think that, but there was a much earlier oracle at Siwa, Egypt, using the same trick. Hustling must surely have been one of the earliest professions, so the first successful fortune teller was probably called something like "Ug the Prophet".

 

[CapelDodger]

Another nice quote from Svalgaard
18,19 (pete,Andrew): In my book climate is a 30-year thing. So making statements as many people have based on a few months worth of data (cold 2008), or a decade’s worth of data does not make much sense. My comment #721 still summarizes my opinion about TSI: no trend has been demonstrated. Lockwood: he has been wrong before [’doubling of Sun;s magnetic field’] and may be again when it comes to detailed explanations based on preferred data. Time will tell.

Svalgaard ploughs his own furrow, but is numbered amongst the righteous. It's understandable that he makes the effort to explicitly distance himself from frauds and loonies.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Svalgaard ploughs his own furrow, but is numbered amongst the righteous. It's understandable that he makes the effort to explicitly distance himself from frauds and loonies.

He has my respect (FWIW). It is already clear that he is not impressed by the wackier end of McIntyre's following. I also have to say that CA is a well run blog. I've said it before but it's worth repeating.

 

[CapelDodger]

Well, now I don't think that is right. Hansen stated the sensitivity. The scenarios A, B ,and C were not based on different climate sensitivities.

The lie involved the predicted warming (by the Hansen et al model) during the 90's, which goes directly to the sensitivity. In essence, the lie was meant to convey that the estimated sensitivity was way too high, and that's the message a lot of people seem to have got from it, going by the reaction in the GWSceptic camp. It was quite the thing for a while, before the more recent alternatives (warming stopped in 1998, troposphere, stratosphere, Mars, Pluto, Antarctic sea-ice - it's been a creative first decade of the 21stCE) turned up.

Perhaps Michaels already saw which way the wind was blowing (it don't take a weatherman to know that, after all). He's not been knocking himself out trying to deny the warming, he's been concentrating on the "it doesn't matter" fall-back line all along, knowing you guys will thank him (and the Cato Institute) for it when the time comes. Clear minds remain focused on the strategic objective of an operation, and in this case that's to prevent any regulatory or behavioural action being taken to curb CO2 emmissions.

I could be wrong, of course. I may have mis-overestimated him.

 

[Round Robin]

They'd like you to think that, but there was a much earlier oracle at Siwa, Egypt, using the same trick. Hustling must surely have been one of the earliest professions, so the first successful fortune teller was probably called something like "Ug the Prophet".

Yes, but in Delphi, the Pythia (priestess) would sit on a stool positioned over a gas vent so that the vapors would make her a bit, uh, loopy. I imagine her riddles were very entertaining!

Sorry that was way off topic... I wonder of those vapors were GHGs. There; that's better.

 

[CapelDodger]

He has my respect (FWIW). It is already clear that he is not impressed by the wackier end of McIntyre's following. I also have to say that CA is a well run blog. I've said it before but it's worth repeating.

Fair comment, but McIntyre is still a weasel. He doesn't have to be wacky to get in the spotlight (unlike, say, Rush Limbaugh).

Maybe we should take this to a different thread ...

 

[CapelDodger]

Yes, but in Delphi, the Pythia (priestess) would sit on a stool positioned over a gas vent so that the vapors would make her a bit, uh, loopy. I imagine her riddles were very entertaining!

Way off topic but ... what were those vapours doing to the other people in the room, the ones that weren't used to it? If I was running an Oracle I wouldn't put somebody up-front that was likely to run off at the mouth. You'd want them on-message, and the message would be plausibly deniable. Having witnesses that are slightly smashed at the time is a great help with the deniablity.

At Siwa they were probably throwing cannabis on the sacred braziers, but that didn't stop theOracle telling Alexander he'd conquer the world if he'd kindly f*** off to India.

Sorry that was way off topic... I wonder of those vapors were GHGs. There; that's better.

I can't conjure-up a get-out at all . I'm a pedant. My apologies to whoever started this thread.

 

[a_unique_person]

I can't conjure-up a get-out at all . I'm a pedant. My apologies to whoever started this thread.

Tokie? I don't think he cares anymore.

 

[CapelDodger]

Yes, from your very own physics, a rational mind would absolutely expect the rate of warming at the tropics to exceed any other place on this planet. Beer's Law. The greater the light intensity, the greater the absorbance. Who's touting Dark, Mystical Physics now?

Greenhouse gases don't absorb light, they're transparent to it. They absorb infra-red radiation. Surfaces absorb (or reflect) light, and emit infra-red. Absorbed light is the energy-income, and infra-red the energy outgoings, of the global energy budget. (That's from radiative physics, which is founded on observations.)

The greenhouse effect is a local (the Earth's surface) phaenomenon in which the Sun plays no part. It is just as effective at the poles as it is at the equator (or anywhere else), and its effect is to reduce outgoings. Since the poles import heat from the tropics (thermodynamics) their energy-balance is going to increase faster than the equatorial region (which exports heat by other than radiative means). Other things being equal, such as a flat Earth.

Really, fella, all you've got going for you is scare. Without the fear, you've got nothing going for you.

From your increasingly garbled responses I can see how you might be scared of me (there's a hint of panic in there) but I don't set out to frighten anybody.

 

[CapelDodger]

Tokie? I don't think he cares anymore.

Hopefully he's getting the care he so clearly needs .

Since Tokie determinedly martyred himself I guess this thread is open territory now. Let's not even get into what the "Simple Question" was in the first place.

Tokie. Gone, but not forgotten. Nor mourned, if I'm any judge. He was an embarrassment even to his friends.

 

[mhaze]

The lie involved the predicted warming (by the Hansen et al model) during the 90's, which goes directly to the sensitivity. In essence, the lie was meant to convey that the estimated sensitivity was way too high.....

I could be wrong, of course. I may have mis-overestimated him.

Sure looked way too high to me....eg, not a lie.

Well, but now we are hindcasting, then they were trying to predict.

How do you lie when predicting?

 

[varwoche]

Tokie. Gone, but not forgotten.

Hey, we missed out on the third chapter in the trilogy.