Strong Negative Feedback Found in Radiation Budget

mhaze said:
I know this pattern of your responses quite well, Lomiller. But I'm actually a bit curious about something.

How would those at the AGU conference respond to your raising this point at Dr. Spencer's presentation? I'm sure you could take off a few days and go to the 2010 conference. You'd have no problem raising your hand and voicing that opinion right there in the question and answer after Spencer's presentation, would you?

You strongly hold your views and you are not an intellectual coward, right?

Your views are shared by that wider and professional scientific community, aren't they?

Aren't they?
Click to expand...

So what is it, Lomiller? I certainly know some athiests who are not scared to publicly state their case and respect them for it.
 
mhaze said:
So what is it, Lomiller? I certainly know some athiests who are not scared to publicly state their case and respect them for it.
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight: You are daring Lomiller to call Spencer a poopy-head? How old are you, mhaze?
 
uke2se said:
Let me get this straight: You are daring Lomiller to call Spencer a poopy-head? How old are you, mhaze?
Click to expand...
No, not a poopy-head. Lomiller has said something he's often said, in the general direction of "Spencer's science can't be trusted because Spencer's a creationist".

Now all I've done is to ask if he'd stand up and ask that question in the meeting of scientists who in fact determine when and what science can be trusted and for what reasons.

I suspect they'd laugh him out of the room, but nontheless if one sincerely believed this he should voice his opinion not just among the (so to speek) AGW church choir.

It just seemed like an interesting question, actually. But I'm through talking about it, carrying on would be badgering, you know.
 
mhaze said:
No, not a poopy-head. Lomiller has said something he's often said, in the general direction of "Spencer's science can't be trusted because Spencer's a creationist".

Now all I've done is to ask if he'd stand up and ask that question in the meeting of scientists who in fact determine when and what science can be trusted and for what reasons.

I suspect they'd laugh him out of the room, but nontheless if one sincerely believed this he should voice his opinion not just among the (so to speek) AGW church choir.

It just seemed like an interesting question, actually. But I'm through talking about it, carrying on would be badgering, you know.
Click to expand...

How about he does that if you go to a conference for climatologists and call Michael Mann a fraud to his face?
 
picture.php



I don't care in the slightest that Spencer is a creationist, what I care about is that he thinks it's science. How can he do science if he doesn't even know what it is?

Does the AGU care why Spencer doesn't produce anything useful? Probably not, all they care about is that he doesn't produce much that is worth their time following up on so they vote with their feet and ignore the occasional stuff he manages to get published.
 
How many times does someone have to get cleared of accusations of fraud before people stop calling them a fraud?
 
bit_pattern said:
How many times does someone have to get cleared of accusations of fraud before people stop calling them a fraud?
Click to expand...

That depends on what you do for a living. For climatologists, obviously a lot of times.
:rolleyes:
 
lomiller said:
I don't care in the slightest that Spencer is a creationist, what I care about is that he thinks it's science. How can he do science if he doesn't even know what it is?

Does the AGU care why Spencer doesn't produce anything useful? Probably not, all they care about is that he doesn't produce much that is worth their time following up on so they vote with their feet and ignore the occasional stuff he manages to get published.
Click to expand...
Yes, they voted with their feet, Lomiller. To the tune of a standing room audience for the presentation he made in December. You know, that invited presentation?

I didn't ask for another ad hominem attack on Spencer. I simply asked if you felt strongly about your views, as you seem to, then would you go to that group of professionals in that field and voice your objections.

It's no big deal, and I already said I was not going to pursue or discuss the subject further. It would be badgering, you know, sort of in the Megalodon style, and to no purpose.

And it's something of a derail from the work in phase space analysis of climate feedbacks which is the subject of the OP. But I know it's one of your favorite derails. So you've had your say, and I've had a response for you.

BenBurch said:
Because people are guilty until proven innocent?
Click to expand...
"Under investigation for fraud" does not mean guilty, it is a simple statement of fact. So all I did is answer the (pejorative) question posed by uk2 with respect to what I could or might say. And all this got me was a (pejorative) response from you. Typical, typical, typical.

I don't second guess or play armchair quarterback on criminal investigations in progress. What's the point? As you are aware only Deniers are guilty until proven innocent.;)

bit_pattern said:
How many times does someone have to get cleared of accusations of fraud before people stop calling them a fraud?
Click to expand...
That would depend on how many states or governments or individuals had standing to bring action and intended to do so with reasonable cause. My guess is that the more defensive radical wackjob environmentalists they hear defending these Warmers the more they will go after them. It might raise their suspicions, you see. So you and your friends might actually win by moderating the tone a bit.
 
Last edited:
Show us the citations; show us the scientists basing their papers on his idea; show us some insights of his the scientific community has picked up on; show us some evidence he has contributed something, anything, towards understanding the Earths climate. If you are correct you should have a great many examples to present us.
 
So.....

We see here in this thread what the Warmers can actually do with some simple scientific concepts, in this case, Spencer's concepts.

Without their propagadic sciency sources: Realclimate, Lambert, Rabbit, Tamino et al - available to parrot, so that they look smarty.

Quite telling.

Go tell them to come on over. You've done it before when things got difficult, you just need a bit of help over here.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
So.....

We see here in this thread what the Warmers can actually do with some simple scientific concepts, in this case, Spencer's concepts.

Without their propagadic sciency sources: Realclimate, Lambert, Rabbit, Tamino et al - available to parrot, so that they look smarty.

Quite telling.

Go tell them to come on over. You've done it before when things got difficult, you just need a bit of help over here.
Click to expand...

No cites? Just more hateful scorn heaped on real scientists? It's like you're stuck in the dark ages, mhaze. Now, that's quite telling indeed.
 
mhaze said:
That would depend on how many states or governments or individuals had standing to bring action and intended to do so with reasonable cause. My guess is that the more defensive radical wackjob environmentalists they hear defending these Warmers the more they will go after them.
Click to expand...

Oh, so it actually doesn't have anything to do with probable cause, reasonable cause or cause at all. It's just a reaction based on the need to be contrarian. Very interesting, mhaze. Perhaps you should be the one to tell the Virginia AG?

mhaze said:
It might raise their suspicions, you see. So you and your friends might actually win by moderating the tone a bit.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're having trouble keeping up, mhaze. Must be difficult to argue against reality.
 
mhaze said:
So.....

We see here in this thread what the Warmers can actually do with some simple scientific concepts, in this case, Spencer's concepts.

Without their propagadic sciency sources: Realclimate, Lambert, Rabbit, Tamino et al - available to parrot, so that they look smarty.

Quite telling.

Go tell them to come on over. You've done it before when things got difficult, you just need a bit of help over here.
Click to expand...

Well, again, considering that the paper isn't available yet, I imagine they would have the same initial criticisms:

-comparing global radiation data to ocean temperatures only
-seven years of data...
- I imagine they would also comment on the implications of his climate sensitivity estimate. Can you get a realistic cycle of glacial-interglacials with such a low sensitivity?
-he ignores temperature data below 0.03°C
-and like I said, he calls this robust. This doesn't fit any form of the definition for robust that I've ever seen used by scientists.
 
Steve Schneider has some interesting things to say about scientific definition in the sources of climate scepticism thread I posted, I recommend everybody interested in the subject to at least read the transcript from his presentation. "Robust" sounds like a hack woo term that has little basis in any sort of scientific nomenclature. The sort of term you use on blogs, not in scientific literature.
 
Last edited:
uke2se said:
No cites? Just more hateful scorn heaped on real scientists? It's like you're stuck in the dark ages, mhaze. Now, that's quite telling indeed.
Click to expand...
Run along. The adults are going to talk now.


At In To said:
Well, again, considering that the paper isn't available yet, I imagine they would have the same initial criticisms:

-comparing global radiation data to ocean temperatures only
-seven years of data...
- I imagine they would also comment on the implications of his climate sensitivity estimate. Can you get a realistic cycle of glacial-interglacials with such a low sensitivity?
-he ignores temperature data below 0.03°C
-and like I said, he calls this robust. This doesn't fit any form of the definition for robust that I've ever seen used by scientists.
Click to expand...
Agreed. "Robust" has been misused enough including by Mann et al to make it a word to be avoided.

Regarding the glacial-interglacial issue, those always start with some premises and then lead to conclusions. The premises thus can be chosen such that the conclusion nets out similar to what's "desired". Put it another way, I'm suspicious of any "proof or rebuttal" about current day events that has to go back to utter guess work concerning the historical past for support. Well, unless a scientific proof can be based on a guess...

Regarding the need or utility for a longer time series and more data points, consider the following.

Suppose you had a full 30 year cycle (eg 30 years for ocean AMO and PDO effects). Is there some sense in which say the warming side of the PDO cycle would reverse the feedbacks found by Spencer? Spencer looked at short term stronger effects, irregardless of sign. I can't see that. Maybe someone else can produce an argument in that direction.

Side note:
It occurs to me that Tsonis 2007 in his work "Heat Capacity" used a similar technique of moving time sliced windows across the entire time domain, and comparing the correlation of the data within each of those times slices with the baseline. This was in reflation to calculating ocean heat. Obviously, some offsets (in time phase shift) would show improved correlation over others.

Tsonis showed most variation in global temperature to be the product of aligning or separation of the effects of four major ocean cyclic systems plus a background "secular trend". That background trend is quite small (I'll return to this shortly).

Because major variations could be mathematically modeled in this method (and predicted) Tsonis suggested that there was no reason for the "post 1950s temperature rise" to be considered as due to greenhouse gases, and there to be no reason to consider the 1950-1970 cool period to be due to some kind of offsetting effect by aerosol cooling.

Notice this flies in the face of one line of argument which goes "Solar didn't increase after 1950 but temperature did, so the temperature increase must be due to Co2, because there is nothing else that could have caused it". This argument is actually based on aligning and correlating data in the immediate: 1995 temperature, 1995 solar. Tsonis got his interesting results by looking at phase offsets with four separate but coexistent ocean cycles. So yes, there are other things that could have caused the "post 1950 temperature increase" in large part.

That background "secular trend" of Tsonis is quite in line with the small effect of greenhouse gas forcing which Spencer calculates.

References:

Plain english: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/08/17/climate-change-chaos/

Published article:

https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kravtsov/www/downloads/GRL-Tsonis.pdf
 
Last edited:
How about showing a chart with an R2 value greater than 0.54.

That's low enought to say the two variables are not related at all.
 
Let's keep the thread civil please.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom