Reply With Quote
I can't facepalm enough. Its clear you have no idea what the new paper is about considering I talking about the analysis IN the new paper. Read it then come back.
Do you have ADHD? I had to go to work, made a quick visit to ST this morning before going to sleep. I also spent time trying to find where I was "all over" a previous Spencer study.
I couldn't find such a thing that you claim.
What I find is that you bring up Spenser, and he claims clouds behave differently than modeled.
Post #590 in the same thread is the only place I find myself referring to Spenser being mentioned. I say:
Manny....Speaking of satellite record of surface temperatures...
Lets not forget, that when satellites first started tracking temperatures, we have an unquantified level of cooling from atmospheric particulates. As the first world powers, being responsible for most of it, and primarily us... the USA... we formed the EPA, and started cleaning up our act.
That said...
This 20+ year trend from the 70's to the early 2000's definitely has a component of relative warming increases, because of a cleaner atmosphere.
What the are you talking about, saying I was "all over" Spenser's work?
When will you stop slandering those you disagree with?
I can't facepalm enough. Its clear you have no idea what the new paper is about considering I talking about the analysis IN the new paper. Read it then come back.
It's about what has been unanswered for years. Radiative imbalance. He says "probably" when it comes to clouds. To model something with assumptions of thinking outside the box is not a bad thing.
What don't you think I get?
WC, you ready?
First, you post this:
I then post this:Manny...
May want to read this:
Reducing Noise in the MSU Daily Lower-Tropospheric Global Temperature Dataset
Average TSI is also lower over that same time frame.
Slandering? No I'm merely reminding you of how little you know on this subject and how you've repeatedly claimed to be able to understand the science yet you very obviously don't.
Dupe.
There is no probably. There is NO link. Please provide me with the data that shows that clouds are anything but a feedback of the climate system. Please show me how clouds drive large scale climate patterns please. I would love to see that data and I'm pretty sure every meteorologist and climatologist on the planet would as well.
WC, how do you think the analysis in the paper was carried out?
I see. Bringing up an article and doing very little with is "all over it." OK...
Invalidate everything for something found in error. Well then, I invalidate the whole IPCC.
Even though the satellites don't track the exact same paths daily, or when return, are at the same time. Its still more accurate than the musical chairs played with surface temperature sites. Long term data is still useful. I wasn't going to dig that deep on the article over something I was real uncertain of. However, radiative imbalance is real. At least having others look over ideas bring in thoughts and considerations one person or a small team misses.
I find it amazing that you will entirely throw out relevant information when a single item disagrees with your Dogma. Must suck being you.
More carefully than previously with the satellite data.
these satellites orbit the earth about ever 2 hours, but may take a few days to cover the same view of the earth. It doesn't take long for them to see the same spot of earth, and develop same time frames to see differences. Long term data can be parsed out pretty accurately.
Um, more carefully? What does that mean? Do you understand the steps Spencer used in order to analyze the data or do you not? If you do, can you explain them to me?
You used a study that you found via Google to try to back up your point and when I called you on how that proved how liittle you knew on the subject you fell back on the "I was just testing you" routine that I've never even seen anyone try to pull off outside of a sitcom.
Now you're just rambling because when you said I was slandering you on this subject, I provided you with your own words proving I was doing no such thing.
What relevant information am I discarding?
lol tests
I'm not going to wait for WC's next Palinesque response regarding how the analysis was done. I'm just going to explain what Spencer's models do and how the analysis was done in this paper in as simple a way as possible.
What Spencer has done with these simple models is take temperature data from the TERRA sat's CERES instrument and plugged it into his model in order to figure out what the climate sensitivity is. So, there is no direct measurement of out going radiation here but rather an analysis of temperatures, forcing, feedback, and heat capacity in Spencer's model in order to derive what the values for the variables are.
So back to my simple algebraic example, its the equivilant of knowing that your answer is (as an example) 232 and you have four variables that add up to that.
X + Y + Z + A = 232.
That is what is known. Now, if each of these variables is meant to display a real world item then that variable should have constraints that are placed on item in the real world. As an example, if X is depth of the ocean where heat is easy distributed then the value of X in the model should be at the very least near the real wold value of such a layer. So when the real world value of X is 50m, the value of X in your model should never be 700m.
Thats exactly the problem with Spencer's models. They don't have these realistic constraints. You can't say that the climate sensitivity is low according when you're making the available energy heat up a much larger volume of water than it actually has to in the real world! Its not realistic! You can't use a diffusing system of distributing heat through that water in later models when the actual system of heat transfer is convection! Its not accurate.
Aside from those obvious oversights, the fact that the other parameters are completely open and free to manipulation renders the model pretty worthless. If there are infinite ways to reach the same conclusion according to your model you can't use it to prove that a variable - in this case climate sensitivity - is an absolute because there are infinite solutions.
I mean this is no advanced than high school algebra. Its pretty shoddy work.
This is one of those "Gotcha" Threads aimed at making WC look bad...leave him alone guys...
No, Manny looks bad. If you actually read all the material, and what words are used instead of changing the intent, the study stands pretty well. Like most studies, it furthers the advance of the geosciences.
Manny. You should put as much effort in finding the holes in AGW theories.
Told you a Palinesque comment was coming. You can't even explain how the analysis was done - even after I just told you.
Explain how this study advances anything?
No, its been pretty well established that you're a dumbass. Go change some capacitors, parts changer.
You add a lot of great content to the forum.
Coming from someone who contributes nothing but inane youtubes and glib partisan propaganda, that observation must really sting.
Last edited by Winehole23; 07-31-2011 at 05:39 AM.
Oh you. Having fun entering code at work? Well lets talk about your contribution to this thread.
First your brain comes up with this:
Then the same brain within 5 minutes comes up with this:
First of all that is not what Manny is saying at all. He is not saying that it violates anything. What he is saying is that the additional parameter has with no basis in observable phenomenon and is only inserted to make the numbers work. Why do you think he keeps on asking for the data?
What I really liked though was how you quote Mr. Box so that you can tout his 'good point' on cooling and then immediately follow with the latter and your brain thinks they jive.
You are a good minion aren't you?
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 07-31-2011 at 06:24 AM.
These idots don't amuse me any longer. Fuzzy thinks he knows electronics... NOT! Manny likes to use his indoctrinated education, thinking he's the , but then cannot come to criticize the AGW crowd for the same type of he disqualifies other studies for.
Beam me up Scotty...
There's no intelligent life here.
How is that different from You, Dan, and a few others posting links?
WC avoids explaining things again. WC, would you like to point me to a paper I didn't give appropriate criticism to? I'd be more than happy to EXPLAIN IT and my views on it.
Science and evidence slaps ideology every time.
Man, WC is owning all of you in this thread.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
