superjames1992 Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Oh, boy, now Skier has arrived. This is just warming up. Over/under on how many pages this will be by the stroke of midnight? I've literally never seen the climate change forum this lively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 Oh, boy, now Skier has arrived. This is just warming up. Over/under on how many pages this will be by the stroke of midnight? I'll go with 200 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Irrelavent to what? If the science is accurate, the science is accurate. These are basic laws of therodynamics. The peer review argument is off topic in regards to the direct accuracy of the science, as if 20 scientists, some Pro AGW, using basic laws of physics, are going to make up data. The peer review process is 'relavent' because as you've demonstrated over and over again when uneducated people of average intelligence try to understand/reinvent science the results are disastrous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 uneducated people of average intelligence try to understand science the results are disastrous. Kind of like you Unqualified non-scientist, living alone in vermont with no one around. Same goes for you then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 no journal has published it. that should tell you what you need to know. he just released the paper a week ago, would you expect the process to take that short of a timespan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 It is. As Mallow pointed out already, that's not Hansen's prediction. The actual prediction was as follows. The graph you posted is clearly of Scenario A. Actual emissions fell slightly below those of Scenario B, which makes them fairly accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 lol @ Bethesda claiming to know the identities of the anonymous reviewers of papers where did I say that? Don't make sh*t up about me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 As Mallow pointed out already, that's not Hansen's prediction. The actual prediction was this: Actual emissions fell slightly below those of Scenario B. We're at 400ppm now. Are you defending hansen? Answer so I know whether to take you seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 Kind of like you Unqualified non-scientist, living alone in vermont with no one around. Same goes for you then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 This is like saying reviewers of physics journal articles need to have skeptics of gravity as reviewers or else they are biased pro-gravity. Peer reviewers are not and should never be anti-AGW. Anybody that is anti-AGW doesn't have the credentials or understanding to review squat. AGW is a well accepted fact. AGW theory is not comparable to the laws of gravity, which have specific, quantifiable forces and results. It's just not. I do agree that this guy is probably a crackpot. But no paper/theory should ever be rejected simply because it goes against "accepted" science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 This thread is missing something without Skier chiming in! I agree. You all let him get away with posting Hansen's Scenario A for verification purposes, when actual emissions fell below those of Scenario B. Posting scenario A is extremely dishonest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 This is like saying reviewers of physics journal articles need to have skeptics of gravity as reviewers or else they are biased pro-gravity. Peer reviewers are not and should never be anti-AGW. Anybody that is anti-AGW doesn't have the credentials or understanding to review squat. AGW is a well accepted fact. Are you off your meds???.....or are you defining the AGW hypothesis in the most broadest of terms??? Do you understand that science, the method, and the history of discoveries NEVER start with "what ideological beliefs do you have".....let the science stand on it's own, and don't be afraid to be wrong!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 strawman argument. poor context..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 ok, do you or do you not know how the peer review process works? the proper response to his is either "Yes, I do" or "No, I don't". thanks. This is not the argument. You have trouble with reading skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 As Mallow pointed out already, that's not Hansen's prediction. The actual prediction was as follows. The graph you posted is clearly of Scenario A. Actual emissions fell slightly below those of Scenario B, which makes them fairly accurate. *NOTE: Graph above uses GISS data and ends in 2005 Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 strawman argument. What's the strawman? I'm not specifically defending this paper. I am, however, defending the ability of the scientific process to proceed regardless of existing bias. If that was a "strawman", please explain to me skiier's comparison to the law of gravity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Are you off your meds???.....or are you defining the AGW hypothesis in the most broadest of terms??? This. It's well proven that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that blocks outgoing LW radiation, and has a net warming effect. Anybody that denies this is a kook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 Lets not forget this Gem By Skier when uneducated people of average intelligence try to understand/reinvent science the results are disastrous. Skier doesn't realize that he has to include himself Thats right skier, you're a non-qualified, non-scientist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Now entering Rusty!! Please, everyone join me in welcoming our resident "3.7 W/m^2" guru, WeatherRusty!!! :clap: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 *NOTE: Graph above uses GISS data and ends in 2005 Carry on. Fair point about it ending in 2005. But at least it accurately represents the different scenarios and I was honest enough to point out that Scneario B (or just below scenario B.) is the most accurate scenario to use for verification (not Scenario A). As for its use of GISS... I think that is fairly accurate as HadCRUT+UAH infilling and GISS have the same trend since 1988-present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 I agree. You all let him get away with posting Hansen's Scenario A for verification purposes, when actual emissions fell below those of Scenario B. Posting scenario A is extremely dishonest. You are the only person I've seen claim that current forcings fall below Scenario B. Most I've seen say a little over Scenario B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Fair point about it ending in 2005. But at least it accurately represents the different scenarios and I was honest enough to point out that Scneario B (or just below scenario B.) is the most accurate scenario to use for verification (not Scenario A). As for its use of GISS... I think that is fairly accurate as HadCRUT+UAH infilling and GISS have the same trend since 1988-present. In this case, since we are comparing data to Hansen's projections, I think it's a conflict of interest to use Hansen's data. Especially with a graph that ends in 2005, a year that GISS had considerably warmer than other sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Lets not forget this Gem By Skier Skier doesn't realize that he has to include himself Thats right skier, you're a non-qualified, non-scientist. I don't try to reinvent science using kooky blog cites and I have a background in science that enables me to parse the difference between kooks and actual science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 This. It's well proven that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that blocks outgoing LW radiation, and has a net warming effect. Anybody that denies this is a kook. The amount of warming is the issue, and hypothesis, though. and hypothesis are disproven all the time. If we miss one feedback, then everything is screwed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 In this case, since we are comparing data to Hansen's projections, I think it's a conflict of interest to use Hansen's data. Well it doesn't make a difference since HadCRUT+UAH infilling has the same trend as GISS since 1988. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 I don't try to reinvent science using kooky blog cites and I have a background in science that enables me to parse the difference between kooks and actual science. But we're not re-inventing anything, AGW is a hypothesis, not fact. You said "try to understand" as well in your post. You apparently cannot understand science then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 Well it doesn't make a difference since HadCRUT+UAH infilling has the same trend as GISS since 1988. Nah, we'll use UAH or RSS. No extrapolations & higher resolution to the globe, along with the best coverage available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 This. It's well proven that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that blocks outgoing LW radiation, and has a net warming effect. Anybody that denies this is a kook. Do you have a problem with someone sticking their credibility on the line....hypothesizing about potential errors in how current emissivity calculations are performed in atmospheric mixtures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Well it doesn't make a difference since HadCRUT+UAH infilling has the same trend as GISS since 1988. As you are well aware, though, they differ after the early 2000s. Again, two issues with that graph: only GISS data, and ending in 2005. Scenario B goes up since 2005...roughly another .2C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 Do you have a problem with someone sticking their credibility on the line....hypothesizing about potential errors in how current emissivity calculations are performed in an atmospheric mixtures? Yes he does. because to Him, error cannot exist in science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.