Comments on: The Unskeptical Guide to the Skeptics Handbook http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/the-unskeptical-guide-to-the-skeptics-handbook/ Tackling tribal groupthink Sat, 11 Feb 2012 06:43:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: KR http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/the-unskeptical-guide-to-the-skeptics-handbook/#comment-86548 KR Sat, 11 Sep 2010 02:45:07 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=9247#comment-86548 <strong>Al Tekhasski @ 626</strong> I just read that paper this week - Griggs and Harries spent quite a bit of time trying to remove cloud influences. The IRIS data comes from a sensor with a <em>really wide </em>aperture, making it quite likely that it will include some clouds. They did a fairly reasonable job of removing cloud contaminated data, and the fact that the data from the three different satellites with three different apertures ended up with the same standard deviation indicates good confidence that they had cloud free reasonable data, even if they threw out a lot. On the other hand, aside from the methane signature, all the CO2 and water vapor line changes (while consistent with the greenhouse effect) <strong>were only at about the noise level </strong>- hardly proof. Not inconsistent, but not solid evidence. Al Tekhasski @ 626

I just read that paper this week – Griggs and Harries spent quite a bit of time trying to remove cloud influences. The IRIS data comes from a sensor with a really wide aperture, making it quite likely that it will include some clouds. They did a fairly reasonable job of removing cloud contaminated data, and the fact that the data from the three different satellites with three different apertures ended up with the same standard deviation indicates good confidence that they had cloud free reasonable data, even if they threw out a lot.

On the other hand, aside from the methane signature, all the CO2 and water vapor line changes (while consistent with the greenhouse effect) were only at about the noise level - hardly proof. Not inconsistent, but not solid evidence.

Report this

00

]]> By: Al Tekhasski http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/the-unskeptical-guide-to-the-skeptics-handbook/#comment-72003 Al Tekhasski Sun, 08 Aug 2010 02:34:04 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=9247#comment-72003 Joanne: Here is one other interesting circumstance regarding works of Griggs and Harries that are used by CAGW climatards as a proof that AGW model is correct, that increase in CO2 leads to a measurable drop in OLR as the IPCC/Hansen concept of "radiative forcing" dictates. Their work is based on comparing satellite data from 1970 with data of 1996 and 2003. To be compared, they must select only spectra that they believe do not have clouds, otherwise the whole stuff is so variable that is totally useless. The funny thing is that to get the baseline from 1970, they rejected 99.3% of available spectra, so their "IRIS yearly global average" is based only on 25 samples total( !!!). Given weather, seasonal, and spatial variability of globe conditions, it is outrageously low. I think this detail is worth mentioning in your rebuttal of Cook's cookings. Joanne:
Here is one other interesting circumstance regarding works of Griggs and Harries that are used by CAGW climatards as a proof that AGW model is correct, that increase in CO2 leads to a measurable drop in OLR as the IPCC/Hansen concept of “radiative forcing” dictates. Their work is based on comparing satellite data from 1970 with data of 1996 and 2003. To be compared, they must select only spectra that they believe do not have clouds, otherwise the whole stuff is so variable that is totally useless. The funny thing is that to get the baseline from 1970, they rejected 99.3% of available spectra, so their “IRIS yearly global average” is based only on 25 samples total( !!!). Given weather, seasonal, and spatial variability of globe conditions, it is outrageously low. I think this detail is worth mentioning in your rebuttal of Cook’s cookings.

Report this

00

]]> By: jean-pierre Bardinet http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/the-unskeptical-guide-to-the-skeptics-handbook/#comment-69804 jean-pierre Bardinet Fri, 30 Jul 2010 22:36:11 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=9247#comment-69804 Hi Joanna How can I send to you a very interesting document (in French, I am sorry): Académie des sciences, Paris , séminaire de travail : Evolution du Climat - 5 mars 2007 "Les échanges méridiens commandent les changements climatiques", by Marcel Leroux, Jean Moulin University, Lyon, Climatology Lab this document presents the Polar Mobile Anticyclone (AMP, Anticyclones Mobiles Polaires) and a refutation of the IPCC Global Warming Theory. Best Regards Jean-Pierre (France) If needed, I have a friend from Australia, who lived in France since about 40 years : he speaks a fluent French as well as English, of course. He could maybe translate the document. Hi Joanna
How can I send to you a very interesting document (in French, I am sorry): Académie des sciences, Paris , séminaire de travail : Evolution du Climat – 5 mars 2007
“Les échanges méridiens commandent les changements climatiques”, by Marcel Leroux, Jean Moulin University, Lyon, Climatology Lab
this document presents the Polar Mobile Anticyclone (AMP, Anticyclones Mobiles Polaires) and a refutation of the IPCC Global Warming Theory.
Best Regards
Jean-Pierre (France)

If needed, I have a friend from Australia, who lived in France since about 40 years : he speaks a fluent French as well as English, of course. He could maybe translate the document.

Report this

00

]]> By: Tel http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/the-unskeptical-guide-to-the-skeptics-handbook/#comment-66971 Tel Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:57:49 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=9247#comment-66971 <blockquote> The effects CO2 changes have are on the absorption fractions. These are far too complex to put into a spreadsheet, even the IPCC heuristics are too coarse, relative to the accuracy of these calculations. </blockquote> I'm not expecting you to rewrite HITRAN into a spreadsheet (and you might run into license problems if you did). If you happen to have the spare computing time then please scan out a table of values starting from a CO2 of maybe 100ppm up to something round 600ppm or there abouts. Perhaps whack the table of values into an extra sheet and then let the user select a row from the table as "plug-in" values for the absorptions.

The effects CO2 changes have are on the absorption fractions. These are far too complex to put into a spreadsheet, even the IPCC heuristics are too coarse, relative to the accuracy of these calculations.

I’m not expecting you to rewrite HITRAN into a spreadsheet (and you might run into license problems if you did). If you happen to have the spare computing time then please scan out a table of values starting from a CO2 of maybe 100ppm up to something round 600ppm or there abouts. Perhaps whack the table of values into an extra sheet and then let the user select a row from the table as “plug-in” values for the absorptions.

Report this

20

]]> By: BobC http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/the-unskeptical-guide-to-the-skeptics-handbook/#comment-66958 BobC Tue, 20 Jul 2010 05:30:33 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=9247#comment-66958 <blockquote>Well BobC – yes I’m sure it’s a stirling list (giggle). 140 E&Es eh? hmmmmmm….</blockquote> Geez But; When are you going to figure out that empty mockery isn't really a valid argument? Oh, that's right -- you're an idiot, so never. Make that empty mockery by an idiot -- still doesn't work. Keep up the good work, you never disappoint.

Well BobC – yes I’m sure it’s a stirling list (giggle). 140 E&Es eh? hmmmmmm….

Geez But; When are you going to figure out that empty mockery isn’t really a valid argument?

Oh, that’s right — you’re an idiot, so never.

Make that empty mockery by an idiot — still doesn’t work.

Keep up the good work, you never disappoint.

Report this

40

]]> By: Yes but http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/the-unskeptical-guide-to-the-skeptics-handbook/#comment-66927 Yes but Tue, 20 Jul 2010 01:44:33 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=9247#comment-66927 Well BobC - yes I'm sure it's a stirling list (giggle). 140 E&Es eh? hmmmmmm.... Well BobC – yes I’m sure it’s a stirling list (giggle). 140 E&Es eh? hmmmmmm….

Report this

04

]]> By: BobC http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/the-unskeptical-guide-to-the-skeptics-handbook/#comment-66907 BobC Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:32:25 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=9247#comment-66907 Y.But: Apparently, you didn't read far enough to see the list of lies used to attempt to debunk the list of papers challenging CAGW. You used two of them (6 more to go -- have at it. Surely you can put all 8 lies in a reply, especially if they are there to copy): <blockquote>Failed attempts at "debunking" this list include, - Lying about the paper counting method used. (Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers are not counted. These are included as references in defense of various papers. - Lying about peer-reviewed journals not being peer-reviewed. (Every journal listed is peer-reviewed.)</blockquote> BTY: There are only 8 "submitted" papers (which are not counted), ~140 from <em>Energy and Environment</em> (out of 750) and ~40 from <em>Nature</em> So, you found one person (apparently one of your "Masters" you look to for thought guidance) who doesn't like a single paper in E & E -- so you want to trash the entire journal. Like I said: Nothing says "lightweight" like your examples of "logical argument". Y.But:

Apparently, you didn’t read far enough to see the list of lies used to attempt to debunk the list of papers challenging CAGW. You used two of them (6 more to go — have at it. Surely you can put all 8 lies in a reply, especially if they are there to copy):

Failed attempts at “debunking” this list include,
- Lying about the paper counting method used. (Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers are not counted. These are included as references in defense of various papers.

- Lying about peer-reviewed journals not being peer-reviewed. (Every journal listed is peer-reviewed.)

BTY: There are only 8 “submitted” papers (which are not counted), ~140 from Energy and Environment (out of 750) and ~40 from Nature

So, you found one person (apparently one of your “Masters” you look to for thought guidance) who doesn’t like a single paper in E & E — so you want to trash the entire journal.

Like I said: Nothing says “lightweight” like your examples of “logical argument”.

Report this

50

]]> By: BobC http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/the-unskeptical-guide-to-the-skeptics-handbook/#comment-66905 BobC Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:10:42 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=9247#comment-66905 <blockquote>Yes but: July 20th, 2010 at 6:32 am ... But George has THE answer BoBC – George has the CURE to this AGW madness. Trillions of dollars at stake. But George is “too busy”. Oh well can’t be too important then can it.</blockquote> Y.But -- I encourage you to continue to put your "logic" on display. Nothing says "lightweight" like your arguments.

Yes but:
July 20th, 2010 at 6:32 am

…

But George has THE answer BoBC – George has the CURE to this AGW madness. Trillions of dollars at stake. But George is “too busy”.
Oh well can’t be too important then can it.

Y.But — I encourage you to continue to put your “logic” on display. Nothing says “lightweight” like your arguments.

Report this

40

]]> By: Yes but http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/the-unskeptical-guide-to-the-skeptics-handbook/#comment-66892 Yes but Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:32:03 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=9247#comment-66892 BobC - don't try me on matey. 750 my butt. Don't come here pimping your skanky list of submitted papers - submitted equals not published or even rejected as per "Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature" - which I would not even have the decency to mention. How embarrasing. And let's remove all the E&E "references" after http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html How many of these papers are rubbish - 700 ! Come BobC - at least give it half a go like George. But George has THE answer BoBC - George has the CURE to this AGW madness. Trillions of dollars at stake. But George is "too busy". Oh well can't be too important then can it. BobC – don’t try me on matey. 750 my butt. Don’t come here pimping your skanky list of submitted papers – submitted equals not published or even rejected as per “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature” – which I would not even have the decency to mention. How embarrasing. And let’s remove all the E&E “references” after http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html How many of these papers are rubbish – 700 !

Come BobC – at least give it half a go like George.

But George has THE answer BoBC – George has the CURE to this AGW madness. Trillions of dollars at stake. But George is “too busy”.
Oh well can’t be too important then can it.

Report this

04

]]> By: Mark D. http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/the-unskeptical-guide-to-the-skeptics-handbook/#comment-66874 Mark D. Mon, 19 Jul 2010 18:29:53 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=9247#comment-66874 George, I'm done with akerman. I thought there was hope for a sense of reason there but alas....Actually towards the last few posts it seemed like akerman might be a computer! The replies seemed to be pulled from a list. Frank there is absolutely insane. It would seem like a nice home for Yes But :) Sorry I didn't look at your sheet yet I HAD to go to bed! and work (for wage) beckons for the moment. At a glance it looks very interesting. George, I’m done with akerman. I thought there was hope for a sense of reason there but alas….Actually towards the last few posts it seemed like akerman might be a computer! The replies seemed to be pulled from a list. Frank there is absolutely insane. It would seem like a nice home for Yes But :)

Sorry I didn’t look at your sheet yet I HAD to go to bed! and work (for wage) beckons for the moment. At a glance it looks very interesting.

Report this

10

]]>