Open Thread 51

A new open thread for those off-topic discussions.

Comments

  1. #1 chek
    July 20, 2010

    I think it’s fabulous that Jo Nova encourages so many proponents of half-baked science to take their half-bakedness out into the world and follow their dream.

    It’s almost like she’s running a shit-splatting machine in the hope that one day….one day….

  2. #2 TrueSceptic
    July 20, 2010

    302 chek,

    Jennifer Marohasy used to do the same, and Watts is now doing it too.

    Which is why I keep asking George why he’s here, not there.

  3. #3 co2isnotevil
    July 20, 2010

    Wow,

    You know how silly 30 W/m^2 is for the cloud tops to space, compared to only 40 W/m^2 for surface to space. Did you even see where in the paper figure 1 was mentioned? There was no description of any terms, just a vague reference to this picture which is widely found everywhere and needs it’s numbers updated. The implication of the article being vague is that the 30 W/m^2 is atmospheric radiation passing through the transparent window in the atmosphere, whose origin was GHG captured energy. The picture is completely disconnected from the text of the paper, so why even include it? There are so many faults with this diagram, in any of it’s forms, I can’t believe how you can be so blind to the obvious. You must suffer from the common malady afflicting many warmists, which is a selective blindness to the obvious when it undermines your thesis.

    Clouds cover 2/3 of the planet, while the surface is only 1/3. Clouds emit only about 80% less power than the surface and the region between cloud tops and space has almost no water vapor in it which will significantly widen the atmospheric window. Just to be self consistent, the cloud power passing through the transparent portion of the atmosphere must be at least 87 W/m^2. Given that the 40 W/m^2 for the surface is about 2x too small, the 87 W/m^2 is also about 2x too small.

    My simulations actually get clouds right. How about the ones you rely on? However, I don’t depend on this for my arguments as it’s not correct to use the results of a simulator to justify itself. If you’ve been paying attention, all of my arguments can be derived from basic first principles.

    George

  4. #4 luminous beauty
    July 20, 2010

    George,

    “There are none so blind as he who will not see.”

    My links show __actual measurements__ of DLR that prove your ‘first principle’ assertions are dead wrong. It’s called falsification.

    You are not a competent physicist. You are not a physicist at all. Just another mediocre electrical engineer with a Galileo complex. You will not be convinced by any reason or evidence, so fuck off.

  5. #5 SC (Salty Current)
    July 21, 2010

    So…

    Any comment on the people who have left Sb or are on strike?

    Where do you stand?

  6. #6 Stu
    July 21, 2010

    Hello SC

    I understand their position, but I personally enjoy Scienceblogs (and particularly Deltoid) too much to stop reading/posting. I’m sure some regular commenters have left/gone on strike as well as some bloggers.

    Personally the way I use Sb is usually to peruse Deltoid first, and then follow links in the ‘most popular’ or ‘readers’ picks. If I have more time I go to the home page and click whatever takes my fancy – usually physics blogs.

    Hence it’s fairly convenient for me to have all these blogs in one place. Certainly there are many I wouldn’t read if they weren’t on Sb.

    And so although some bloggers have felt the need to leave, it will almost certainly hurt their traffic from occasional browsers like me. Despite the Pepsi fiasco I don’t think Sb has jumped the shark, and anyone leaving may be doing so prematurely.

  7. #7 frank
    July 21, 2010

    Friends of Science employs fly-by-night tactics, turns around to accuse climate scientists of fraud

    http://ijish.livejournal.com/14716.html

  8. #8 Wow
    July 21, 2010

    “You know how silly 30 W/m^2 is for the cloud tops to space, compared to only 40 W/m^2 for surface to space”

    No, but I DO know how silly it is to say what you just did with no science to back it up.

    Go have a look at the IR absorbtion rates to space:

    http://www.udel.edu/Geography/DeLiberty/Geog474/geog474_energy_interact.html

    for example shows that there’s not a lot to get out from ground to space directly. And clouds only have that small section to play with.

    So I know how silly YOU sound.

    Do you?

  9. #9 Wow
    July 21, 2010

    PS it’s EXTREMELY silly when you state categorically that “He also fails to mention that radiation from clouds to space also passes through the transparent window.” when very clearly he does.

    Going “Well 30W isn’t enough” IN NO WAY stops your comment that you made from BEING ABSOLUTELY and CATEGORICALLY WRONG.

    Since you’ve asserted you’ve looked long and hard at that diagram yet yuo missed that shows you fail at reading comprehension.

    How much more have you gotten wrong where it’s actually more difficult to understand than the letters 3 and 0 next to each other?

  10. #10 co2isnotevil
    July 21, 2010

    Wow && Luminous,

    Neither of you has demonstrated the logic skills or even the arithmetic skills required to defend Trenberth’s paper. It would be in your best interest to remain silent as your ill informed pontifications only hurt your case. Since Arthur has gone silent, it’s no longer worth my time to comment. At least he tried to defend your position with science.

    George

  11. #11 chek
    July 21, 2010

    I’ll be watching out for any announcements that current climate physics have had to be re-written due to an elementary error, George.

    Although, perhaps wrongly, I must confess I’m not expecting to hear so anytime soon.

  12. #12 Wow
    July 21, 2010

    “Neither of you has demonstrated the logic skills or even the arithmetic skills required to defend Trenberth’s paper.”

    The problem is that we were pointing out YOU have neither the logic nor the skills to read Trenberth’s paper, never mind understanding it (correcting it was completely out of the question for you).

    “it’s no longer worth my time to comment.”

    It never was. You had nothing to say and took ages saying it.

  13. #13 TrueSceptic
    July 21, 2010

    311 George,

    As predicted, you failed to accept any criticism here, no matter how expert.

    What do you do now? What is the point? You have 3 options:-

    1. Go to a site like Watts or JoNova that will give you a guest post with little criticism.

    2. Get a paper published in a journal with negligible review standards, such as E&E.

    3. Stay here and further waste everyone’s (yes, including yours) time.

    Whichever of those options you take, then what? Who will take any notice except the ASS-afflicted?

  14. #14 jakerman
    July 21, 2010

    >*George, As predicted, you failed to accept any criticism here, no matter how expert.*

    This is [clearly established](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2661280). George has shown that:

    >*George is never wrong, even when his points are indefensible.

    George, you never did [get back to me](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2660324) after you were stumped.

  15. #15 frank
    July 22, 2010

    climatechange101.ca was created by Friends of Science’s Len Maier — according to an FoS member newsletter.

    http://ijish.livejournal.com/15083.html

  16. #16 Wow
    July 22, 2010

    TS, here’s some interesting insight into the approach taken by the scientifically self proclaimed:

    http://climateaudit.org/2008/05/01/svalgaard-6/#comment-145715

    “49 (Nasif): try a 3rd degree [you already did], then a 4th and a 5th, and 2nd for good measure. The degree you like the most will reveal what you think beforehand the relation should be.”

    A priori selection based on “like”??

  17. #17 chek
    July 23, 2010

    I see Judy Curry’s back making her usual generalised and unidentified allegations over at [Real Climate](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/comment-page-2/#comment-181720) in the Montford thread.

    No real point or evidence, of course. Just that faintly irritating grating sound that signify her ‘contributions’ these days. Which is probably the main reason the denialists have so readily adopted her as one of their own.

  18. #18 frank
    July 23, 2010

    The current US Senate ‘Energy’ Bill is a dud.

    http://www.boingboing.net/2010/07/22/energy-legislation-i.html

    When will Democratic politicians stop chasing after the pipe dream of “bipartisanship” and actually start protecting people who aren’t crazy?

  19. #19 TrueSceptic
    July 23, 2010

    317 Wow,

    Surely you must know by now of NN’s (Biocab’s) epic denial of elementary arithmetic? How can any sane person take any notice of someone who doesn’t understand positive and negative numbers?

  20. #20 JasonW
    July 23, 2010

    It seems that in the later comments on the “spam St Thomas U, compliments of Discount of Brenchley” thread on WUWT, more and more commenters are fed up with the Lairds antics. There is increasing support for Abraham and the science. Looks like that didn’t quite work out as the Laird planned…

  21. #21 JasonW
    July 23, 2010

    Re that WUWT thread, there’s furthermore the amusement of seeing completely barking mad comments like this one: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/14/abraham-climbs-down/#comment-437679 Fabulous!

  22. #22 Wow
    July 23, 2010

    Ts #320 it was more about how the polynomial fit was calculated by trying each order in turn until you get one you “like”.

    That’s *Lars* saying that.

    That Nasif goes along with it and doesn’t make a peep about why that’s the way to fit it shows he’s no scientist, but *Lars* is the one giving this advice.

    Not no no-name with a vanity site.

  23. #23 chek
    July 23, 2010

    [Jason,](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2678587) that’s some scary stuff alright.
    Even scarier, it’s on science bloggo’d'year, for whatever that’s worth.

  24. #24 TrueSceptic
    July 23, 2010

    323 Wow,

    Yes, I know. I was referring to another of NN’s insane episodes, mentioned here a few times by me.

  25. #25 chek
    July 24, 2010

    Now now, Brent. Don’t get all victimy.
    It clearly says on your own special thread, and I quote:

    ["Comments from Brent and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by Brent and responses to comments by Brent should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread."](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comments)

    So if you’d posted there, it would have still been there.
    But it was hardly worthwhile anyway was it?

    After all your attempts at humour and/or satire do tend to come across as more leaden than a lorry load of plutonium 235.

  26. #26 John
    July 24, 2010

    Nice try Brent. Your thread was created to stop you trolling. Wikipedia defines a “troll” as:

    >…someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

    This means that when you post things you know are untrue (that we think oceans will swamp mountains and that the planet isn’t warming at all, which directly contradicts your opinion on that matter in the past) you are looking for a response and attention because you have nothing worthwhile to add.

    This is what trolls do.

    Hence, you are a troll and your trolling posts will be deleted, so before you go around crying that your posts are being censored because you dare to be a rebellious dissenter, think of this post.

    You could always post in your thread and not have comments deleted, but then how could you cry “censorship”?

  27. #27 TrueSceptic
    July 24, 2010

    Depressing news: I thought that John Christy was a genuine sceptic, i.e., he accepts the basic science but has reservations about climate sensitivity and the impacts of warming. It seems he is about to have a paper published in [E&E](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/24/john-christy-“no-significant-trend”-in-s-sierra-snowfall-since-1916/). Really? Why would anyone do that?

  28. #28 Lotharsson
    July 24, 2010

    > Why would anyone do that?

    Maybe he’s trying to *lift* the scientific strength of the average E&E paper? ;-)

  29. #30 Bernard J.
    July 26, 2010

    Anyone listening to Counterpoint at the moment?

    Duffy is telling a few porkies about the UEA FoI matter.

  30. #31 Bernard J.
    July 26, 2010

    Ah, Duffy has John Abbott as his ‘expert’ – Abbott of the Abbott and Marohasy article recently published…

  31. #32 Bernard J.
    July 26, 2010

    For those interested in hearing Abbott give his version of the David Holland kerfuffle, the Counterpoint interview is [here](http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2010/2962392.htm).

    What is is with electrical engineers, in addition to mining geologists?!

  32. #33 TrueSceptic
    July 26, 2010

    333 Bernard,

    I’ve just listened to that. Abbott sounds so very reasonable yet he repeats the lie about the IPCC FAR showing a global MWP. In fact, there is only a crude schematic (Fig 7.1, P202, IPCC FAR WG1 Full Report). The accompanying text says:-

    The late tenth to early thirteenth
    centuries (about AD 950-1250) appear to have been
    exceptionally warm in western Europe, Iceland and
    Greenland (Alexandre 1987, Lamb, 1988) This period is
    known as the Medieval Climatic Optimum. China was,
    however, cold at this time (mainly in winter) but South
    Japan was warm (Yoshino, 1978)

    The graph itself looks hand drawn and shows a MWP centred on about 1200 AD. The temperature scale is not numbered but assuming that the marks represent whole degrees C, the MWP peak was about 0.5 °C warmer than the line representing “conditions near the
    beginning of the twentieth century”. It is not attributed; perhaps it was copied from Alexandre or Lamb? (BTW Lamb established the UEA CRU.)

    There is nothing to suggest that the MWP was global or that the schematic shows anything more than a very rough idea.

  33. #34 lord_sidcup
    July 26, 2010

    The UK Press Complaints Commission has finally published its ruling on the Times ‘Amazongate’ story:

    http://www.pcc.org.uk/case/resolved.html?article=NjUzMA==

    The complaints were resolved when the Press Complaints Commission negotiated the removal of the online article and the publication of the following statement..

    I don’t hold out much hope for Richard North’s complaint to the PCC about the accuracy of the apology the PCC forced The Times to publish! I predict a further humilition for North. The pity is that we will have to wait a few months before the PCC publish their ruling on his complaint.

  34. #35 BobC
    July 26, 2010

    @ jakerman (#17):

    BobC, Did you notice George keeps avoiding addresssing this contradtion to his claims of low feedback?

    The linked paper only shows a simultaneous (at the time resolution, which is very coarse) increase in CO2 and temperature, at 51 Ma. There is no data that could lead to a determination of causation in either direction (delta T caused delta CO2, or delta CO2 caused delta T) or sign of any feedback (positive or negative, assuming some causation direction) — as the paper admits.

    So, exactly what “contradiction” are you talking about?

  35. #36 Ian Forrester
    July 26, 2010

    #333 Bernard asks:

    What is is with electrical engineers, in addition to mining geologists?

    Mmm could it have anything to do with the fact that a large majority of them are employed by companies which are producing most of the anthropogenic CO2?

  36. #37 jakerman
    July 26, 2010

    Speaking of those suffering what we might now know as the Google Galileo complex, (and those who would use ideology to denie the results of scientific practice), I recently become aware of a group calling themselves:

    >*”The Committee of German Scientists for the Preservation of Pure Scholarship”*

    They rejected the theory of relativity becauased of flawed reasoning. Great sounding title though!

  37. #38 4chan500
    July 26, 2010

    Hi Tim,

    Re: the wikileaks afghanistan document dump – there seems to be some kind of mysterious force preventing the military from wider reportage on a considerable number of of casualties that turn up in their internal classified reports, and perhaps another related force that magically turns civilians into combatants post mortem? Has anyone hit up IBC for comment on why there might be so many incidents that went unreported by the military and the press and what this might mean for their “methodology”?

  38. #39 Vince Whirlwind
    July 28, 2010

    Reject intellectual Luddism: Crash this poll:

    < http://www2.tricities.com/news/2010/jul/26/commandments-pl-33/#poll_33>

  39. #40 Shirley
    July 28, 2010

    While we know most journalists just don’t get science let alone climate change, I did think the organisers of the awards for excellence in journalism would understand ‘paradox’. Not so it seems with Exxon Mobil’s sponsorship of this year’s Walkely Awards (‘PM’ ABC RN).

  40. #41 TrueSceptic
    July 28, 2010

    338 jakerman,

    Was this anything to do with the rejection of a lot of 20C physics because it’s “Jewish”?

  41. #42 adelady
    July 28, 2010

    342 TS

    Afraid so. They didn’t like Einstein and they really went for the “aryan science” notion, explicitly rejecting the idea that science was an international activity. One of them, forget the name fortunately, was Adolf’s science adviser.

    Terrific people. Vanished into the mists after WW2, praise be.

  42. #43 TrueSceptic
    July 28, 2010

    343 adalady,

    Hmmm. I suspect that a few of them ended up in the USA and USSR.

  43. #44 J Bowers
    July 28, 2010

    337 Ian Forrester: “Mmm could it have anything to do with the fact that a large majority of them are employed by companies which are producing most of the anthropogenic CO2?”

    As a counter example (in a good way) the Geological Society of America says the opposite, and possibly most of its members rely on mining and fossil fuel for their paycheques.

    http://climatesight.org/the-credibility-spectrum/#comment-3506

    And for the hell of it, because it’s such a great post:
    http://climatesight.org/the-credibility-spectrum/#comment-2320

    I think the electrical engineers illustrate an often talked about divide between applied and research sciences.

  44. #45 jakerman
    July 28, 2010

    >*Was this anything to do with the rejection of a lot of 20C physics because it’s “Jewish”?*

    You guessed right. And ironically the [NAZI purges](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-03-20/nazi-purge-sent-big-brains-to-u-s-drove-science-lewis-lapham.html) of academies helped ensure he didn’t win the [race to the bomb](http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Szilard.html).

  45. #46 jakerman
    July 28, 2010

    >*I suspect that a few of them ended up in the USA and USSR.*

    See [Operation Paper Clip](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip).

  46. #47 jakerman
    July 28, 2010

    I can also recommend [this short background](http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/jerome_taylor.htm)on AE’s experience.

  47. #48 Bernard J.
    July 28, 2010

    [Ian Forrester](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2683287).

    It certainly seems that there is a correlation between income and ideology amongst some in the mining geology and in the electrical engineering professions.

    What really puzzles me, however, is the underlying ætiology of [Judith Curry's self-immolation over at RealClimate](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/comment-page-5/#comments)…

    It’s as though her brains have fallen out.

  48. #49 Wow
    July 28, 2010

    “What really puzzles me, however, is the underlying ætiology of Judith Curry’s self-immolation over at RealClimate…

    It’s as though her brains have fallen out.”

    Very much the same thing has happened to David Bellamy.

    Or Tony Blair (and Mrs T):

    They’ve bought into their own hype.

    In the case of the politicians, it was “I’ve been voted in, therefore I must be doing right” then morphed into “I’m doing right, anyone else must be wrong”.

    David and Judith have found someone who loves them and gives them the praise they KNOW they deserve and the attention they missed.

    That then changed from “They say I’m right, maybe I am” to “I’m right and anyone who disagrees is wrong” with a side helping of “They are MY FRIENDS!!!!” (for a geek example, see Linus Torvalds in the BitKeeper debacle. He was fine with Tridge reverse engineering MS Document formats, but when he messed with his best friends’ code management product by reverse engineering the wire protocol, THAT WAS TEH EBILS!!!!!!” Really. LT goes *ballistic*).

    All you need is an echo chamber “You’re so right!” and if you don’t keep a skeptical eye on yourself, you’re lost.

    It’s a common trope in the Fall Of The Bad Guy story. For a reason.

  49. #51 Bernard J.
    July 28, 2010

    Thanks for the link, [jakerman](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2688623). That was the post to which I was trying to link, but somehow I copied a different URL.

    Doh!

  50. #52 James Haughton
    July 28, 2010

    WTFUWT is having a go at little old us, claiming that the Australian record is distorted [here](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/27/the-australian-temperature-record-the-big-picture/). Same old story of “if you remove all the corrections for instrumental error, we’re not warming as much”.

  51. #53 James Haughton
    July 28, 2010

    Just read that Judith Curry exchange. She was seriously pwned. If her comments were any stupider she’d have to fall back on the [Socratic Irony Defence](http://cheezburger.com/Asset/View/?ciid=1809484).

  52. #54 jakerman
    July 28, 2010

    James they are desperate.

    From [the BOM](http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/datasets/datasets.shtml):

    >*common changes at Australian sites over time include location moves, construction of buildings or growth of vegetation around the observation site and, more recently, the introduction of Automatic Weather Stations*

    And introduction of Automatic Weather Stations has a known bias, that [requires correction](http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0477%281991%29072%3C1718%3AEORTCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2).

    Deniers complain about bias is a very undirectional way. Imagine if warming bias were ignored and uncorrected?

  53. #55 Nasif Nahle
    July 29, 2010

    Wow and others… Here I am for explaining you the basics of physics.

    First of all… You say the physics is broken with the next formula:

    dT = q/ (m*Cp)

    Your argument is showing your lack of knowledge of 101-physics.

    The formula is for calculating the change of temperature given a load of thermal energy transferred from a hot thermodynamic system to a cold thermodynamic system.

    Second: As always, you try to confuse your readers saying pseudoscience. You say it’s wrong to convert W to J/s and then calculate the amount of energy implied in the process. You’re WRONG.

    Read any book on physics, find the formula and see how you could know the amount of energy implied in J/s.

    1 W = 1 J/s…

    As I and every physicist on this world know, the process ocurrs each second:

    1 W (1 s) = 1 W*s

    Now convert 1 W*s to J:

    1 W*s = 1 J.

    If you don’t know the basics, how would you criticize QM?

  54. #56 Lotharsson
    July 29, 2010

    Wow, Nasif competing with TC on Deltoid. This is going to be huge. I need more popcorn ;-)

  55. #57 Vince Whirlwind
    July 29, 2010

    Another genius who’s “discovered” that the difference between Energy and Power is overrated.

    Nasif, what school did you go to? I recommend you sue the crap out of them.

  56. #58 jakerman
    July 29, 2010

    I’m getting the popcorn Lotharsson, [save me a seat](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2669794).

  57. #59 SteveC
    July 29, 2010

    James Haughton | July 28, 2010 11:29 PM

    Just read that Judith Curry exchange. She was seriously pwned

    James, I’ve been reading Dr Curry’s public career suicide for days (“credibility seppuku” as dhogaza coined it). She is also getting a similar flailing over at Joe Romm’s place in the Hockey stick thread. Steve McI is providing sanctuary for Dr. Curry, which seems to me to do her no favours at all.

    I’ve seen various possible hypotheses raised to explain her behaviour, but I still can’t see why someone occupying the professional position she does and who has an extensive track record in earth sciences would act like they have recently, let alone align herself with Montford & McIntyre and the other self-appointed climate science “auditors”. Her recommendation that RC (and Joe Romm) screen their posts and comments for scientific integrity would be hilarious if such hypocrisy from someone of her authority weren’t so astonishing.

  58. #60 Wow
    July 29, 2010

    “As I and every physicist on this world know, the process ocurrs each second:”

    And therefore accumulates unless you include the negative terms, which you haven’t.

  59. #61 Wow
    July 29, 2010

    I suspect Nasif is feeling a little buttfucked at the moment, so maybe we should give him a little quite time to settle his rectum.

    However, that process occurs every second…

  60. #62 TrueSceptic
    July 29, 2010

    356 Nasif,
    “As I and every physicist on this world know, the process ocurrs each second:
    1 W (1 s) = 1 W*s”

    Which “process” is this?

  61. #63 Lotharsson
    July 29, 2010

    > “credibility seppuku”

    Awesome turn of phrase.

    > As I and every physicist on this world know, the process ocurrs each second: 1 W (1 s) = 1 W*s

    Er, you’ve never heard of power inputs/outputs that vary on sub-second time scales? Wow! So half the modern electronic devices in the world don’t work in your conception of physics. One might even be tempted to say “that does not compute”! Perhaps I could introduce you to the concept of integration over a time variable?

  62. #64 lord_sidcup
    July 30, 2010

    Michael Mann has written an excellent letter to the Star Tribune in response to some half-witted effort by some crooked journalist (h/t Bishop Hill he he):

    [Michael E. Mann: In denial of warming, lies were repeated](http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/99588169.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:UthPacyPE7iUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU)

  63. #65 Chris S.
    July 30, 2010

    Perhaps this should go in the Judy Curry thread, but Open is probably better.

    I’m interested in the comments to Dr. Oppenheimer at [RP Jr's blog](http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/07/michael-oppenheimer-responds.html), bearing in mind the furore over the ‘flack’ Prof. Curry has received. These are edited extracts for flavour (Tom Fuller will be proud I’m sure…):

    “Such analyses are no better than astrology”

    “A study like this…is delibrately playing the racist card.”

    “This is nothing more than political lobbying wrapped up in science themed wrapping paper.”

    “Geez, this is pathetic”

    “This story is just the kind of daft alarmism that confuses rather than informs”

    “Does this blatantly shoddy work not call into question everything else ever done by this scientist?”

    Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the study is that great (not for the same reasons as Pielke & Tol), though to be honest I only skimmed it. But I find it interesting that these comments attacking the author of a published paper (and having the grace to respond in person to Pielke Jr’s previous blogpost) exist unheralded when comments attacking A.N.Other blog commenter who happens to be a University professor have garnered widespread opprobrium.

    (Crossposted at Ill Considered)

  64. #66 frank
    July 31, 2010

    The Muir Russell “Climategate” report web site has a list of all FOI/EIR requests received by CRU since 2005.

  65. #67 Nasif Nahle
    August 1, 2010

    @TrueSkeptik…

    356 Nasif, “As I and every physicist on this world know, the process ocurrs each second: 1 W (1 s) = 1 W*s”

    Which “process” is this?

    Don’t you know? The process is known as heat transfer.

    W is power, equivalent to J/s. W*s is units for ENERGY, equivalent to J or calories.

  66. #68 Nasif Nahle
    August 1, 2010

    361
    “As I and every physicist on this world know, the process ocurrs each second:”

    And therefore accumulates unless you include the negative terms, which you haven’t.

    Posted by: Wow | July 29, 2010 4:14 AM

    Extreme ignorance. Measure the amount of energy emitted or absorbed by any thermodynamic system and each second the lectures will be the same. If it accumulated, as you say, we would have been scorched by the solar radiation long time ago.

    And I don’t need time for answering your nonsense. It is that I do work for living and do not recive “gifts” from antiscientific-pseudoscientific parties.

  67. #69 Nasif Nahle
    August 1, 2010

    323
    Ts #320 it was more about how the polynomial fit was calculated by trying each order in turn until you get one you “like”.

    That’s Lars saying that.

    That Nasif goes along with it and doesn’t make a peep about why that’s the way to fit it shows he’s no scientist, but Lars is the one giving this advice.

    Not no no-name with a vanity site.

    Every university in America and Europe know who I am and the respectability of BioCab’s website. Your’s is an Ad Hominem attack without a bit of truth.

    And who you are who hides his name behind a nickname? I show my face and you can find information about me around the world… But… Who you are? You don’t know even the algorithms I applied and the authors of those algorithms, who are respectable scientists, well known by their honesty.

  68. #70 Stu
    August 1, 2010

    Nasif, I have a question about your publication ‘Induced Emission and Heat Stored by Air, Water and Dry Clay Soil’.

    Basically, my question is: can you show that induced emission (the process by which lasers operate) occurs in the atmosphere?

  69. #71 Eli Rabett
    August 1, 2010

    Only high up in the Martian atmosphere. Collisional energy transfer kills you on earth.

  70. #72 Bernard J.
    August 2, 2010

    For the edification of any neophytes here, have a look at the request coded “FOI_09-97″ in [Frank's link at #367](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2694557).

    If any of the same neophytes do not know the back story, feel free to ask – it’s an entertaining tale of vexatiousness…

    [Nasif Nahle](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2696918):

    Every university in America and Europe know who I am and the respectability of BioCab’s website. Your’s is an Ad Hominem attack without a bit of truth.

    I beg to differ.

    Every scientist I know who has heard of you thinks that you’re a disgrace to the profession. And this is not ad hominem; it is simply a reflection of the truth of matters in my sphere of contact.

    Of course, you may beg to differ in your own turn. The easy answer then will be to survey “universities in Amercia and Europe”, and after asking them if they know who you are, determine if they respect your website.

    It will only take one negative response to make your statement a lie, and just a few more to make apparent the fact that you are actually held in disrespect.

    Perhaps we could start by making enquiries to the readers of this blog – there are quite a few scientists here from “universities in Amercia and Europe”…

  71. #73 Lotharsson
    August 2, 2010

    > If it accumulated, as you say, we would have been scorched by the solar radiation long time ago.

    Unless there’s a feedback involved in the system – e.g. if the accumulation of incoming radiative energy happened to increase the outgoing radiative energy until they reach equilibrium.

    Which is kind of a key point the climate scientists are making.

  72. #74 Nasif Nahle
    August 2, 2010

    371
    Nasif, I have a question about your publication ‘Induced Emission and Heat Stored by Air, Water and Dry Clay Soil’.

    Basically, my question is: can you show that induced emission (the process by which lasers operate) occurs in the atmosphere?

    Posted by: Stu | August 1, 2010 8:11 PM

    And I have another basic question to you… Do you think the laws that operate in your lassers operate in the whole universe? Yes or not?

  73. #75 Nasif Nahle
    August 2, 2010

    Nasif Nahle:

    Every university in America and Europe know who I am and the respectability of BioCab’s website. Your’s is an Ad Hominem attack without a bit of truth.
    I beg to differ.

    Every scientist I know who has heard of you thinks that you’re a disgrace to the profession. And this is not ad hominem; it is simply a reflection of the truth of matters in my sphere of contact.

    Of course, you may beg to differ in your own turn. The easy answer then will be to survey “universities in Amercia and Europe”, and after asking them if they know who you are, determine if they respect your website.

    It will only take one negative response to make your statement a lie, and just a few more to make apparent the fact that you are actually held in disrespect.

    Perhaps we could start by making enquiries to the readers of this blog – there are quite a few scientists here from “universities in Amercia and Europe”…

    Posted by: Bernard J. | August 2, 2010 12:31 AM

    More Ad Hominem arguments… Show me one single scientist who knows me and says what you are saying. Hah! :) You’re a liar, Bernard J.

  74. #76 Nasif Nahle
    August 2, 2010

    http://www.biocab.org is a website containing pure and honest science. You can find every information published in that site even in your kindergarten books.

    Here a “lie” for Bernard J.:

    ECO2 = 1-[(a-1 * 1-PE / a + b – (1 + PE)) * e [-c (Log10 (paL) m / paL) ^2]] * (ECO2)0

    What’s this formula for and how you apply it?

  75. #77 Nasif Nahle
    August 2, 2010

    364
    “credibility seppuku”

    Awesome turn of phrase.

    As I and every physicist on this world know, the process ocurrs each second: 1 W (1 s) = 1 W*s

    Er, you’ve never heard of power inputs/outputs that vary on sub-second time scales? Wow! So half the modern electronic devices in the world don’t work in your conception of physics. One might even be tempted to say “that does not compute”! Perhaps I could introduce you to the concept of integration over a time variable?

    Posted by: Lotharsson | July 29, 2010 11:17 AM

    Yes, I can… Read it clearly from this book:

    Serway, R. A. Physics-3rd Revised Edition. 1993. McGraw-Hill/Interamericana Editores, S. A. de C. V. México, D. F.

    When the units are W*s, it’s energy; if the units are W, it’s power. If the units indicates “s” (second), it is second. Point.

  76. #78 Dave
    August 2, 2010

    Oh sweet jebus…

    Watts has another guest post from a certain PhD infamous round these parts. Once again, poor woodfortrees is being tortured to serve his nefarious “W” theory. I can’t look away!

  77. #79 adelady
    August 2, 2010

    “My guess is this post was not peer reviewed.” says Mike.

    That was my guess too. Did anyone foresee what woodfortrees could be made to do with the arm twisted up behind the back?

  78. #80 Wow
    August 2, 2010

    “Yes, I can… Read it clearly from this book:”

    That book doesn’t say that you can only multiply by 1s.

    In that book you multiply by the number of seconds the power is applied for.

    But if you’re on that mexican wacky baccy I guess you’re gonna see all sorts of things.

  79. #81 Wow
    August 2, 2010

    “Measure the amount of energy emitted or absorbed by any thermodynamic system and each second the lectures will be the same. ”

    Wrong.

    When the kettle is cold, the 2KW is going into the water and nothing coming out.

    When the kettle is hot, 2KW going in, the temperature of the water in the kettle makes it hot to touch and more than zero is coming out.

    Each second the net power changes.

    Don’t you know even the simplest things???

  80. #82 Wow
    August 2, 2010

    “W is power, equivalent to J/s. W*s is units for ENERGY, equivalent to J or calories.

    Posted by: Nasif Nahle”

    Snrk.

    “Exactly! Φq IS NOT in Joules!!! Φq is in Watts.”

    “Φq = [e (A) (σ) (T^4 – Ta^4)] * 1 (ONE) second”

    THIS is why you are genuinely and generally considered incompetent and a bald-faced liar.

  81. #83 Lotharsson
    August 2, 2010

    > When the units are W*s, it’s energy; if the units are W, it’s power. If the units indicates “s” (second), it is second. Point.

    Of course, but rather than “Point” you demonstrate a failure to understand the point. That point was subsequently [elaborated upon by Wow](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2697394) [my emphasis]:

    > That book doesn’t say that you **can only** multiply by 1s.

    > In that book you multiply **by the number of seconds the power is applied for**.

    Or to generalise (e.g. if the power is not constant over the period of interest) you integrate over time.

    Actual point.

  82. #84 Stu
    August 2, 2010

    >>371 Nasif, I have a question about your publication ‘Induced Emission and Heat Stored by Air, Water and Dry Clay Soil’.

    >>Basically, my question is: can you show that induced emission (the process by which lasers operate) occurs in the atmosphere?

    >>Posted by: Stu | August 1, 2010 8:11 PM

    >And I have another basic question to you… Do you think the laws that operate in your lassers operate in the whole universe? Yes or not?

    Oh yes, the same laws undoubtledly apply. The same processes don’t occur everywhere though. Forgive me if I trust Eli slightly more on this one when he said

    >Only high up in the Martian atmosphere. Collisional energy transfer kills you on earth.

    After all, Truesceptic has shown me that you have trouble with arithmetic

  83. #85 TrueSceptic
    August 2, 2010

    368 Nasif,

    Yes, we all know that a watt is defined as one joule per second, and that (obviously) one joule is one watt for (times) one second.

    What is your point?

  84. #86 TrueSceptic
    August 2, 2010

    379 Dave,

    Oh dear, and to think we helped him develop this world-changing theory here. Don’t some of us deserve a “thanks”?

  85. #87 TrueSceptic
    August 2, 2010

    385 Stu,

    I did wonder about bringing that up. I doubt we’ll get a better answer than we did over at the JREF forums.

  86. #88 TrueSceptic
    August 2, 2010

    380 adelady,

    Actually, yes, many did. In particular, the site’s author was reluctant to provide [linear trends](http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes#trends).

    I’m all for it though, because we can easily see what anyone has done, and we can look at the raw data too. Much better than getting someone to tell us exactly what they did in a spreadsheet. It’s a shame the author still hasn’t fixed [this bug](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n) ([same here](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-s)) though, despite my emailing him about it at least twice. The problem is a very simple one: look at the raw data for 1987.92 and 1988.

  87. #89 John
    August 2, 2010

    Look who that nice young Christopher Monckton is threatening now.

  88. #90 Stu
    August 2, 2010

    Some here may be interested in this.

    Dr. Roy Spencer is obviously half amused and half embarrased by a certain sphere of the denialati claiming that ‘back radiation’ violates the laws of thermodynamics. Of course, downwelling longwave radiation is an easily measured quantity and we can trace the gas that emmited it based on known emission spectra. But Roy goes one better and demonstrates that it can warm up a cavity he constructed in his back garden. Apart from some unsubstantiated guff about negative feedbacks from CO2, good for him.

    Nasif’s publication that I was referring to above,

    Induced Emission and Heat Stored by Air, Water and Dry Clay Soil
    , claims that:

    >The upwelling photon stream [emitted from the surface] affects the directionality of the radiation emitted by the atmosphere driving it upwards, i.e. towards the upper atmospheric layers and, from there, towards deep space.

    To which I respond: Why, then, is average longwave radiation emitted by the surface greater than the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) measured at the top of the atmosphere (TOA)? What happens to it inbetween?

    If Nasif were correct, the TOA OLR would be greater than the surface upwelling longwave radiation, because it would not only include the radiation emitted from the surface, but all the induced emission from the atmosphere.

    Is Nasif right or wrong? Are his claims at odds with what Roy Spencer has measured?

  89. #92 JasonW
    August 4, 2010

    Nice twist. It’s “IPCC’s theory” now, ey?

  90. #93 TrueSceptic
    August 4, 2010

    392 Dhogaza,

    Dave beat you to it at 379. ;)

  91. #94 chek
    August 4, 2010

    [Dhogaza said:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2701169) “The denizens of WUWT are thrilled …”

    I guess that counts as a prime example of Judith Curry’s postnormal peer review?

  92. #95 Nasif Nahle
    August 5, 2010

    371 Nasif, I have a question about your publication ‘Induced Emission and Heat Stored by Air, Water and Dry Clay Soil’.

    Basically, my question is: can you show that induced emission (the process by which lasers operate) occurs in the atmosphere?

    Posted by: Stu | August 1, 2010 8:11 PM

    And I have another basic question to you… Do you think the laws that operate in your lassers operate in the whole universe? Yes or not?

    Oh yes, the same laws undoubtledly apply. The same processes don’t occur everywhere though. Forgive me if I trust Eli slightly more on this one when he said

    Only high up in the Martian atmosphere. Collisional energy transfer kills you on earth.

    After all, Truesceptic has shown me that you have trouble with arithmetic

    Hahahahahaha! Now the natural processes only occur where you want them to occur. Hahaha! You’re showing your plain ignorance on the fundamental laws… Hahaha!

    For your knowledge, induced emission occurs everywhere, at every place of the known universe. Perhaps you know a place where photon streams don’t exist? Hahaha! That’s silly!!!

    My arithmetics? Oh! Heh! Could you show me a single “error” in my arithmetics? You’re a liar. Point.

  93. #96 Nasif Nahle
    August 5, 2010

    Oh yes, the same laws undoubtledly apply. The same processes don’t occur everywhere though. Forgive me if I trust Eli slightly more on this one when he said

    Only high up in the Martian atmosphere. Collisional energy transfer kills you on earth.

    Posted by: Stu | August 2, 2010 7:06 AM

    Heh! Tell Albert Einstein to forgive you, because the algorithms on induced negative absorption, which I used on my calculations, were deduced by him and corroborated by every physicist on this planet. I only see you know nothing of physics.

    Now you’re DENYING the physics of heat transfer. Don’t you know that the photons COLLIDE with particles of matter? Waste of time with you because you’re a science illiterate.

  94. #97 rhwombat
    August 5, 2010

    Does this thread remind anyone else of the Palin interview with turkey slaughtering occurring in the background? NN@397: “Gobble-gobble-gobble…erk!”. Slainte

  95. #98 Stu
    August 5, 2010

    >My arithmetics? Oh! Heh! Could you show me a single “error” in my arithmetics? You’re a liar. Point.

    I’ll start with this, because it’s dead easy.

    From the JREF, Nasif said:

    >Satellite data cooled 0.774 °C from January 2007 to May 2008. Given that the total warming since 1860 is 0.75 °C, we haven’t had any global warming anymore.

    >I wrote cooled 0.774 °C, that is -0.774 °C, right? Then I wrote, since the total warming from 1860 has been 0.75 °C, that is a positive amount, correct? Now, continue with the lesson:

    >-0.774 °C – 0.75 = -1.524 °C… Which is a negative amount, agree? Then, there is not any warming anymore, but a cooling.

    So we’ll go with your numbers (whether they are exactly accurate is irrelevant).

    The warming since 1860 totals 0.75C

    There was a cooling of 0.774C from Jan 07 to May 08.

    Take the temperature in 1860 as a baseline anomaly of zero. Before the cooling that occurred from Jan 07 to May 08, the anomaly would have been 0.75C. It then cooled down by 0.774C (again, whether these numbers are accurate is irrelevant – we’re merely checking Nasif’s arithmetic).

    This means that we can calculate the May 08 anomaly as follows: the anomaly relative to 1860 was +0.75C (initial anomaly before the cooling we’re looking at). Take away the cooling from Jan 07 to May 08, which was 0.774C:

    +0.75C – 0774C = -0.024C. Not -1.524C.

    At no point is there a cooling of 1.524C, or an anomaly of -1.524C.

    Nasif, you used an analogy of going down stairs on the JREF. Well, this is how it works. Each stair represents a 0.001C change in temperature. You start at a stair marked ‘zero’ in 1860. You climb 750 stairs to a stair marked ’0.75′ by January 2007. Between then and May 08, you descend 774 stairs (representing the cooling). What does the stair you are standing on now say?

    Yep, it says -0.024.

  96. #99 Stu
    August 5, 2010

    Additionally, rather than just ask me questions, would you be able to actually answer my original polite enquiry?

    >Basically, my question is: can you show that induced emission (the process by which lasers operate) occurs in the atmosphere?

    By which I mean, can you provide a journal reference that describes this process in the atmosphere? That’s all I wanted; having myself completed a meteorology degree from a UK university, I was surprised I had heard nothing about induced emission in the atmosphere in my studies on radiative transfer. Cheers.

  97. #100 Bernard J.
    August 6, 2010

    [Nasif Nahle](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2707257):

    My arithmetics? Oh! Heh! Could you show me a single “error” in my arithmetics? You’re a liar. Point
    Own goal.