Open Thread 51

A new open thread for those off-topic discussions.

Comments

  1. #1 Lotharsson
    August 6, 2010

    > …corroborated by every physicist on this planet…

    Wow, I didn’t realise this was an entry requirement for the Guild Of Physicists! Here I was blithely thinking that at least one or two physicists on the planet managed to get through their entire careers without corroborating whatever that claim was.

    Well, you learn something every day!

  2. #2 Nasif Nahle
    August 6, 2010

    399
    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.

    Posted by: Stu | August 5, 2010 9:59 PM

    Hahaha! You’re who is in problems with arithmetic. I’m absolutely correct! Hahaha! In that thread we were talking about magnitudes of change of temperature. If you have T= -1 K and T increases to 1K, how many units T increased? Hahaha! Zero? Hahaha!

  3. #3 Nasif Nahle
    August 6, 2010

    [i]400
    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.

    Posted by: Stu | August 5, 2010 10:06 PM[/i]

    Strictly Scientific Literature:

    Modest, Michael F. Radiative Heat Transfer-Second Edition. 2003. Elsevier Science, USA and Academic Press, UK.

    Pitts, Donald and Sissom, Leighton. Heat Transfer. 1998. McGraw-Hill.

    Griem, H. R. Plasma Spectroscopy. McGraw-Hill. 1964.

    Geoffrey V. Bicknell, Ralph S. Sutherland, Wil J. M. van Breugel, Michael A. Dopita, Arjun Dey, George K. Miley. Jet-induced Emission-Line Nebulosity and Star Formation in the High-Redshift Radio Galaxy 4C 41.17. 2000 ApJ 540 678.

    Davidson, N. Statistical Mechanics. McGraw-Hill. 1962.

    Richard McCray. Possibility of Maser Action in Cosmic Radio Sources. Science 9 December 1966 154: 1320-1323.

    Tien, C. L., Lienhard, J. H. Statistical Thermodynamics. Holt Rinehart & Winston. 1971

    Cheers,

    Nasif Nahle

  4. #4 Nasif Nahle
    August 6, 2010

    @Stu or whoever he/she could be:

    Here the example of the stairs, going down or going up.

    You have a stair with 101 steps. The stair has one step exactly at the middle, which we will call “zero” step. There are 50 steps above the “zero” step, and 50 steps below the “zero” step. The steps above the “zero” step are positive, i.e. +1, +2, +3, etc. While the steps below the “zero” step are negative, i.e. -1, -2, -3, etc. You’re standing on the “-50 step”. From that starting place, you go up, up, up, step by step, until stopping on the “+50 step”. How many steps you did escalate? “Zero”?

  5. #5 Stu
    August 6, 2010

    >In that thread we were talking about magnitudes of change of temperature. If you have T= -1 K and T increases to 1K, how many units T increased? Hahaha! Zero? Hahaha!

    This is where your fundamental misunderstanding lies.

    You weren’t discussing a change from +0.75 to -0.774; satellite data did not show an anomaly of -0.774C in May 08. Indeed, the most negative anomaly in the monthly UAH is -0.487C, for September 1984. So, you were discussing subtracting 0.744C (the cooling) from 0.75C the overall warming from 1860 to that point).

    If you have T=0.75K and it decreases by 0.744K (which is the case exactly as you defined in the quote above, saying “Satellite data cooled 0.774 °C from January 2007 to May 2008. Given that the total warming since 1860 is 0.75 °C…”), this is not the same as decreasing to -0.744K.

    That’s the distinction. By does not mean to.

  6. #6 jakerman
    August 6, 2010

    >*If you have T= -1 K and T increases to 1K, how many units T increased? Hahaha! Zero? Hahaha!*

    Nasif I’m no scientist but even I understant there are no temperatures less than 0K. 0K is absolute zero.

    But back to arethmatic, if you are being sensible you will see that a change from -1 unit to +1 unit is a change of two units, but that has not happend. We see a rise in [global 20 year mean](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:240) of approx 0.7K.

    You are fooling yourself if you use inappropriate unit-confused arithmatic to argue werre currently at zero or negative net warming.

    Fun to watch. Keep it going, as many people are not yet aware of how bad denialist arguments are.

  7. #7 Nasif Nahle
    August 6, 2010

    A final example with change of temperature:

    In August 1979 the monthly average change of temperature was -0.165 °C. The next month, September 1979, the monthly average change of temperature was +0.017 °C. What the amplitude of the monthly average change of temperature is from August to September 1979? In other words, how much the monthly average change of temperature “changed” from August to September?

    From -0.165 °C to 0 °C there are 0.165 units. From 0 °C to 0.017 °C there are 0.017 units: Therefore, the amplitude of change of temperature is 0.165 °C + 0.017 °C = 0.182 °C.

    Put the ciphers in a graph and count the gridlines from -0.165 to 0.017.

    When dealing with these issues you MUST to understand the concepts, besides of the arithmetic. Take this lesson for your future counterarguments. :)

  8. #8 Nasif Nahle
    August 6, 2010

    407
    If you have T= -1 K and T increases to 1K, how many units T increased? Hahaha! Zero? Hahaha!

    Nasif I’m no scientist but even I understant there are no temperatures less than 0K. 0K is absolute zero.

    Check! You’re an intelligent person! :)

  9. #9 Nasif Nahle
    August 6, 2010

    You are fooling yourself if you use inappropriate unit-confused arithmatic to argue werre currently at zero or negative net warming.

    Fun to watch. Keep it going, as many people are not yet aware of how bad denialist arguments are.

    Posted by: jakerman

    I’m not a dennialist. You’re a denialist of science. I don’t deny science.

    If you have a temperature of -30 °C and it changes instantaneously to 30 °C, how many degrees the temperature increased? Zero? Hahaha! That dennialist of science Jackerman!

  10. #10 Nasif Nahle
    August 6, 2010

    By the way, I recommend you to read the didactic article on heat at: http://biocab.org/Heat.html

    Have a good night!

  11. #11 Stu
    August 6, 2010

    Firstly, thanks for the scientific references you provided. I’m not interested in such titles as:

    >Griem, H. R. Plasma Spectroscopy. McGraw-Hill. 1964.

    >Geoffrey V. Bicknell, Ralph S. Sutherland, Wil J. M. van Breugel, Michael A. Dopita, Arjun Dey, George K. Miley. Jet-induced Emission-Line Nebulosity and Star Formation in the High-Redshift Radio Galaxy 4C 41.17. 2000 ApJ 540 678.

    >Richard McCray. Possibility of Maser Action in Cosmic Radio Sources. Science 9 December 1966 154: 1320-1323.

    …because I asked about the Earth’s atmosphere, not star formation or plasma physics. Regardless, I will see what the others, particularly the first textbook reference, say.

    >In August 1979 the monthly average change of temperature was -0.165 °C.

    Assuming that in this instance ‘change’ means anomaly, I am able to follow you.*

    >The next month, September 1979, the monthly average change of temperature was +0.017 °C. What the amplitude of the monthly average change of temperature is from August to September 1979? In other words, how much the monthly average change of temperature “changed” from August to September?

    >From -0.165 °C to 0 °C there are 0.165 units. From 0 °C to 0.017 °C there are 0.017 units: Therefore, the amplitude of change of temperature is 0.165 °C + 0.017 °C = 0.182 °C.

    Of course I agree with the above. And of course, this is totally what happened from Jan 07 to May 08.

    Let’s look at the actual figures shall we? From UAH satellite data, Jan 07 had an anomaly of +0.513K. May 08 had an anomaly of -0.113K. The temperature therefore dropped 0.626K between those two data points.

    If, for the sake of argument, Jan 07 was 0.75K warmer than the temperature in 1860, this means that a warming of 0.75K has been followed by a cooling of 0.626K.

    What you essentially did Nasif (but with slightly different figures), was write -0.626K – 0.75K = -1.376K. Clearly this makes no physical sense, as there has not been a cooling of 1.376K in these data.

    *If, on the other hand, you have completely misunderstood what the monthly data actually shows, I don’t know what to say. You use the phrase “monthly average change of temperature”. But the data is the monthly anomaly relative to a baseline, not the change from one month to the next…

  12. #12 jakerman
    August 6, 2010

    >*Check! You’re an intelligent person! :)*

    I suggest you follow your own advice, I’m not the one confused.

    >*If you have a temperature of -30 °C and it changes instantaneously to 30 °C, how many degrees the temperature increased? Zero? Hahaha!*

    You are fooling your self with in appropriate analogies to match your confused unit corruption.

    0.7K is the rise in 20 year mean over the period of instrumental record. a dalily or yearly anomaly has different units. One is 0.7K rise in 20 year global mean, the other is say a 0.7K drop in 1 month global mean. A 20-year-mean and a 1-month-mean are [different things](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:240/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:1/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:240/trend).

    Your conflation of the two is foolish, only exceeded by the scale of hurbris required to prevent you from seeing your mistake while maintaining your misplaced confidence.

  13. #13 Nasif Nahle
    August 6, 2010

    413
    Check! You’re an intelligent person! :)

    I suggest you follow your own advice, I’m not the one confused.

    If you have a temperature of -30 °C and it changes instantaneously to 30 °C, how many degrees the temperature increased? Zero? Hahaha!

    You are fooling your self with in appropriate analogies to match your confused unit corruption.

    0.7K is the rise in 20 year mean over the period of instrumental record. a dalily or yearly anomaly has different units. One is 0.7K rise in 20 year global mean, the other is say a 0.7K drop in 1 month global mean. A 20-year-mean and a 1-month-mean are different things.

    Your conflation of the two is foolish, only exceeded by the scale of hurbris required to prevent you from seeing your mistake while maintaining your misplaced confidence.

    Posted by: jakerman | August 6, 2010 2:01 AM

    Oh! Sorry… I thought you were an intelligent person. I see I was wrong. Again, if you have a temperature of -30 °C and it instantaneously increases BY 60 °C, what the final temperature would be? Let’s check your arithmetics:

    -30 °C + 60 °C = 30 °C. Ok, 30 °C is the final temperature. Now tell me, how many degrees the temperature changed? “zero”? 30°C? 60 °C?

    Wow! Strange Jackerman’s arithmetics… heh!

  14. #14 Nasif Nahle
    August 6, 2010

    @Jackerman…

    Well, not only your arithmetic is “weird”, but your science also. You say:

    “0.7K is the rise in 20 year mean over the period of instrumental record. a dalily or yearly anomaly has different units. One is 0.7K rise in 20 year global mean, the other is say a 0.7K drop in 1 month global mean. A 20-year-mean and a 1-month-mean are different things.”

    You’re wrong or you have not understood how the change of temperature is calculated.

    If the IPCC is calculating the change of temperature through the methodology you’re exposing, then I know why it had to invent the climategate.

  15. #15 Wow
    August 6, 2010

    “0.7K is the rise in 20 year mean over the period of instrumental record. a dalily or yearly anomaly has different units. ”

    Nope, they’re still in kelvin.

    What a maroon. But not even an entertaining one.

    Why don’t you go tell Roy Spencer or RPSr about how their work is wrong and there’s no back radiation?

  16. #16 Jeff Harvey
    August 6, 2010

    To everyone here,

    You should realize that Nasif Nahle runs what I conider to be a comedy web site called the ‘Biology Cabinet’ which appears to spend most of its time arguing that the current warming isn’t happening or is due to the sun. Given that Nasif allegedly claims to be interested in science, it boggles the mind that he has a thread arguing that it has not warmed since 1999. Of course this garbage has been dealt with many times before (bearing in mind the last ten years have been the warmest in recorded history, and 2010 is set to break single year records by a considerable margin). Moreover, elucidating trends in largely deterministic systems requires more than a ten year period, as many have pointed out.

    BTW Nasif, how much of your ‘science’ has been published in journals that appear in the Web of Science? Just wondering.

  17. #17 Wow
    August 6, 2010

    “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.”

    If the total warming since 1860 is 0.75C, then the warming we’ve had is 0.75C.

    That is what “total warming since 1860″ means.

    That there has been cooling for some period doesn’t change the phrase “total warming since 1860 is 0.75C”, since the phrase “since 1860″ includes that period.

  18. #18 Wow
    August 6, 2010

    “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?”

    Nasif’s answer: “No, I can’t so here! Chewbacca lives on Endor!”

  19. #19 jakerman
    August 6, 2010

    >>*0.7K is the rise in 20 year mean over the period of instrumental record. a dalily or yearly anomaly has different units.*

    >Nope, they’re still in kelvin.

    Nasif was copying my response without any notation to indicate that.

    Nafis would agree with WOW on the surface, but I’m confident on further read WOW will spot Nasif’s error.

    Nasif is taking one anomaly figure of 0.7K and saying its its equivalent to another of -0.7K. There is nuance in the units that Nasif seem incompetent to comprehend.

    One unit is anomaly in one month of a 1 month running mean (change in Kelvin per month, on a 12 month running mean), the other is (change in Kelvin per hisotric record on a 240 month running mean).

    A link in [this post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2707750) shows the diffence between the two things that Nasif is confusing.

  20. #20 Stu
    August 6, 2010

    >Nasif is taking one anomaly figure of 0.7K and saying its its equivalent to another of -0.7K.

    Nasif is guilty of getting stuff wrong for sure, but I don’t think this particular charge is on the list. Can you quote what you’re referring to pls Jakers?

  21. #21 jakerman
    August 6, 2010

    Nasif writes:

    >>*407 If you have T= -1 K and T increases to 1K, how many units T increased? Hahaha! Zero? Hahaha!*

    My response:

    >>Nasif I’m no scientist but even I understant there are no temperatures less than 0K. 0K is absolute zero.

    Nasif:

    >*Check! You’re an intelligent person! :)*

    My response;

    >I suggest you follow your own advice, I’m not the one confused.

    Then Nasif loses the plot (again):

    >*If you have a temperature of -30 °C and it changes instantaneously to 30 °C, how many degrees the temperature increased? Zero? Hahaha!*

    Nasif what does minus -30°C or -30°C, have to do with the limit of absolute zero? The point was your ignorance of the concept that was “there are no temperatures less than 0K”.

    Remember this huberis:

    >*407 If you have T= -1 K and T increases to 1K, how many units T increased? Hahaha! Zero? Hahaha!*

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero

  22. #22 jakerman
    August 6, 2010

    >>Nasif is taking one anomaly figure of 0.7K and saying its its equivalent to another of -0.7K.

    >*Nasif is guilty of getting stuff wrong for sure, but I don’t think this particular charge is on the list. Can you quote what you’re referring to pls Jakers?*

    Stu I am refering to this:

    >*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.*

  23. #23 Wow
    August 6, 2010

    “One unit is anomaly in one month of a 1 month running mean (change in Kelvin per month, on a 12 month running mean), the other is (change in Kelvin per hisotric record on a 240 month running mean).”

    But an anomaly has no time component, except its placement in time.

    A *trend* has a time component, like “0.16C/decade”. That’s a trend.

    So the anomalies of a monthly anomaly is in kelvin (or C or F) and a 20-year anomaly is in kelvin (or C or F). It’s just that the calcuation of that anomaly is taken in the first case from an average over 1 month, the other over 240 months.

    But the anomaly is still in the same units.

    Trend? Not so much.

    But Nahle doesn’t know how to work out a trend either.

  24. #24 Wow
    August 6, 2010

    “You’re wrong or you have not understood how the change of temperature is calculated.

    Posted by: Nasif Nahle”

    NOBODY knows how YOU have calculated the change of temperature.

    You’ve used Watts in an equation that requires Joules and then (throwing away the difference) called the result the temperature change.

    The sort of error I was told how to avoid when I was 14!

    ‘course have a look at his CV and he’s gained about 6 degrees according to his tale over 3 years.

    It’s all fake. He talks like a 13 year old, makes mistakes a 14 year old would know to avoid and nobody’s ever seen or heard about him IRL.

    He’s a kid.

    A denialist form of the MMRPG G.I.R.L (Guy In Real Life).

    He’s a pubescent kid with a website.

  25. #25 jakerman
    August 6, 2010

    >*But the anomaly is still in the same units.*

    OK, I should say Nasif’s two 0.7K anomalies have same units but mean different things.

    If Nasif were correct then graphically [combining these two curves ](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:132/plot/uah/from:2007/to:2008.5) (Grim@ style) would be justifiability equivalent.

    Yet the 0.7 anomaly based on a multi year mean and based on a 1 month or 18 month mean are not the same thing. The inputs have different time weighting thus different meaning. One is [more susceptible to noise](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah), the [other less so.

    On top of this one is measuring the lower troposphere the other the surface temperature. So taking one from the other is wrong on many levels.

    BTW, even using Nasif’s wrong conflation of anomalies, all the warming would appear [to have returned](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:132).

  26. #26 Wow
    August 6, 2010

    “OK, I should say Nasif’s two 0.7K anomalies have same units but mean different things.”

    Nasif thinks they are different units.

    I wonder if he’s going to say “Oh, yeah, I was wrong, they are the same units” too?

    After all, only the closed minded nonscientist would refuse to admit error.

    Mind you, given he doesn’t know when he means Watts and when he means Joules and whether Watts * seconds is joules or not, I don’t expect him to admit any mistake whatsoever in any matter at all.

    Which, again, is what a pre-teen kid would do.

  27. #27 TrueSceptic
    August 6, 2010

    Oh, boy!

    Nasif is repeating exactly the same idiocy here that he displayed at the JREF.

    I wonder what he thinks his bank balance is if he starts at zero, pays in $750, and then withdraws $774?

    Of course, we’ll ignore for now the ludicrous cherry picking he did to get those 2 figures in the first place …

  28. #28 TrueSceptic
    August 6, 2010

    417 Jeff,

    Thanks, but some of us have known about Biocab’s site for a while now. It is utterly bizarre, like peering into a parallel universe where true is false, black is white, and especially positive is negative.

  29. #29 TrueSceptic
    August 6, 2010

    425 WOW,

    Except that he appears to be [almost 59](http://www.biocab.org/About_Us.html).

  30. #30 Wow
    August 6, 2010

    “Except that he appears to be almost 59.”

    Pfft.

    Here’s a picture of me:

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/08/20/article-1047397-025B9B3B00000578-236_233x242.jpg

    !

    That same vanity site has him earning 6 degrees in 3 years.

    Yah.

    So why do we believe anything else on there?

  31. #31 Stu
    August 6, 2010

    TS says:

    >Nasif is repeating exactly the same idiocy here that he displayed at the JREF.

    >I wonder what he thinks his bank balance is if he starts at zero, pays in $750, and then withdraws $774?

    >Of course, we’ll ignore for now the ludicrous cherry picking he did to get those 2 figures in the first place …

    Yep TS, the strange thing is he has demonstrated that he actually can do the arithmetic:

    >From -0.165 °C to 0 °C there are 0.165 units. From 0 °C to 0.017 °C there are 0.017 units: Therefore, the amplitude of change of temperature is 0.165 °C + 0.017 °C = 0.182 °C.

    but Nasif has some kind of mental constipation when it comes to the original example. Perhaps he’ll finally get it if I put it in these terms: Initial temperature = T1. Final temperature = T2. Difference between the two = dT. So for the above, T1 = -0.165C, T2 = 0.017C.

    dT = T2 – T1

    so dT = 0.017C – (-0.165C) = 0.182C. So far so good.

    In the original example, Nasif claims that it had warmed 0.75C from 1860. So our starting temperature T1 = 0.75C. He also claimed that it had cooled 0.774C from Jan 07 to May 08 (let’s continue to ignore that these figures are incorrect and irrelevant) so dT = -0.774C. The only thing we need to find now is T2.

    T2 = T1 + dT

    T2 = 0.75C + (-0.774C)

    T2 = -0.024C.

    NOWHERE in this calculation does the figure -1.524C show up. Nasif, you were doing it wrong. Can you not see that?

  32. #32 TrueSceptic
    August 6, 2010

    In the original he blathered on about ciphers and amplitudes. He never did explain, but somehow he’s insisting that the 2 “amplitudes” must both be negative. So, yes, he can do arithmetic, but somehow he can’t figure out those damned confusing + and – signs!

  33. #33 TrueSceptic
    August 6, 2010

    For anyone who’s got time to kill [this](http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3821197#post3821197) is where to start reading the Biocab thread. Many tried, but none made any headway with him; it was hard enough to get him to use the same numbers more than once, let alone tell us how they were derived, although the recent “cooling” looks very like a simple (and insane) cherry pick using 2 monthly anomalies, and they weren’t even the “best” he could have used.

  34. #34 TrueSceptic
    August 6, 2010

    WUWT has a [guest post](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/why-the-co2-increase-is-man-made-part-1/) by Ferdinand Engelbeen which has some typically insane comments from the inmates.

    What is especially funny is that our old mate Dave Andrews has managed to be [even more stupid](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/why-the-co2-increase-is-man-made-part-1/#comment-448792) over there than we’ve seen here.

  35. #35 Stu
    August 6, 2010

    >Dave Andrews… even more stupid

    Awww, that’s rather special :)

    BTW, if WUWT are going to follow Spencer’s lead and have a series of posts debunking the stupidest denialist claims, does that mean there aren’t going to be any more posts by Steven Goddard, so as to avoid double standards? I’ve become rather fond of his frank and unerring stupidity.

  36. #36 Marco
    August 6, 2010

    Something tells me Roy Spencer is not so-much-liked anymore. First he acknowledges the existence of the greenhouse effect on his blog (as if he never did that before, but anyways), resulting in some pretty insulting comments on WUWT and even his own blog. It seems he now has taken on Miskolczi…and got a Christopher Game telling him he’s stupid…

  37. #37 Nasif Nahle
    August 6, 2010

    NOWHERE in this calculation does the figure -1.524C show up. Nasif, you were doing it wrong. Can you not see that?

    Posted by: Stu | August 6, 2010 10:09 AM

    Sorry, Stu, but you continue being in a state of confusion (chaos?). Originally we were talking about amplitude. So answer the question again, but applying correct mathematics.

    Question: What’s the amplitude of “change of Temperature” from -0.774 °C to 0.75 °C?

    It is a so simple question that even a kindergarten would answer it. Hah!

  38. #38 Nasif Nahle
    August 6, 2010

    Posted by: TrueSceptic | August 6, 2010 2:47 PM

    434
    For anyone who’s got time to kill this is where to start reading the Biocab thread. Many tried, but none made any headway with him; it was hard enough to get him to use the same numbers more than once, let alone tell us how they were derived, although the recent “cooling” looks very like a simple (and insane) cherry pick using 2 monthly anomalies, and they weren’t even the “best” he could have used.

    Uuuh! It must be hard to you knowing that real science exists and that it can be easily read from my articles. :)

  39. #39 Nasif Nahle
    August 6, 2010

    Posted by: TrueSceptic | August 6, 2010 11:58 AM
    433
    In the original he blathered on about ciphers and amplitudes. He never did explain, but somehow he’s insisting that the 2 “amplitudes” must both be negative. So, yes, he can do arithmetic, but somehow he can’t figure out those damned confusing + and – signs!

    Another ignorant on how to calculate amplitude of change. Do you want me to explain again the issue with the stair? hahaha!

  40. #40 Nasif Nahle
    August 6, 2010

    Posted by: TrueSceptic | August 6, 2010 9:13 AM
    428
    Oh, boy!

    Nasif is repeating exactly the same idiocy here that he displayed at the JREF.

    I wonder what he thinks his bank balance is if he starts at zero, pays in $750, and then withdraws $774?

    Of course, we’ll ignore for now the ludicrous cherry picking he did to get those 2 figures in the first place…

    Oh boy!!! TrueSeptic thinks that $$$ are amplitude of change of temperature!!! Wow! Hahaha!

  41. #41 Nasif Nahle
    August 6, 2010

    Posted by: TrueSceptic | August 6, 2010 9:25 AM
    429
    417 Jeff,

    Thanks, but some of us have known about Biocab’s site for a while now. It is utterly bizarre, like peering into a parallel universe where true is false, black is white, and especially positive is negative.

    Sorry, TrueSeptic… Could you show one single scientific error at biocab’s website? Or… Are you talking just because you have a… mouth?

  42. #42 Nasif Nahle
    August 6, 2010

    Posted by: jakerman | August 6, 2010 7:02 AM

    “426
    But the anomaly is still in the same units.

    OK, I should say Nasif’s two 0.7K anomalies have same units but mean different things.

    If Nasif were correct then graphically combining these two curves (Grim@ style) would be justifiability equivalent.

    Yet the 0.7 anomaly based on a multi year mean and based on a 1 month or 18 month mean are not the same thing. The inputs have different time weighting thus different meaning. One is more susceptible to noise, the [other less so.

    On top of this one is measuring the lower troposphere the other the surface temperature. So taking one from the other is wrong on many levels.

    BTW, even using Nasif’s wrong conflation of anomalies, all the warming would appear to have returned.”

    Jackerman, Jackerman… Cannot you read who plotted those graphs? Why you omit the source of those graphs? Hahaha!

    “Conflation of anomalies”? What’s that? Is it something inside your heat or what? Heh!

    See the temperature anomalies at: http://biocab.org/Global_Temperature_English.jpg

    Cheers :D

  43. #43 TrueSceptic
    August 6, 2010

    437 Marco,

    My opinion of Spencer has gone up a huge amount recently. Not many would bother to build an instrumented box to test the theory of downwelling IR in a way that ought to (but still doesn’t, sadly) convince the physics deniers, and his patience is impressive.

    I wonder where all the real nuts will be in a year or so? JoNova?

  44. #44 Nasif Nahle
    August 6, 2010

    By the way… Warming cannot go away because we are living a period of warmhouse, which followed a period of icehouse, which will allow another period of warmhouse, etc. During the Holocene, the amplitude of fluctuations of temperature, or “anomalies” of temperature, has gone up to 6 °C, i.e. from a fluctuation of -3 °C to a higher fluctuation of +3 °C. Heh! :D

  45. #45 Nasif Nahle
    August 6, 2010

    444
    437 Marco,

    My opinion of Spencer has gone up a huge amount recently. Not many would bother to build an instrumented box to test the theory of downwelling IR in a way that ought to (but still doesn’t, sadly) convince the physics deniers, and his patience is impressive.

    I wonder where all the real nuts will be in a year or so? JoNova?

    Posted by: TrueSceptic | August 6, 2010 6:25 PM

    I think you are right, TrueSceptic. Spencer’s “experiment” has demonstrated that the formation of dew is higher at those places where eddies and currents of air are obstructed by a box wrapped with aluminum foil. We did the same experiment in basic school and obtained the same results; we used thermometers. You can do it also. Put the box wrapped in aluminum foil on the grass and a thermopar inside the box, and just wait, wait, wait, until enough dew is formed on the floor below your box. :)

  46. #46 jakerman
    August 6, 2010

    >*Question: What’s the amplitude of “change of Temperature” from -0.774 °C to 0.75 °C?*

    Nasif, you continue to fool your self with inappropriate analogies.

    To see your error you need to define what you are measuring when you say -0.774°C and 0.75°C.

    To do this you need to define your reference baseline for each. [UAH use](http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/) the 79-98 average.

    Nasif’s errors include moving his baseline. He calculates the 0.75°C anomaly compared to what baseline? Then he calculaes the -0.774°C based on the 0.75°C as a new baseline (in effect calling 0.75 = zero).

    Call Nasif math, and its full of hubris and full of errors.

  47. #47 TrueSceptic
    August 6, 2010

    440 Nasif,

    Just as I did at the JREF, I want you to explain exactly how you got those figures. When you’ve done that, I want you to explain how a rise and a fall (warming and cooling) can both be negative.

    If you feel that I’m missing the point in that you are using amplitudes, I again ask you to explain how you derived them, and (again) why positive and negative ones both negative.

    That should be simple enough, no?

  48. #48 TrueSceptic
    August 6, 2010

    447 jakerman,

    To get the full flavour of what Nasif’s up to, I think you need to read the JREF thread I linked to earlier, plus his own articles at biocab.

    I only hope we at last get told how those figures were derived. We can all generate all sorts of “amplitudes” by data torture, but it helps if we are told *something*, anything really, not just told “Ha! you do not know the ciphers? You do not know how to calculate the amplitudes?”

  49. #49 Nasif Nahle
    August 6, 2010

    Let’s take a standard temperature of 290 K. The minimum change is -0.496 K and the maximum is 0.786 K (real magnitudes of ΔT since Dec. 1978 up to date). At minimum change, the standard temperature was 289.504 K, whilst at maximum change the temperature was 290.786 K. Therefore, the amplitude of change of temperature was 290.786 K – 289.504 K = 1.282 K, or if you wish, 289.504 K – (+290.786 K) = -1.282. Oh! But the change of temperature was 0.786 K – (-0.496 K)!!! No matter, children… Make the numbers talk: 0.786 K – (-0.496 K) = 1.282 K. However, some people here doesn’t understand these basic calculations and thinks that 0.786 K – (-0.496 K) = 0.29 K!!!!! Isn’t it funny? Hah!

  50. #50 jakerman
    August 6, 2010

    >*I only hope we at last get told how those figures were derived.*

    I’d put that at low probability. Yet we have [enough information](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah) to forensically deduce that his product is crap.

  51. #51 TrueSceptic
    August 6, 2010

    446 Nasif,

    You do realise that your comments would be clearer if you used

    < blockquote>

    Quoted comment being replied to

    < /blockquote>

    (without the space after <) when quoting someone?

  52. #52 Stu
    August 6, 2010

    Nasif, Jakerman says

    >To see your error you need to define what you are measuring when you say -0.774°C and 0.75°C.

    and TrueSceptic says

    >Just as I did at the JREF, I want you to explain exactly how you got those figures.

    Because it’s clear your confusing temperature anomalies and temperature changes.

    Although you yourself defined -0.774C as the change in temperature between Jan 07 and May 08, you are treating it as if it was the anomaly in May 08 – which it isn’t.

  53. #53 Nasif Nahle
    August 6, 2010

    It’s not “torturing” the amplitudes, but simple elemental mathematics

    Let’s take two arbitrary magnitudes:

    ΔT1 = -1 K (please, notice it is change of T, i.e. ΔT1).
    ΔT2 = 1 K (please, notice it is change of T, i.e. ΔT1).

    Demonstrate your mathematical abilities, TrueSeptic and tell us what your result is from substracting -1 K from 1 K, that is, 1K -(-1 K).

    ;)

  54. #54 TrueSceptic
    August 6, 2010

    453 Stu,

    I’m really not sure. Read the JREF thread, where it’s not at all apparent what he thinks these numbers (amplitudes) mean.

  55. #55 Nasif Nahle
    August 6, 2010

    Stu says…

    “453
    Nasif, Jakerman says

    To see your error you need to define what you are measuring when you say -0.774°C and 0.75°C.

    and TrueSceptic says

    Just as I did at the JREF, I want you to explain exactly how you got those figures.

    Because it’s clear your confusing temperature anomalies and temperature changes.

    Although you yourself defined -0.774C as the change in temperature between Jan 07 and May 08, you are treating it as if it was the anomaly in May 08 – which it isn’t.

    Posted by: Stu | August 6, 2010 7:22 PM”

    Well. well, let’s take the magnitudes as you say and tell us your results:

    0.75 °C – (-0.774 °C)

    How much is it? Heh! ;)

  56. #56 TrueSceptic
    August 6, 2010

    454 Nasif,

    This is what you’ve done before.

    Again, I ask you to show us your derivation of +0.750 and -0.774. Let’s do that first before we go anywhere else at all.

    If you can’t show us what those numbers represent, how can we know that you are using them correctly?

  57. #57 Nasif Nahle
    August 6, 2010

    TrueSceptics says:

    455
    453 Stu,

    I’m really not sure. Read the JREF thread, where it’s not at all apparent what he thinks these numbers (amplitudes) mean.

    Posted by: TrueSceptic | August 6, 2010 7:25 PM

    At that thread, very old by the way, we were talking about the magnitude of the total amplitude of change of temperature, very clear by the way. So, the confusion is only in your minds.

    Please, tell us the results of the simple arithmetical problems I proposed in my last two posts. :)

    Please, don’t say you don’t know the answer. I will write them again for you make the calculations:

    1K -(-1 K) = ?

    0.75 °C – (-0.774 °C) = ?

    Your answers, please?

  58. #58 jakerman
    August 6, 2010

    >*Well. well, let’s take the magnitudes as you say and tell us your results: 0.75 °C – (-0.774 °C) How much is it? Heh! ;)*

    A meaningless calculation unless you define what the numbers [mean](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2709793).

  59. #59 Nasif Nahle
    August 6, 2010

    TrueSceptic says:

    “This is what you’ve done before.

    Again, I ask you to show us your derivation of +0.750 and -0.774. Let’s do that first before we go anywhere else at all.

    If you can’t show us what those numbers represent, how can we know that you are using them correctly?”

    If you knew a bit of science, you would know what the symbol ΔT is for. Those figures were taken from the UAH database on global fluctuation of tropospheric temperature. So, your results to the problems?

    1K -(-1 K) = ?

    0.75 °C – (-0.774 °C) = ?

  60. #60 jakerman
    August 6, 2010

    Nasif, to show you are correct all you need to do is show how you derive:

    a) 0.75°C, and

    b) -0.774°C

  61. #61 Nasif Nahle
    August 6, 2010

    Heh! Well, I’ll tell you once again:

    Those figures were taken from the UAH database on global fluctuation of tropospheric temperature. So, your results to the problems?

    Your results, please?

  62. #62 Dave R
    August 6, 2010

    Nasif Nahle:
    >Those figures were taken from the UAH database

    No they were not. Anyone can verify that you are lying by checking [the data](http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/uah).

  63. #63 jakerman
    August 6, 2010

    Nasif, once again, please show how you derive:

    a) 0.75°C, and

    b) -0.774°C

    Your reluctance to show your derivation is telling.

  64. #64 Nasif Nahle
    August 6, 2010

    That delay on answering a very easy problem of mathematics could be due to two causes:

    1. Stu, Jackerman and TrueSceptic don’t know how to solve the problem, which would demonstrate they know nothing a bit of arithmetics; or…

    2. Stu, Jackerman and TrueSceptic don’t want to accept that I am right and they are wrong, just because they wish to dennigrate a honest scientist whose only “sin” has been to teach real science.

    I’m still waiting for the answer to the problems. I won’t admit more evasive answers. :)

  65. #65 Stu
    August 6, 2010

    In terms of simple numbers, your arithmetic works out. You’re still damn sure doing it wrong though, because you’re treating an instance of ΔT (-0.774C) as if it were an anomaly.

    Not to mention that your figures 0.75C and -0.774C are not supported by the satellite data, as pointed out by Dave.

  66. #66 jakerman
    August 6, 2010

    Nasif the calculation is meaningless unless the figures are understood. Please answer the [simile question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2709962).

    DaveH has [showed](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2709957) you are not accurate in your description of the data. Please Nasif, show how you derive:

    a) 0.75°C, and

    b) -0.774°C

  67. #67 jakerman
    August 6, 2010

    BTW [This comment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2709970) is a keeper, demonstrating the cognitive dissonance essential to blind denial.

    As I said Nasif, keep it up, many people need to see how bad denialist arguments are.

  68. #68 chek
    August 6, 2010

    What is it with these ‘honest scientists’ like Nahle here and Curtin in the other thread that makes them think applying a liberal layer of BS fools anybody?

    Surely an ‘honest scientists’ would clearly explain rather than obfuscate and rave. On the other hand, the MO fits the denialti like a glove.

  69. #69 Nasif Nahle
    August 6, 2010

    Hahaha! You lose, I win. I’m right, you’re wrong.

    Ad hominem attack, chek? Hahaha! Make the following calculations:

    1K -(-1 K) = ?

    0.75 °C – (-0.774 °C) = ?

    Answers? Answers? No answers? Hahaha!

  70. #70 Stu
    August 6, 2010

    FFS Nasif

    0.75 °C – (-0.774 °C) = 1.524C

    There, I answered your question.

    I have three follow up ones for you, and I think it may be good for you to answer them with something other than ‘I win…Hahaha!’, which is extremely uninstructive.

    Question 1: Where did you get those two figures, 0.75C and -0.774C?

    Question 2: More importantly, what do those numbers represent?

    Question 3: How does the number you came up with, 1.524C, relate to the physical realities of the climate system?

  71. #71 Nasif Nahle
    August 6, 2010

    Stu questions…

    Question 1: Where did you get those two figures, 0.75C and -0.774C?

    By those times, those figures referred to Max and Min fluctuations of temperature by HadCRU and NOAA.

    Question 2: More importantly, what do those numbers represent?

    Fluctuation of temperature, as I have been saying through this thread.

    Question 3: How does the number you came up with, 1.524C, relate to the physical realities of the climate system?

    I didn’t; it was NOAA who did it. In other words, that would have been the total amplitude of the fluctuation of temperature through 14 years. It’s the same when one says the fluctuation of temperature has been positive, e.g. 0.11 °C per year (or ~1.1 °C per decade), which was the figure handled by NOAA in those times. By a “thorough” refinement of the calculi, NOAA changed those ciphers to 0.2 °C per decade counting for the last 150 years (which are 160 years up to date and the cipher is now 0.1°C for future changes):

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

    Page 12.

    I answer the questions straightly. :D

  72. #72 Nasif Nahle
    August 6, 2010

    “Posted by: Stu | August 6, 2010 8:55 PM

    471
    FFS Nasif

    0.75 °C – (-0.774 °C) = 1.524C

    There, I answered your question.”

    Perfect! Therefore, your answer demonstrates that my arithmetic is correct and that who said that I had problems with arithmetic because of my properly correct calculation was lying. ;)

    I have answered also your questions. Have you verified the info in the page I provided? :)

  73. #73 Lotharsson
    August 6, 2010

    > Fluctuation of temperature…

    That’s not a precise definition.

    I suspect what you think they represent is the difference between max recorded and min recorded temperature (*average or anomaly? global or regional? which temperature record?*) over a defined time interval. Note how many descriptive attributes (in the brackets) are missing that must be present for a precise definition.

    And:

    > …those figures referred to Max and Min fluctuations of temperature by HadCRU and NOAA…

    suggest the possibility that the two different numbers come from two *different* data sets, which means it’s not correct to compute their difference.

    Oh, and previously you claimed it was UAH data, not “HadCRU and NOAA”, so it appears you might even be pulling numbers out of your fundament.

    If you want to have any credibility, you need to point to the data source (or pair of sources) and show other people how you derived those two numbers so that they can verify it for themselves.

    > …when one says the fluctuation of temperature has been positive, e.g. 0.11 °C per year (or ~1.1 °C per decade)…

    You are still confused. When one says “1.1 degrees per decade”, one is talking about a trend (which implies noise is filtered out); when one talks about “fluctuation” one is usually talking about the difference between min and max measured values (which generally still include the noise). They are two very different things.

    > …those ciphers…

    I’m not sure what you mean by “cipher” in this context. It’s certainly not the regular English usage.

    > Therefore, your answer demonstrates that my arithmetic is correct and that who said that I had problems with arithmetic because of my properly correct calculation was lying.

    Ah, so the mistake was saying that your arithmetic was incorrect; an accurate statement would be that **it’s almost certain that you badly misinterpreted the data or inappropriately mixed data from two different data sets**.

    That doesn’t reflect any better on you, IMHO.

  74. #74 Bernrd J.
    August 6, 2010

    [TrueSceptic](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2709214).

    Andrews actually goes on to repeat his manglemathics after several people gently point out his nonsense… amazing!

    However, to help Andrews feel that he is not alone, Richard S Courtney spends a lot of time there denying the nose in front of his face, ably assisted by one Paul Birch. What is striking is that amongst all of the numpties posting on the thread, there is just about every permutation of scientific/mathematical error and of self-contradiction that is possible to imagine. Well, more than was possible for me to imagine before I started reading – I had to stop before the Stupid infected me too.

    Honesty, there is so much Wrong contained within that thread that it has its own gravity. In fact, it’s a black hole of Denialism, where real science and mathematics are drawn in and lost forever, and the only thing to escape is a variant of Hawking radiation composed of Denialist pseudoscientific clap-trap.

    Perhaps I should formally posit the existence of DPCT-rays? Or if that’s too cumbersome an acronym, I could be overweaningly vain and suggest BJ-radiation – I liked the sound of J-radiation, but it was reserved [quite a while ago](http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v19/i4/p418_1)… ;-)

  75. #75 Wow
    August 7, 2010

    “What is it with these ‘honest scientists’ like Nahle here”

    I think you just killed those two words by using them, even in protective quotes, against Nahle.

    He’s not a scientist, he’s a punk kid.

    I mean, he’s asking “what’s 1 – (-1)” and thinks that someone getting 2 is proving something he said!

    Nasif, There’s been huge warming over 1.5 degrees.

    there was an increase of 0.75C increase since 1890 and there was an increase of -0.774 between Jan 07 and May 08.

    Therefore the difference is 0.75 – (-.774) = 1.534

    POSITIVE!

    Therefore, proof by Nahlism that there has been over 1.5C warming!

  76. #76 jakerman
    August 7, 2010

    >*Where did you get those two figures, 0.75C and -0.774C? By those times, those figures referred to Max and Min fluctuations of temperature by HadCRU and NOAA.*

    Firstly this is inconsistant with your previous claim when you said:

    >*Those figures were taken from the UAH database on global fluctuation of tropospheric temperature.*

    Secondly, I asked how you derive the figures and please show the figures you used.

    Can you do that? So far you are failing.

  77. #77 jakerman
    August 7, 2010

    Wow, using Nasif’s logic you forgot to add the waring from NOAA so the warming is 1.534-(-1.534) =3.068.

  78. #78 Stu
    August 7, 2010

    >Perfect! Therefore, your answer demonstrates that my arithmetic is correct and that who said that I had problems with arithmetic because of my properly correct calculation was lying. ;)

    Hah! Arithmetic is more than being able to put numbers in and get numbers out. It includes their correct use. Let me put this example to you: a boy has 5 apples and you take away two of his apples. How many apples does he have left?

    You’re sure it’s 3, but he declares

    >no, 5 is positive, right, and -2 is negative, so

    > 5 – (-2) = 7! I have loads of apples! Hahaha!

    Well, technically that calculation is mathematically correct, but it’s not right because it makes no sense in this context. The boy has three apples.

    You’re the boy Nasif. You had a temperature anomaly of 0.75C. You then took 0.774C away from this (more on this number soon). Somehow you wound up doing the wrong calculation, and I reckon it’s because you don’t know what one or both of those numbers mean.

  79. #79 Stu
    August 7, 2010

    So, the numbers. Regarding where exactly they came from, I’ll let you reply to Jakerman; as you can see from what Jakerman quoted above, you have not told the truth about where the numbers came from on at least one occasion. I think that counts as a fail.

    What also counts as a fail, though, is what Lotharsson has noted. Your terminology is confused and non-standard. The monthly values in all datasets are called anomalies, a word I don’t think you’ve used once! If you do consider them anomalies, it should be completely trivial for you to point us to which dataset and which data point to look at. That would be wonderful.

    Anyway, you, Nasif, originally defined 0.75C to be the ‘total’ warming since 1860. That would make +0.75C a temperature anomaly relative to 1860. You then defined -0.774C to be how much the satellite data cooled between Jan 07 and May 08*, which would make -0.774C the difference between two anomalies. I think you forgot what it was and have been treating it as an anomaly itself. Then there would indeed be a 1.524C difference. But it’s not, and there isn’t.

    *You’ve been very inconsistent on this claim – satellite, UAH specifically, or NOAA or HADcru? A ‘cooling’ between two datapoints or something else? I will be charitable and not call it lying, maybe you’re just forgetful. Have another go.

  80. #80 TrueSceptic
    August 7, 2010

    462 Nasif,

    False. The UAH data begins in 1979. It is impossible that you could derive any figures going back to 1860.

    Are you really going to repeat every stupid step that you took at the JREF? (Rhetorical) Are you really this stupid or dishonest)?

  81. #81 TrueSceptic
    August 7, 2010

    472 Nasif,

    14 years? Which 14 years? Your original claim said 1860 to present (but never defined), then Jan 2007 to May 2008.

  82. #82 TrueSceptic
    August 7, 2010

    475 Bernard,

    Strictly speaking it is logically *possible* for Courtney and Birch to be correct, i.e., the atmospheric increase *could* be happening independently of fossil fuel combustion. The problem, of course, is that they then have to describe the path that fossil fuel CO2 takes, explain all the evidence showing that the oceans are a net sink, and explain why the parallel increases in atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic CO2 are somehow just an amazing coincidence.

  83. #83 Wow
    August 7, 2010

    “Wow, using Nasif’s logic you forgot to add the waring from NOAA so the warming is 1.534-(-1.534) =3.068.

    Posted by: jakerman”

    And then, because I’ve said it’s warming 1.524C and you’ve said it’s warming 3.068, that means it’s warming 5.592C!!!

    Isn’t Nahlamathics cool! Just take two numbers from somewhere, add them together and proclaim your result!

    Wheee!

  84. #84 Wow
    August 7, 2010

    “Well, technically that calculation is mathematically correct, but it’s not right because it makes no sense in this context. The boy has three apples.”

    Stu, you’re not using Nahlamathics.

    That is where your calculation is right IF IT GIVES YOU AN ANSWER YOU LIKE! As long as you did the sums correctly you can always demand that anyone who disagrees shows where your maths was wrong. Since the wrongness isn’t in the maths but in how it’s used, the answer cannot be “proven” to be wrong as long as you remember you’re using Nahlamathics: Add or multiply or subtract (or whatever manipulation you like) correctly any two numbers you want. Then proclaim them correct ciphers!

  85. #85 TrueSceptic
    August 7, 2010

    486 Wow,

    Just wait for Nasif to tell us that we must be stupid because you can’t describe temperature fluctuations using apples, because (441)

    Oh boy!!! TrueSeptic thinks that $$$ are amplitude of change of temperature!!! Wow! Hahaha!

    Has anyone ever seen this level of obtuseness before? Or is it genius-level obfuscation?

  86. #86 TrueSceptic
    August 7, 2010

    474 Lotharsson,

    Knowing if numbers should be positive or negative, and when to add or subtract, are a part of basic arithmetic. Getting the sign wrong is just as wrong as any other mistake.

  87. #87 jakerman
    August 7, 2010

    Short Nasif:

    WOW, your [primary school arithmetic](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2710807) seems to be correct, therefor any argument you base on a misuse of said primary school arithmetic must also be correct. Thus WOW you also win, like I win. Heh, heh, haa haa.

  88. #88 Adam R.
    August 7, 2010

    Has Nasif run away at last? Has he disappeared down some deniers’ internet rabbit hole to proclaim his victory over the AlGore-ists at Deltoid?

  89. #89 TrueSceptic
    August 7, 2010

    489 Adam,

    Hard to tell. One of Nasif’s little habits is to disappear for long periods, then reappear as if no time has passed. See where he answered a post dated [17 Jul 08](http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3868577&postcount=809) on [12 May 09](http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4707396&postcount=810).

  90. #90 jakerman
    August 7, 2010

    >*Has Nasif run away at last?*

    What has he to gain by returning? He’s proved that two unknown numbers can be combined to give another unknown number. If he returns he will just be [asked how](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2709984) he derived [the numbers](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2709962), an answer that he is obviously [avoiding](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2710604).

  91. #91 Nasif Nahle
    August 12, 2010

    It’s not my habits. As I have said before, I have a life and much work to do. What’s your questions?

    Lotharsson says:

    “487
    474 Lotharsson,

    Knowing if numbers should be positive or negative, and when to add or subtract, are a part of basic arithmetic. Getting the sign wrong is just as wrong as any other mistake.”

    Are you saying that a negative fluctuation, i.e. below zero is positive and that a positive fluctuation, i.e. above zero is negative? :)

  92. #92 Nasif Nahle
    August 12, 2010

    The problem is that basic physics is out of the scope of your brain (knowledge). Let’s try again.

    The standard temperature of the troposphere is 290 K. In any given month, you obtain a meassure of 289.26 K; therefore, the change of temperature is negative:

    289.26 K – 290 K = -0.74 K

    In another moment, you use your thermometer and your temperature increased to 290.77 K; consequently, you would have a change of temperature equal to:

    290.77 – 290 K = 0.77 K

    Well… I hope your nut has catched the problem. After your measurements of temperature, you obtained two extremes, 289.26 K and 290.77 K. Obtain the amplitude of change. Please? Go on… Heh!

  93. #93 Dave R
    August 12, 2010

    Nasif Nahle, provide the source of the figures [as you have been asked](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2709962), or concede what everyone knows — that you made them up, since the real figures do not support your crackpot claims.

  94. #94 MFS
    August 12, 2010

    +1

    Nasif, provide a reference for your claims. They are obviously not your original measurements.

  95. #95 jakerman
    August 12, 2010

    Nasif, I’m glad you don’t realise how foolish you look with your [ardent refusal](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2711653) to show the derivation of your figures.

    It is important for people to see the unbounded capacity for denial.

    BTW with your claims, keep in mind we have the advantage of knowing that the Earth has [not cooled by 1.5 degrees](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:132) as you [erroneously claim](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2710146). That’s why we’re all happy to draw you along for as long as you are willing.

  96. #96 Vince Whirlwind
    August 12, 2010

    Nahle, your 290K calculation bears no relation to your original piece of dimwittery.

    Let me remind you what you stupidly claimed:

    “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”

    That could mean one of two things, only one of which is correct, and neither of which are reflected by your nonsense analysis. It doesn’t matter how inaccurate your unreferenced figures are, we’re just looking at your faulty arithmetic:

    Either 1860-2010 has warmed 0.75C, in which case the -0.774C in 2007 means that as at 2006 the warming was 0.75+0.774=+1.524C

    Or, 1860-2006 warmed 0.75C, followed by 0.774C cooling, giving us a current warming of 0.75-0.774=-0.024C

    Your own calculation was nonsense and entirely devoid of meaning.

  97. #97 Nasif Nahle
    August 14, 2010

    Oh! Jackerman and collaborators don’t wish to answer my simple questions… Hah! :D

    @Vince Whirlwind…

    Babotas! And what my original piece on dewittery was? Don’t you know what the term “amplitude” means? Hah!

    Now, clear your eyes and stop saying lies and ad hominem:

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6111&linkbox=true&position=13

  98. #98 Dan Kent
    August 14, 2010

    The calculations of Nahle are correct. You’re demonstrating your ignorance on algebraic solutions.

    Nahle always referred to the amplitude of change and you are twisting what he said.

    Of course, the amplitude of change is from 289.26 K to 290.77 K, and 290.77 K – 289.26 K = 1.51 K. You cannot compute amplitude of change in other way.

    What you’re demonstrating with this nonsense is your ignorance on basic scientific concepts.

  99. #99 Dan Kent
    August 14, 2010

    Clear your eyes with this masterpiece from Nahle high physics:

    http://biocab.org/Mean_Free_Path_Length_Photons.html

  100. #100 Dan Kent
    August 14, 2010

Current ye@r *