Notices
Results 1 to 16 of 16
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By marnixR

Thread: Deceptive AGW practices

  1. #1 Deceptive AGW practices 
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    There have been numerous "deniers" of the AGW sciences. We slowly gain ground as true scientific skeptics. Here are some recent examples:

    Thermometer Manufacturer Destroys Greenhouse Gas Warming Myth

    Observations on “Backradiation” during Nighttime and Daytime

    American Tradition Institute v. University of Virginia (Dr. Michael Mann)

    I find this lawsuit particularly interesting. I have often complained about the closed peer review process used in climatology. The only recreation of Mann's work was by giving one proxy 300 times the weighting of the others.

    I would like those of you who always disagree or attack me on my viewpoints, to first consider the ramification of what these articles mean, if true, to your arguments. After all, as scientists, we keep an open mind, right?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,342
    Only looked at the first one.

    "Researchers from Canada, USA, Mexico and Britain this week announce a startling discovery that destroys 20 years’ of thinking among government climatologists.

    Climate scientists had long believed infrared thermometers measured thermal radiation from the atmosphere and assumed it was 'proof' of the greenhouse gas effect (GHE). Their assumption was that infrared thermometers (IRT’s) were measuring ‘back radiated’ heat from greenhouse gases (including water vapor and carbon dioxide). But damning new evidence proves IRT's do no such thing."


    Yet with a claim of 20 years of "proof," they can't cite one actual peer-review paper that shows that it's somehow a crucial link to the man-made greenhouse science? Funny isn't it? They're assuming you won't look for any and just gobble their telling as accurate--just read their blog links assuming they carry the same credibility as research which that's been through the peer-review meat grinder. Nor do they plot the actual sensitivity of their instrument. They also ignorantly assume that air molecules don't collide and transfer energy to each other--considerably broadening all absorption lines well beyond the narrow spectral absorptions and emission lines (shrugs).

    I do know, that what appear to be these very same instruments are being used successfully to measure precipitable water with a standard of deviation of 3mm-5mm, so they are picking up water vapor though deep layers with a good amount of accuracy--so good they might soon replace and augment the rather sparse direct measurements from weather balloons. (And I'll provide an actual peer-review science link... An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie)
    Here's one of the instruments (I actually own one of these, OS540) by that company they tested.
    http://www.omega.com/ppt/pptsc_lg.asp?ref=OS540&Nav=

    Anyhow. Are the other two even worth looking at?


    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; October 1st, 2011 at 01:59 AM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Two different topics dealing with the first link and yours. I do like your link though.

    just take a quick glance at each and decide for yourself if they are worthwhile.
    Last edited by Wild Cobra; October 1st, 2011 at 04:17 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    I gather that the ATI has filed a privately-funded (ExxonMobil perhaps) suit against UVA because the taxpayer-funded harassment by attorney general Cuccinelli has been repeatedly rebuked as being meritless - is this about right?

    Tom Toles - Virginiaish Inquistion
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Here's the abstract of the second one, a single author paper, in full:
    Through a series of real time measurements of thermal radiation from the atmosphere and surface materials during nighttime and daytime, I demonstrate that warming backradiation emitted from Earth’s atmosphere back toward the earth’s surface and the idea that a cooler system can warm a warmer system are unphysical concepts.
    Uh - - - I'm not going to bother reading the rest of that paper, thanks anyway.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Why is it that the deniers are the only ones who feel the need to cherry pick?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Why is it that the deniers are the only ones who feel the need to cherry pick?
    Confirmation bias.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,342
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Here's the abstract of the second one, a single author paper, in full:
    Through a series of real time measurements of thermal radiation from the atmosphere and surface materials during nighttime and daytime, I demonstrate that warming backradiation emitted from Earth’s atmosphere back toward the earth’s surface and the idea that a cooler system can warm a warmer system are unphysical concepts.
    Uh - - - I'm not going to bother reading the rest of that paper, thanks anyway.
    ROFL You intrigued me enough to peak. Calling the division between the solar intercept area of the globe and a sphere's surface area an "artificial coefficient." The author either failed high school geometry or assumes his readership did. Like you that was quite enough reading.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    ROFL You intrigued me enough to peak. Calling the division between the solar intercept area of the globe and a sphere's surface area an "artificial coefficient." The author either failed high school geometry or assumes his readership did. Like you that was quite enough reading.
    The 1/4 power relationship is real in a linear system. However, there is the fourth power function involved that will not translate properly when using the simplified 1/4 power. The paper doesn't say that directly, but it is something I realized when I read it. It throws the entire math off to treat the average energy to temperature equations that way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,342
    Dude, it's simple geometry comparing areas, yet he tried to wrap it up in his pretend coefficient of thermal radiation, and coeficient of solar radiation by the atmosphere and claim that's why the answer is 0.25. Quite honestly if he doesn't understand the that 1/4 is entirely based on the geometry area of difference between a circle and a sphere than the rest is garbage. It also has nothing do with the 4th power terms of Stefen-Bolzmann law.
    ==

    Might as well mention the last part as well. This appears the be the lawsuit over the research done more than ten years ago. I completely understand the request for money, data recovery from computer data that old is going to take a lot of labor. I hope they don't just put some grad students onto it. It's also rather meaningless because there are now more than a dozen other proxies which all confirm the original conclusions. I don't what kind of organization the American Tradition Institute is but this article doesn't bode well for its intellectual honesty when it claims:
    this notorious ‘Hockey Stick’ graph disappeared from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Reports,, when it's so easy to see that the Hockey stick is not only still there in the 4th IPCC but much more certain (below). The 5th IPCC report will likely show it in even more detail as we've since had the warmest decade in the past 2000 years. So we can keep an open mind, but when the first link claims back radiation, which is supposed to be vital to the AGW argument but doesn't' produce a single paper to affirm that (because it isn't); the 2nd which introduced made up coefficients to try to refute 1st week intro to climate geometry and than has an entire non-published paper of pseudo-scientific math (to dazzle the ignorant), and the 3rd which echoes the ridiculous claim that the IPCC has dropped Mann's hockey stick...well you can accept this stuff, learn a bit about climate science, or just expected to be ignored by anyone who knows even a bit about the subject.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; October 2nd, 2011 at 05:06 AM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    723
    Yeah, deceptive Agw practices by Principia-scientific.org, by the American Traditions Institute and ClimateRealists.com !

    These are not anywhere near being the equals of the US National Academy of Sciences or NOAA or any serious scientific organisation - just hype and spin on top of denier insinuations. Not science. As ships ply the Northwest Passage, as ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica accelerates, after the warmest decade on record (following on from the previous warmest and the next previous warmest) we have plenty of real word evidence for a warming world. Arguing the satellite data showing warming must be wrong won't make it stop. It's not like the satellite data is in deep disagreement with other measures; arguing that the instruments measuring temperatures must be wrong because those using them don't understand what they are measuring doesn't do it. Poor Roy, to be attacked by his own side for data that is quite well in accordance with other independent measures. On top of all the criticism of his methods in his recent paper! And the hockey stick? Mann, that's been examined a hundred ways and not found wanting, followed in fact by more graphs showing the same exceptional warming of recent times - because it is exceptional. Vindicated over and over in fact. But flogging a dead horse is a climate denial org specialty.

    The climate science consensus got there legitimately, the hard way and the efforts of orgs like those linked to to bypass all that research and maths and modelling and stuff and go straight to telling us what they want us to believe deserve criticism - and for their part in helping to delay and water down all reasonable efforts to deal with the climate problem, deserve condemnation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra View Post
    There have been numerous "deniers" of the AGW sciences.
    remember, science is not a democracy - you can't prove something based on the fact that a lot of people believe it to be true
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra View Post
    There have been numerous "deniers" of the AGW sciences.
    remember, science is not a democracy - you can't prove something based on the fact that a lot of people believe it to be true
    The AGW crowd seems to think so. It is they who use the words "consensus" and "settled."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    remember, science is not a democracy - you can't prove something based on the fact that a lot of people believe it to be true
    The AGW crowd seems to think so. It is they who use the words "consensus" and "settled."
    you make it sound as if the consensus was achieved by doing a simple head count
    consensus is achieved when the theory in question is seen to explain the relevant facts to the satisfaction of the practitioners of that field
    it may still prove to be wrong, but when large numbers of practitioners look at the same set of facts and agree independently that one explanation is the best, then chances are that this is indeed the case

    the conspiracy theories of the anti-AGW crowd not only sound hollow in this respect (since the majority of them are not practitioners but dilletantes), but they imply (falsely, imo) that all climate practitioners are corrupt
    Bunbury likes this.
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    LORD Black appears to be a controversial figure:

    Conrad Black - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •