Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
... the one he amusingly refers to as "irrelevant." LOL

If the paper actually discussed the how and why of those figures, rather than just using them to feed through as statisical analysis, then yes, it would have been a relevant paper.

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote:

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Yeah, youre right;

So, after posting about this paper three times about how it was supposedly "only dealing with aerosols" you finally realize that you missed the subject by miles? How in the world could you have read that paper and come up with something so way off-base, as to what it was about....

Im affraid that was sarcasm. The point was: this paper is irrelevant to this discussion.

lol ... "sarcasm." Awesome attempt to cover-up your obvious lack of comprehension! You implied that you read the paper and then came back to this thread multiple times suggesting that it was "just discussing aerosols," when it most certainly is not.

I guess you won't even accept the fact that you're wrong when your mistake is clearly pointed out? Maybe we'll continue this discussion when you're not going to blatantly delude yourself. (In case that doesn't happen, then ... I think it's been an interesting discussion with you all the same.)

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Can you show me 'papers supporting climate change'? I wouldnt know where to find them.

There are lots of papers dealing with small pieces of the puzzle; they generally tend to seem genuine. Genuine, and unexciting.

Quote: Original post by Eelco
If the paper actually discussed the how and why of those figures, rather than just using them to feed through as statisical analysis, then yes, it would have been a relevant paper.

I thought you wanted a paper which "brings it all together", so to speak. First you complain that there's only papers which deal with pieces of the puzzle now you're complaining that this paper doesn't talk about the little pieces of the puzzle... you're not going to find a paper which starts from "first principles" and comes all the way to the conculsion "therefore global warming is caused by humans" - it'd be a million pages long!

Where are the medical papers that talk about treating brain tumors using first principles of anatomy and chemistry?

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote:

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Yeah, youre right;

So, after posting about this paper three times about how it was supposedly "only dealing with aerosols" you finally realize that you missed the subject by miles? How in the world could you have read that paper and come up with something so way off-base, as to what it was about....

Im affraid that was sarcasm. The point was: this paper is irrelevant to this discussion.

lol ... "sarcasm" Awesome attempt to cover-up your obvious lack of comprehension! You implied that you read the paper and then came back to this thread multiple times suggesting that it was "just discussing aerosols," when it most certainly is not.

I guess you won't even accept the fact that you're wrong when your mistake is clearly pointed out? Maybe we'll continue this discussion when you're not going to blatantly delude yourself.

My level of comprehension turned out to be sufficient; I scanned it for relevancy to this discussion, and found none. Not by reading the conclusions (which are mainly concerned with the effect of aerosols), and not by reading the entire article.

My sarcasm didnt mean to imply my summary wasnt off; it was. My sarcasm was sparked by the irony of you still not having a point.


Meta-discussions aside; do you have a defense of those computational models and their outcomes, that isnt a blatant appeal to authority?

Quote: Original post by Eelco
My level of comprehension turned out to be sufficient; I scanned it for relevancy to this discussion, and found none.

Still deluding yourself, I see. You told us that the paper was about something that it was not. Likely even laymen can look at the graph I posted above and figure out that the paper certainly IS relevant to this discussion on global warming. Bottom line: you were wrong.

Meh...I'll check back on you and your ego later.

[Edited by - HostileExpanse on December 17, 2009 5:44:39 PM]

Quote: Original post by Codeka

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Can you show me 'papers supporting climate change'? I wouldnt know where to find them.

There are lots of papers dealing with small pieces of the puzzle; they generally tend to seem genuine. Genuine, and unexciting.

Quote: Original post by Eelco
If the paper actually discussed the how and why of those figures, rather than just using them to feed through as statisical analysis, then yes, it would have been a relevant paper.

I thought you wanted a paper which "brings it all together", so to speak. First you complain that there's only papers which deal with pieces of the puzzle now you're complaining that this paper doesn't talk about the little pieces of the puzzle... you're not going to find a paper which starts from "first principles" and comes all the way to the conculsion "therefore global warming is caused by humans" - it'd be a million pages long!

Where are the medical papers that talk about treating brain tumors using first principles of anatomy and chemistry?

I think this sums up what has been going for 2 pages (since I challenged him to pick a paper and rebut it):

In any case, the data used in the paper we were discussing is clearly cited, and is compiled from a lengthy, but easily accessible source. If that's all he wants, maybe he'll quit with the useless "they're just leaping to conclusions" accusations, and deliver us an actual rebuttal soon!

Quote: Original post by Codeka

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Can you show me 'papers supporting climate change'? I wouldnt know where to find them.

There are lots of papers dealing with small pieces of the puzzle; they generally tend to seem genuine. Genuine, and unexciting.

Quote: Original post by Eelco
If the paper actually discussed the how and why of those figures, rather than just using them to feed through as statisical analysis, then yes, it would have been a relevant paper.

I thought you wanted a paper which "brings it all together", so to speak. First you complain that there's only papers which deal with pieces of the puzzle now you're complaining that this paper doesn't talk about the little pieces of the puzzle... you're not going to find a paper which starts from "first principles" and comes all the way to the conculsion "therefore global warming is caused by humans" - it'd be a million pages long!

Where are the medical papers that talk about treating brain tumors using first principles of anatomy and chemistry?

Agreed, the paper is a link between individual components and a numerical conclusion; in that sense it fits my request. But as for the actual content of the paper; it mostly deals with a statistical technicality for performing such a calculation; something I will readily assume has been done correctly.

There is probably plenty to discuss about the data employed in their analysis, and the assumptions that go into them, but this paper per se doesnt deal with that directly. Like I said, some of the references seem like they could lead somewhere interesting.

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
In any case, the data used in the paper we were discussing is clearly cited, and is compiled from a lengthy, but easily accessible source. If that's all he wants, maybe he'll quit with the useless "they're just leaping to conclusions" accusations, and deliver us an actual rebuttal soon!

Ive checked out some references, and it seems too much to delve into right now. That said; one assumption that is easily challenged here is the question of whether or not all factors are included in this analysis. Aside from generally possibly unidentified factors; movement of a dynamic system doesnt need an immediate cause; transient dynamic effects are not accounted for. Maybe temperature is not going up because the sun says so, or CO2 does, but simply because thats the way the pendulum of this dynamic system is swinging. That possibility is not accounted for here. [edit]The authors readily admit asmuch: 'While analysis of climate variability and of temperature records suggests that the total RF is indeed positive, such arguments involve a degree of circular reasoning and assume that our understanding of RF mechanisms, climate sensitivity and climate response is complete' (quite a stretch, given our poor ability to reconstruct the past). Note that these considerations are not reflected in the final numerical outputs; the ones that make it into an IPCC summary.[/edit]

But granted, its not much. Ill give this one to you. But the computational model, you clearly lost. 1-1, it is.

[update]

I had missed this:

Quote: In particular, we have excluded the second aerosol indirect effect from our analysis because too little is known about it. Since this RF is believed to be negative, its inclusion would increase the probability for a total negative RF

'believed to be negative'. A rather cautious statement for a quantity with its entire error bar in the negative. And also, it kindof makes these results worthless, since this negative feedback may be as large as the entire estimated CO2 forcing; quite something to exclude.

Thats basically the old 'we dont understand clouds' in more technical language. We dont understand clouds, their added cooling effect is probably huge; so lets exclude them.

Ok.

[Edited by - Eelco on December 17, 2009 4:16:11 PM]

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
In any case, the data used in the paper we were discussing is clearly cited, and is compiled from a lengthy, but easily accessible source. If that's all he wants, maybe he'll quit with the useless "they're just leaping to conclusions" accusations, and deliver us an actual rebuttal soon!

Ive checked out some references, and it seems too much to delve into right now. That said; one assumption that is easily challenged here is the question of whether or not all factors are included in this analysis. Aside from generally possibly unidentified factors; movement of a dynamic system doesnt need an immediate cause; transient dynamic effects are not accounted for. Maybe temperature is not going up because the sun says so, or CO2 does, but simply because thats the way the pendulum of this dynamic system is swinging. That possibility is not accounted for here.

But granted, its not much. Ill give this one to you.

Interesting. Seems there is hope for this line of discussion. I hope to revisit it when you have time. (I realize the underlying citation to Ramaswamy is involved and lengthy.)

-----------------

Quote: Original post by Eelco
But the computational model, you clearly lost. 1-1, it is.

Well ... I suppose if we revisit that topic, I should try to clear up that paper a bit for you.

I believe the criteria by which you judged the failure of that paper's strength lay in this earlier criticism:

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Actually, im not impressed at all by their trends (as I elaborated on previously). Not even all models predict the first-order trend. And thats a ridiculously low bar to beat. Again, none of these models recreated both the 1940 and 2000 optima.

I feel compelled to point out that the topic of the paper explains why the peaks at 1940 and 2000 are not recreated -- the entire point of the paper was that anthropogenic factors were significant beginning around 1950. From the abstract:

Comparison of index trends in observations and model simulations shows that North American temperature changes from 1950 to 1999 were unlikely to be due to natural climate variation alone. Observed trends over this period are consistent with simulations that include anthropogenic forcing from increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols. However, most of the observed warming from 1900 to 1949 was likely due to natural climate variation.

The point of the paper is to discuss a possible distinction between the period from 1900-1950, and the period from 1950-2000. Your criticism about the peaks at both 1940 and 2000 not being recreated does not damage the paper's assertions.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
On the subject of "cherry picking" has anyone else seen this?

Speaking of cherry picking, why didn't you link directly to the original blog post? Some Historical Perspective

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
For climate science it means that the Hockey Team climatologists’ insistence that human-emitted CO2 is the only thing that could account for the recent warming trend is probably poppycock.

Is only looking at the last 500 years any less cherry picking than the last 8 years in this context?

For all your focus on which years are examined, you have missed the obvious flaw in the conclusion you claim to agree with. Hall says things about CO2 in his conclusion that the body of his post doesn't support. The body of his post is about temperatures, not CO2, yet he concludes with bold attack on CO2. If the intent was to refute the claim "that human-emitted CO2 is the only thing that could account for the recent warming trend" he should have stated it up front instead of meandering over some recollection that only his wife and close friends care about. Instead he examines temperature trends during the Holocene and even though the trends suggest to him that we are more likely heading towards an ice age, he doesn't attempt to explain the recent uptick, he just assumes that CO2 has nothing to do with it.