AGW: atmospheric physics

[Saigon]

Ilar -

Yes, again, when research is paid for, perhaps 15% of researchers would skew results. (We have seen that in climate science with some of the 'studies' the oil industry funded in the past, before realising they had no case.)

This is why the majority of research is NOT funded on a per-project basis., so that manipulation of results is simply not possible.

WTF? Of course it's possible.

What a ridiculous thing for you to say.

If you know that your funding comes from "the" government which has some goddamn interest in furthering the fantasy of AGW, then you are far more likely to skew your methodologies and "findings" to suit your "masters." Well, at least if you want more of that bulk-funding from "the" government next time around.

No, it is not possible, and nor is it something that could really be disputed.

This is not a matter of opinion - as I said earlier, any honest person who knows how university funding works will agree. It really is as simple as that.

It is absolutely impossible for a government to 'buy' research, which is exactly why the system exists in the first place. It is IMPOSSIBLE.

I'm more than happy to explain in whatever detail you like.

 

[Saigon]

How stupid must one be in order to actually believe that funding bias or outright fraud can't happen in academia.

Please post honestly - no one said any such thng.

Of course fraud can exist within academia - but only where research is funded on a per-project basis, or where the university is selling the results to a particular client.

Bulk-funded research very clearly can not be skewed, because there is no link between the funding and the decision on what to research, nor between funding and the end users of the results.

I am sure you understand this, because I've explained it so much in the past....but can you be honest about it? I don't think you can, myself.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Ilar -

Yes, again, when research is paid for, perhaps 15% of researchers would skew results. (We have seen that in climate science with some of the 'studies' the oil industry funded in the past, before realising they had no case.)

This is why the majority of research is NOT funded on a per-project basis., so that manipulation of results is simply not possible.

WTF? Of course it's possible.

What a ridiculous thing for you to say.

If you know that your funding comes from "the" government which has some goddamn interest in furthering the fantasy of AGW, then you are far more likely to skew your methodologies and "findings" to suit your "masters." Well, at least if you want more of that bulk-funding from "the" government next time around.

No, it is not possible, and nor is it something that could really be disputed.

This is not a matter of opinion - as I said earlier, any honest person who knows how university funding works will agree. It really is as simple as that.

It is absolutely impossible for a government to 'buy' research, which is exactly why the system exists in the first place. It is IMPOSSIBLE.

I'm more than happy to explain in whatever detail you like.

No. Not only is it not "impossible," it is flatly ridiculous to make that absurd baseless silly claim.

Further, you are arguing a straw man of sorts. The question is not whether there is any effort to "buy" the research. The question is whether the "scientists" might not permit their ultimate conclusions and even their methodologies to be influenced by their perceived interests in keeping the fund-ers happy.

 

[Saigon]

Ilar -

Well, I know this for 100% certain fact. I live with this every day. I KNOW this to be true, without reservation.

It seems to me that the entire basis of Denialism is this massive socialist conspiracy - which was patently ridiculous to anyone who knows how universities work in most of the countries where research is done.

If you don't understand any aspects of how this works - just ask away.

 

[SSDD]

If you don't understand any aspects of how this works - just ask away.

Given that you lie about everything, why would anyone ask you anything?

 

[IanC]

Saigon - if consensus held a different view would you still just be agreeing with it?

Marcott is a fine example. His PhD thesis was a simple temp reconstruction. He is having his 15 minutes of fame because he reworked it to have a temp spike at the end, using dubious methods. No conspiracy theory but why did he step over the line?

 

[SSDD]

Saigon - if consensus held a different view would you still just be agreeing with it?

Marcott is a fine example. His PhD thesis was a simple temp reconstruction. He is having his 15 minutes of fame because he reworked it to have a temp spike at the end, using dubious methods. No conspiracy theory but why did he step over the line?

Ne is a relatively new PhD. He needs to assure future funding. He wants to live in a stylish neighborhood and perhaps drive a beemer. Future funding assures that and in his mind, what is stepping over a line if it puts him in like flynt with the hockey team?

 

[RollingThunder]

If you don't understand any aspects of how this works - just ask away.

Given that you lie about everything, why would anyone ask you anything?

You should more properly and accurately be asking yourself that question. Everyone knows that you lie constantly. You have no credibility whatsoever.

 

[SSDD]

The fact that you make the claim would vindicate me even if it were true. Being the mentally unbalanced sort yourself who will tell any sort of lie if you believe it will boost your need for self esteem at any cost, the claim means exactly nothing.

You get more pitiful all the time. Your feelings of intimidation and inferiority rule your life and make you completely irrational. Seek help. You don't have to live that way.

 

[RollingThunder]

The topic of this thread is...

"AGW: Atmospheric Physics"

...so here it is, one picture is worth a thousand words...

Now, for a pretty clear and detailed description of the atmospheric physics of anthropogenic global warming and a better explanation of the chart above, read this:

Physics of the Greenhouse Effect Pt 1

 

[westwall]

The topic of this thread is...

"AGW: Atmospheric Physics"

...so here it is, one picture is worth a thousand words...

Now, for a pretty clear and detailed description of the atmospheric physics of anthropogenic global warming and a better explanation of the chart above, read this:

Physics of the Greenhouse Effect Pt 1

Ando your cute little graphic doesn't address the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I wonder why...

 

[RollingThunder]

The topic of this thread is...

"AGW: Atmospheric Physics"

...so here it is, one picture is worth a thousand words...

Now, for a pretty clear and detailed description of the atmospheric physics of anthropogenic global warming and a better explanation of the chart above, read this:

Physics of the Greenhouse Effect Pt 1

Ando your cute little graphic doesn't address the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I wonder why...

That's discussed in that article I cited, but you've already demonstrated many times that you have no understanding of what the second law of thermodynamics actually means and, frankly, I think you're way too retarded to ever grasp it.

 

[Saigon]

Saigon - if consensus held a different view would you still just be agreeing with it?

I would generally support scientific consensus, providing what I saw in the real world matched that science.

In this case I have seen the impact of melting glaciers, rising sea levels, drought and floods with my own eyes. Every country I go to people talk about how the weather has changed.

I went through Melbourne a few weeks ago - the previous week the country recorded its hottest EVER temperature, and Sydney its hottest ever temperature.

Hence, the science seems to fit the reality.

Given the Sceptic case seems to be built on a massive conspiracy that we know to be impossible, I don't find that theory attractice.

 

[Saigon]

Saigon - if consensus held a different view would you still just be agreeing with it?

Marcott is a fine example. His PhD thesis was a simple temp reconstruction. He is having his 15 minutes of fame because he reworked it to have a temp spike at the end, using dubious methods. No conspiracy theory but why did he step over the line?

Ne is a relatively new PhD. He needs to assure future funding. He wants to live in a stylish neighborhood and perhaps drive a beemer. Future funding assures that and in his mind, what is stepping over a line if it puts him in like flynt with the hockey team?

And here you are again presenting a "theory" you know is not true.

 

[westwall]

Saigon - if consensus held a different view would you still just be agreeing with it?

Marcott is a fine example. His PhD thesis was a simple temp reconstruction. He is having his 15 minutes of fame because he reworked it to have a temp spike at the end, using dubious methods. No conspiracy theory but why did he step over the line?

Ne is a relatively new PhD. He needs to assure future funding. He wants to live in a stylish neighborhood and perhaps drive a beemer. Future funding assures that and in his mind, what is stepping over a line if it puts him in like flynt with the hockey team?

And here you are again presenting a "theory" you know is not true.

And your theory is not reproduceable in a lab.

 

[westwall]

The topic of this thread is...

"AGW: Atmospheric Physics"

...so here it is, one picture is worth a thousand words...

Now, for a pretty clear and detailed description of the atmospheric physics of anthropogenic global warming and a better explanation of the chart above, read this:

Physics of the Greenhouse Effect Pt 1

Ando your cute little graphic doesn't address the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I wonder why...

That's discussed in that article I cited, but you've already demonstrated many times that you have no understanding of what the second law of thermodynamics actually means and, frankly, I think you're way too retarded to ever grasp it.

Yeah, just not properly.

 

[SSDD]

The topic of this thread is...

"AGW: Atmospheric Physics"

...so here it is, one picture is worth a thousand words...

Cute picture. Which childrens' work of fiction did it come from.

Here is your chance to actually discuss the topic as you have so often claimed to be able to do. What do you want to bet that you can't?

We can measure the amount of radiation reaching the surface of the earth from the sun. We have been able to do it for quite some time now. According to your picture, twice as much radiation is reaching the surface of the earth as is coming in from the sun. Why can't we measure that radiation at ambient temperature even though it is a greater amount of radiation than is coming in from the sun?

 

[polarbear]

The topic of this thread is...

"AGW: Atmospheric Physics"

...so here it is, one picture is worth a thousand words...

Cute picture. Which childrens' work of fiction did it come from.

Here is your chance to actually discuss the topic as you have so often claimed to be able to do. What do you want to bet that you can't?

We can measure the amount of radiation reaching the surface of the earth from the sun. We have been able to do it for quite some time now. According to your picture, twice as much radiation is reaching the surface of the earth as is coming in from the sun. Why can't we measure that radiation at ambient temperature even though it is a greater amount of radiation than is coming in from the sun?

That`s because we are not dealing with photons as in regular physics.
Each one of those is a single quantum of energy and can do only so much..
Any molecule that absorbs a normal physics-photon looses (heat) energy when it re-emits a normal physics photon.
But not so with AGW climatology-photons
These are an inexhaustible source of power.
Each one radiates from black body, then heats up the CO2 molecule that absorbed it..then it gets re-emitted from that hot CO2 molecule and heats the next molecule while the molecule that emitted the climatology-photon stays as hot as it got when it absorbed a climatology photon...

 

[IanC]

Saigon - if consensus held a different view would you still just be agreeing with it?

Marcott is a fine example. His PhD thesis was a simple temp reconstruction. He is having his 15 minutes of fame because he reworked it to have a temp spike at the end, using dubious methods. No conspiracy theory but why did he step over the line?

Ne is a relatively new PhD. He needs to assure future funding. He wants to live in a stylish neighborhood and perhaps drive a beemer. Future funding assures that and in his mind, what is stepping over a line if it puts him in like flynt with the hockey team?

And here you are again presenting a "theory" you know is not true.

saigon- was that your answer to my question?

Marcott changed his PhD thesis so that the last hundred years shows an uptick. he did so by using dubious methods (redating published proxies) to remove negative proxies and extend positive proxies into the present. so far he is being shy with producing answers to the pointed questions being asked about his methodology.

Marcott's thesis received little attention until it was reworked to give an uptick in present times and his new paper has now received much media attention and sure IPCC AR5 citations if it can avoid being retracted. he has gambled away some of his integrity for the chance of being a star in CAGW if only his paper can last long enough to make it into AR5. Gergis failed, but there is still a chance for Marcott. I bet he was hoping McIntyre would stay away a bit longer.

I asked whether you would just accept consensus no matter what, was for a reason. consensus could easily still be natural factors with a smidge of manmade warming. there is a lot of 'play' in proxy reconstructions, temperature database adjustments, satellite measurements, etc. if climate scientists were getting praised and rewarded for finding natural causes, then they would find natural causes. lol, their models would work a hell of a lot better as well!

Mann pulled a swindle with the hockey stick graph and was handsomely rewarded. climategate and the release of more and more data, proxy or otherwise, has made it tougher to ram through inferior papers by 'pal review'. without the manufactured catastrophe via wildly exaggerated conclusions from faulty papers and sychophantic media attention, AGW will return to the small problem it is.

 

[Saigon]

Iac -

I haven't read Marcott, so aren't going to attempt to discuss the man.

I asked whether you would just accept consensus no matter what, was for a reason.

And I answered that I would accept scientific consenus as long as it matched my firsthand experience of climate. In any situation where the scientific community were so sure, I'd be reluctant to dismiss their claims as lightly as many posters do here, but were scientific opinion to clash with my own experience of the world, I'd probably remain neutral.

I have no political opinion on the science, because I don't think it is a political topic. If the evidence I see around me and scientific opinion shift, I can't imagine not wanting to shift my own position as well.