Re: [asa] Data doesn't support global warming

From: Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
Date: Sun Dec 13 2009 - 23:29:53 EST

Hi Glenn,

I wasn't actually arguing that your position is wrong, far less conflating global circulation (is your keyboard broken?) models and simple radiation escape. What I was doing was pointing out what I thought the assumption might be.

As regards explaining why everywhere but North America has cooled (presuming to be the case) - well, if it's so simple then I'd invite you to go ahead and explain it. "Miracle" is, remember, not an option.

Blessings,
Murray

> Hi Murray
>
>
>> Whether the assumption is correct or not is moot, but it appears to be
>> this: the global temperature >system is as simple as the temperature
>> system in the interior of a car.
>>
>> Perhaps this is not altogether the case?
>
> The global weather system is not simple. The outflow of radiative heat
> IS simple. Radiation is not affected by atmospheric circulation as
> radiation works at the speed of light, not the speed of the wind which
> is much slower. Radiation cares not which way the winds are blowing. You
> are conflating global CIRCULATION models, which ARE complex with simple
> radiation escape.
>
> Just for your information, my first YEC article eventually brought an
> admission from ICR that the water vapor canopy was untenable. It took 10
> years. That work was based on radiative heat transfer through a
> greenhouse gas (in that case, water), so I have some experience in that
> area and know that that problem is simple. Calculating wind currents isn't
>
> I frankly find the 'global temperature is complex' to be one of those
> psychological escape clauses. If you can say that anything I present is
> too complex, therefore you don't have to pay attention to anything I
> present, you have a perfect out to every single argument anyone can
> present. Epistemologically it is no different than when a YEC is
> presented with a problem which he can't solve, claims a miracle by God
> to escape the problem. I would say that if the system is so complex that
> no objection can be entertained, then it is too complex for you to claim
> to know that the temperature of the world has risen. The system is
> either simple enough to understand or not, for both sides.
>
> One final thing, Please explain why CO2 doesn't work for 100 years to
> warm Octobers over the US??? Everyone wants to avoid that very very big
> problem by totally ignoring it or as Randy did, minimize its areal
> impact. If we are going to discuss data, it should go like this. I post
> data, you tell me why the data is wrong, specifically either
> observationally, theoretically or logically. Saying it is complex is
> not one of the above. Claiming complexity is nothing more than
> proclaiming a miracle.
>
> In climate progress, Iain probably correctly, chided John Wally for not
> reading Michael Mann's defense. I have read it. And a couple of things
> stand out for me.
>
> Thanks Phil,
> (Tom: Congrats again!)
> The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn't have cleared a 'legitimate' peer
> review process
> anywhere. That leaves only one possibility--that the peer-review process
> at Climate
> Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board..
> Mann claims:
> " I support the publication of "skeptical" papers that meet the basic
> standards of scientific quality and merit."
> http://www.desmogblog.com/michael-mann-his-own-words-stolen-cru-emails
>
> Such self-serving on his part
>
>>>> From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
> mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas
> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:14:49 -0500
> Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,jto@u.arizona.edu,drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
> keith.alverson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,jto@u.arizona.edu,
> mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>
> Thanks Phil,
> (Tom: Congrats again!)
> The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn't have cleared a 'legitimate' peer
> review process
> anywhere. That leaves only one possibility--that the peer-review process
> at Climate
> Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And
> it isn't just De
> Frietas, unfortunately I think this group also includes a member of my
> own department...
> The skeptics appear to have staged a 'coup' at "Climate Research" (it
> was a mediocre
> journal to begin with, but now its a mediocre journal with a definite
> 'purpose').
> http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=295&filename=1047388489.txt<<<
>
> And he tried to keep the BBC from publishing skeptical views
>>>> Michael Mann wrote:
>
> extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its
> particularly odd,
> since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a
> great job). from
> what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
>
> We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be
> appropriate for
> the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black
> what's up here?
>
> mike<<<
> http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=295&filename=1047388489.txt
>
>
> Clearly he was trying to deep six alternative views.
>
> One final thing. I posted on my blog tonight on a climate model they ran
> for AR4. The output data was in one of the emails. I plotted it. Guess
> what, it shows cooling but what was published in the AR4 shows something
> entirely different. Wonder why? http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com or
> for just that post
> http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/2009/12/climatological-hot-air-and-hypocrisy.html
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Dec 13 23:30:23 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 13 2009 - 23:30:23 EST