Challenge to the Skeptics: What's Your Theory?

[IanC]

We can all agree that James Hasen is likely smarter then anyone that post within the environmental area of this forum. Right?


B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa
M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa
Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa

He seems to be willing to pervert science for money.

Still wanna claim he's credible?

Admit that he is a smart man that likely understands the science. Sure he might be perverting it, but you have to be a smart sob to do what he is doing if so.

there are lots of scientists that have produced good work but slipped over the edge. Hansen has decided that his environmental issues are more important than scientific integrity, and so he has shaded work to support his noble cause. understandable but sad that other scientists arent a little more outspoken on it.

 

[wirebender]

Damn, Bentwire, you are about a dumb ass. One of the leading climatologists in the world, if not the leading climatologist;

Leading climatologist? What is that supposed to mean to me? Head high priest? Leading wizzard? Best pack man player, what? Climate science is a joke rocks and claiming to be hte best joke on earth is hardly an honor. The man and his team are frauds.

It is interesting to see you moisten your panties over him though. I guess if you are in a position where the best you can manage is fallacious appeals to authority, you do what you can.

Hansen doesn't show his basic work either. His work is built on assumptions and dodges around the fundamental laws of nature which his work ignores, and he never discusses which laws of physics support or predict his claims.

 

[wirebender]

We can all agree that James Hasen is likely smarter then anyone that post within the environmental area of this forum. Right?

We can agree that he is probably more dishonest than anyone posting on thise forum. If he hasn't fabricated his CV in the same maner he fabricates whatever he sees necessary to keep the grant money rolling in, then he knows that what he is preaching is fraud.

 

[wirebender]

Phil jones and Michael mann ranks pretty close to to Hansen.

So they are deliberate frauds. Certainly not the first but most definately largely responsible for the biggest hoax ever perpetrated.

 

[wirebender]

Can't help myself.. Gotta respond to the BentWire:

Name calling. I like it. When one is frustrated over an inability to prove a point, one calls names. Old rocks will get a kick out of your use of his particular pejorative for me.

For a guy who mindlessly badgers others about scientific method and proofs and process --even when they have no idea of the ability of whom they are lecturing

Exactly what indications have you given of your ability? You haven't discussed any physical law that predicts your claims. You repeat endlesly that CO2 can retain energy, which it can't. What am I supposed to gather regarding your abilities?

1) Please stop asserting this.. I've not made any such remark and indeed I've notified you of that.

When you make the claim that the cooler atmosphere can heat up the warmer earth, math is required if you expect to be taken seriously.

Really? That's odd. You said precisely that here:

Of course it's gonna re-radiate some of it. Maybe MOST of it at IR wavelengths. That's the "TRANSMISSION Quotient" shown in the graph. The question isn't how much filtering protection the CO2 offers from the sun's rays, but it's ability to deflect EM (IR) radiation FROM the surface -- back TO the surface or directed downwards in the atmosphere. OR to retain heat in the molecules themselves from either incident sunlight or surface reflected IR.

2) me thinks you're confusing EM IR radiation with heat because you make the following statement using BOTH interchangeably.

in spite of the presence of more atmospheric CO2 because CO2 does not absorb and retain IR.

You going to argue that IR isn't thermal radiation? And since we are talking warming here, I assumed that there would be no nitpicking over a word choice that conveys the same meaning but is in the more common language. Heat is, after all the energy that is conveyed from a warm object to a cooler object. Did I make any spelling errors or use incorrect punctuation?

to find the heat capacity of CO2 -- right there in front of your face.. See .8444 Kjoule/kg-degK. That's your mantra for tonight. Compare it to other gases you find the table. That's the key to understanding the real reason for those satellite results and what else to look for to confirm them.

Did you even notice that the magical mystical heat capacity of CO2 is 83% of the heat capacity of air? It is less than 6% of hydrogen, less than nitrogen or oxygen.

And specific heat does not speak to a gas's capacity to store heat. Specific heat only refers to the amount of constant heat required to raise the temperature of one kilo of the gas by one degree. Turn off the heat and the gas goes right back to its original temperature. No lag time as would be the case with water vapor because no heat is retained.

In short, specific heat is nothing more than a particular substance's ability to absorb heat. It doesn't speak at all to that substance's ability or inability to retain heat. CO2 can not, does not, never has, nor never will be able to trap and retain heat. No argument has been made regarding the fact that it absorbs heat. It most certanly does. It does not, however trap, retain, or store it. It emits precisely the same amount of heat that it absorbs.

From your engineer's toolbox:

"The specific heat represents the amount of energy required to raise 1 kg by 1oC, and can be thought of as the ability of a substance to absorb heat. Therefore the SI units of specific heat capacity are kJ/kg K (kJ/kg oC). Water has a very large specific heat capacity (4.19 kJ/kg oC) compared with many fluids."

Absorption and retention are two very different things.

absorb - physics - to take in (all or part of incident radiated energy) and retain the part that is not reflected or transmitted

In the case of CO2, the exact amount of energy that is absorbed is transmitted.

retain - to keep possession of.

The bottom line is that you are making assumptions that simply aren't valid. You seen to believe that because a gas can absorb radiation, that somehow that means that it can hold on to some of that radiation. It doesn't. I have ever argued that CO2 doesn't absorb IR. It is that fact that got the gas the name greenhouse gas. Unlike a greenhouse though, CO2 can not store, retain, or trap energy. It is a conduit. Energy in, exactly the same amount of energy out. Specific heat only refers to the amount of heat (constantly applied) to warm a given amount of the substance by 1 degree. Turn off the heat and it returns to its former temperature at the speed of light because that is the speed at which it is emitting any radiation that it absorbs.

 

[ScienceRocks]

We can all agree that James Hasen is likely smarter then anyone that post within the environmental area of this forum. Right?

We can agree that he is probably more dishonest than anyone posting on thise forum. If he hasn't fabricated his CV in the same maner he fabricates whatever he sees necessary to keep the grant money rolling in, then he knows that what he is preaching is fraud.

Maybe true, no doubting it, but a PHD in Physics is about as hard core science as you can get on this planet. He has to be lieing to us knowing full well that it is bull shit.

 

[asterism]

Looks to me like Dr. Hansen's qualifications are exceptional for the field he is in. In fact, I should post a number of the leading climatologists bona fides just to show what a lie you fellows engage in.

Hansen's pretty good at breaking Federal ethics guidelines, too. You'd think he'd put that on his CV.

We can all agree that James Hasen is likely smarter then anyone that post within the environmental area of this forum. Right?


B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa
M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa
Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa

So Phil Jones and Michael Mann aren't the leading climate scientists anymore?

Phil jones and Michael mann ranks pretty close to to Hansen.

Philip D. Jones (born 1952) is a climatologist at the University of East Anglia, where he works as a Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences. Jones holds a BA in Environmental Sciences from the University of Lancaster, and an MSc and PhD from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne.[citation needed] Jones has spent his entire career with East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU).[1]

Michael Mann
Education A.B. applied mathematics and physics (1989), MS physics (1991), MPhil physics (1991), MPhil geology (1993), PhD geology & geophysics (1998)[1]

Michael E. Mann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These people are at the top of there fucking game people. You that say they don't know physics are wrong. You don't get PHD's in Physics without knowing it.

Impressive credentials and I do believe they have the acquired knowledge to understand the scientific principles. I do not believe they have the academic training to understand statistics and software engineering, and without that knowledge they cannot program an effective model nor can they direct a programmer to construct variables of the proper type in order to generate accurate results.

Various releases of source code used show errors in data integrity, improper substitutions of derived data for empirical data (it compounds rounding errors), and a lack of regression analysis.

Here's an example of an extremely amateur mistake in Hansen's released code:

Here is the kind of thing that bothers me:

GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/USHCN2v2.f:

if(temp.gt.-99.00) itemp(m)=nint( 50.*(temp-32.)/9 ) ! F->.1C

– Sinan

Now, why does that bother me? There are a number of reasons.

Let’s say we have 42.0 F. Convert that using the code above, we get 56 tenths C. Now, convert it back to F, what do we get? 42.08 — I am assuming that becomes 42.1 F.

Further, if I had started out with 42.1 F, I would have gotten the same Celsius value.

source

So this routine that converts temperatures from Fahrenheit to Celsius is only accurate to a tenth of a degree. That's hardly accurate enough.

 

[wirebender]

Maybe true, no doubting it, but a PHD in Physics is about as hard core science as you can get on this planet. He has to be lieing to us knowing full well that it is bull shit.

Would he be the first to lie for money? The 10,000th? The millionth?

 

[Old Rocks]

God, what a bunch of retards. Lying for money? Who has the billions and billions of dollars to lie for? Scientists? Are you joking. What companies have billions in profits per quarter, profits put in danger if the public decides their product is dangerous to our maintaining our fine lives in the present environment?

You fellows are flap-yaps in the service of people that would kill their own children for a profit.

 

[asterism]

I'd forgotten about this little nugget which I had personally verified a few years ago:

How does one get a monthly and yearly mean? A monthly mean should be an average of all readings over the month. Is a yearly mean an average of all the months? No. But Hansen's source code does just that.

Also, is a monthly or yearly mean an average of the recorded high and recorded low each day averaged by the number of days in the month? No. But that's how Hansen's computer program calculates it. He has other errors also.

GIStemp « Musings from the Chiefio

 

[RWatt]

Hansen's pretty good at breaking Federal ethics guidelines, too. You'd think he'd put that on his CV.

We can all agree that James Hasen is likely smarter then anyone that post within the environmental area of this forum. Right?


B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa
M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa
Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa

Phil jones and Michael mann ranks pretty close to to Hansen.

Philip D. Jones (born 1952) is a climatologist at the University of East Anglia, where he works as a Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences. Jones holds a BA in Environmental Sciences from the University of Lancaster, and an MSc and PhD from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne.[citation needed] Jones has spent his entire career with East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU).[1]

Michael Mann
Education A.B. applied mathematics and physics (1989), MS physics (1991), MPhil physics (1991), MPhil geology (1993), PhD geology & geophysics (1998)[1]

Michael E. Mann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These people are at the top of there fucking game people. You that say they don't know physics are wrong. You don't get PHD's in Physics without knowing it.

Impressive credentials and I do believe they have the acquired knowledge to understand the scientific principles. I do not believe they have the academic training to understand statistics and software engineering, and without that knowledge they cannot program an effective model nor can they direct a programmer to construct variables of the proper type in order to generate accurate results.

Various releases of source code used show errors in data integrity, improper substitutions of derived data for empirical data (it compounds rounding errors), and a lack of regression analysis.

Here's an example of an extremely amateur mistake in Hansen's released code:

Here is the kind of thing that bothers me:

GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/USHCN2v2.f:

if(temp.gt.-99.00) itemp(m)=nint( 50.*(temp-32.)/9 ) ! F->.1C

– Sinan

Now, why does that bother me? There are a number of reasons.

Let’s say we have 42.0 F. Convert that using the code above, we get 56 tenths C. Now, convert it back to F, what do we get? 42.08 — I am assuming that becomes 42.1 F.

Further, if I had started out with 42.1 F, I would have gotten the same Celsius value.

source

So this routine that converts temperatures from Fahrenheit to Celsius is only accurate to a tenth of a degree. That's hardly accurate enough.

Rounding errors work both ways though. In this case this rounding issue has been checked and indeed the rounding errors cancel out.

 

[Old Rocks]

Never mind that the only real scientists they had on their side made a really bad mistake by reversing signs on the drift of satellites, and bad mouthed Hansen and everybody else until their error was pointed out. Then their corrected tempertures were right in line with Hansen's and the rest.

That is why Dr. Spencer is now very careful with his data, another error, and he has lost credibility in the scientific community.

 

[RWatt]

I'd forgotten about this little nugget which I had personally verified a few years ago:

How does one get a monthly and yearly mean? A monthly mean should be an average of all readings over the month. Is a yearly mean an average of all the months? No. But Hansen's source code does just that.

Why isn't a yearly mean the average of all the months?

Also, is a monthly or yearly mean an average of the recorded high and recorded low each day averaged by the number of days in the month? No. But that's how Hansen's computer program calculates it. He has other errors also.

Hansen's computer program never touches daily temperature data. The input is station monthly averages from NOAA.

The monthly averages are converted to anomalies. Eg if the May 2011 mean temperature at a station is 4C and the average temprature of Mays over the period 1951-1980 is 3C then the May 2011 anomaly is +1C

The annual average is the average of all monthly anomalies in that year.

 

[IanC]

Never mind that the only real scientists they had on their side made a really bad mistake by reversing signs on the drift of satellites, and bad mouthed Hansen and everybody else until their error was pointed out. Then their corrected tempertures were right in line with Hansen's and the rest.

That is why Dr. Spencer is now very careful with his data, another error, and he has lost credibility in the scientific community.

you and edthecynic keep bringing that up yet I have never been able to find the incident told in anything like that fashion. care to hook me up with a link or two?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bernie Madoff was once head of NASDAQ

Ken Lay was CEO of Enron. Here his CV

"Early on, he moved to Columbia, Missouri and attended David H. Hickman High School and the University of Missouri where he studied economics, receiving a B.A. in 1964 and an M.A. in 1965. He served as president of the Zeta Phi chapter of the Beta Theta Pi fraternity at the University of Missouri. He went on to earn his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Houston in 1970 and soon after went to work at Exxon Mobil Corp., the successor to Humble Oil & Refining."

Kenneth Lay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[asterism]

We can all agree that James Hasen is likely smarter then anyone that post within the environmental area of this forum. Right?


B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa
M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa
Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa

Impressive credentials and I do believe they have the acquired knowledge to understand the scientific principles. I do not believe they have the academic training to understand statistics and software engineering, and without that knowledge they cannot program an effective model nor can they direct a programmer to construct variables of the proper type in order to generate accurate results.

Various releases of source code used show errors in data integrity, improper substitutions of derived data for empirical data (it compounds rounding errors), and a lack of regression analysis.

Here's an example of an extremely amateur mistake in Hansen's released code:

Here is the kind of thing that bothers me:

GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/USHCN2v2.f:

if(temp.gt.-99.00) itemp(m)=nint( 50.*(temp-32.)/9 ) ! F->.1C

– Sinan

Now, why does that bother me? There are a number of reasons.

Let’s say we have 42.0 F. Convert that using the code above, we get 56 tenths C. Now, convert it back to F, what do we get? 42.08 — I am assuming that becomes 42.1 F.

Further, if I had started out with 42.1 F, I would have gotten the same Celsius value.

source

So this routine that converts temperatures from Fahrenheit to Celsius is only accurate to a tenth of a degree. That's hardly accurate enough.

Rounding errors work both ways though. In this case this rounding issue has been checked and indeed the rounding errors cancel out.

Where was it checked and by whom? If the code produces the same result with two different values it is incorrect.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'd forgotten about this little nugget which I had personally verified a few years ago:

How does one get a monthly and yearly mean? A monthly mean should be an average of all readings over the month. Is a yearly mean an average of all the months? No. But Hansen's source code does just that.

Also, is a monthly or yearly mean an average of the recorded high and recorded low each day averaged by the number of days in the month? No. But that's how Hansen's computer program calculates it. He has other errors also.

GIStemp « Musings from the Chiefio

This is all good stuff asterism.. Makes February where the coldest temperatures reside shorted by 2 or 3 days.. And that accuracy in coding example that you gave. That's exactly why I contend that screaming partisians fighting over a ridiculous SINGLE NUMBER like "Global Mean Surface Temperature" is a disservice to the entire discussion. NO single number with all of the probable collection bias, measurement accuracy, processing errors, interpretation problems and the like is gonna be RELIABLE enough to decide the entire issue of climate change. Which just points out that Hansen like any other individual who is part of the study team relies on at LEAST 12 other disciplines to interpret and guide the science.

Here's the deal. Any scientific team appoints (formerly or informally) a spokeman for the research cause. The reason these folks are put forward to meet the public has very little to do with their total understanding of the technical details of the project. And in fact, I know that when you assume that role, you tend to lose touch with the heatbeat of the project and spend more time putting on suits and ties and eating at banquets - then in the lab in sweats and tennies with a box of cold pizza at midnight..

 

[RWatt]

It was checked here. The rounding method used in GISTEMP was replaced by floating point rounding:

Clear Climate Code » Blog Archive » On integers, floating-point numbers, and rounding

Global warming over the 20th century is not affected by the change.

 

[asterism]

I'd forgotten about this little nugget which I had personally verified a few years ago:

How does one get a monthly and yearly mean? A monthly mean should be an average of all readings over the month. Is a yearly mean an average of all the months? No. But Hansen's source code does just that.

Why isn't a yearly mean the average of all the months?

A year is 365.25 days long. February is 28 days long most of the time. That means February readings have more weight than January readings.

Also, is a monthly or yearly mean an average of the recorded high and recorded low each day averaged by the number of days in the month? No. But that's how Hansen's computer program calculates it. He has other errors also.

Hansen's computer program never touches daily temperature data. The input is station monthly averages from NOAA.

Correct, I misspoke. That's how the data Hansen's computer program uses is calculated. I was also wrong in thinking that Hansen was involved in the computation of NOAA's averages. He was not. That is a separate error caused by someone else. The average daily temperature is not the sum of the minimum and the sum of the maximum divided by two. The average daily temperature is the sum of all equally spaced temperature readings taken divided by the count of those readings. An accurate monthly average would require those readings to be taken at the same time each day every day.

The monthly averages are converted to anomalies. Eg if the May 2011 mean temperature at a station is 4C and the average temprature of Mays over the period 1951-1980 is 3C then the May 2011 anomaly is +1C

The annual average is the average of all monthly anomalies in that year.

Which is an incorrect way to calculate a yearly average. An average is the sum of all data points divided by the count of those data points. It is not the sum of averages of varying time periods divided by the count of those averages.

The claim is that the average global mean temperature has varied less than one degree over centuries. Small biases in methodology, improper data type matching (or mapping), rounding errors, and lack of adequate accuracy in data recording or manipulation are important.

 

[skookerasbil]

God, what a bunch of retards. Lying for money? Who has the billions and billions of dollars to lie for? Scientists? Are you joking. What companies have billions in profits per quarter, profits put in danger if the public decides their product is dangerous to our maintaining our fine lives in the present environment?

You fellows are flap-yaps in the service of people that would kill their own children for a profit.

GE Profits in 2010 = 3.3 Billion!!!General Electric Tops Profit Expectations - TheStreet


Huge supporter of k00k climate shit..........


Far left assholes never get something = there is no such thing as a solution to everything. Life is about accepting necessary tradeoffs. They dont much like it but it is what it is.