"William Asher" wrote
God I hate fisking.

Rich wrote:

William Asher wrote:
Rich wrote:

[...]

Why are you talking to yourself in bottom posting rather than
responding to my words?

If you are not, why do you think you
understand climate physics better than the climate physicists who
wrote the IPCC report?

Name one scientist who has a complete understanding of the climate.
The models and their behavior are governed by a multitude of
parameters, few of which have any basis in physics.

Because there is no way to explain a 50-yr lag between the increase
in solar output in the beginning of the 20th century with the
temperature increase in the latter half using what is known to be
true about the link between solar output and global mean temperature.

Help me please. Where do you get the 50 years from?

Rich wrote:


http://www.forecastingprinciples.com...armAudit31.pdf

Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts*
J. Scott Armstrongâ€*, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Kesten C. Green, Business and Economic Forecasting Unit, Monash
University Paper prepared for ISF 2007 in New York
June 21, 2007


Oh. My. God.

This guy is your expert? He's a professor of business.

Ok, look he

http://tinyurl.com/2cuxdy

This is the details of his "audit." What he's done is laughable. If you
have the patience, you will find the IPCC part he is "auditing" receives
high marks for things like "Use diverse sources of data" and "Use
quantitative methods rather than qualitative methods." Pretty much all the
things it gets high marks for are things you would expect from an objective
review of scientific results. In contrast, the things it gets low marks
for are things like "Tailor the forecasting model to fit the horizon." He
even gives it low marks for "Select simple methods unless empirical
evidence calls for a more complex approach." That is laughable because
even you will tell me that climate models are too complex to understand,
yet here your "expert" is giving them low marks because they are complex.

In short, this guy is a marketing prof, he had no formal training in
atmospheric physics, in climate modeling, or anything of relevance. Why
you think he has anything objective to say on the subject is a mystery.

Hey, did you notice that one of the guys he cites in his paper is named W.
Ascher? Pretty weird huh? You never know what will pop up on usenet.

--
Bill Asher

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:


Help me please. Where do you get the 50 years from?

The solar output increased a little over the first half of the 20th
century, give or take in terms of time frame. Over the last half it has
remained relatively constant. Temperature increased a little over the
first half of the 20th century, then a lot at the end, mainly over the
last 25 years. Either you believe, ... nah, I'm not going to speculate on
what you believe. The point is that if you are claiming the temperature
increase from 1980 onwards is solar driven, you have to find some way to
get the radiation from the first half of the century to the back half
(since there isn't any additional solar radiation to drive warming in the
second half) and that requires some new physical processes for heat
storage.

--
Bill Asher

"William Asher" wrote
Peter Muehlbauer wrote:


Help me please. Where do you get the 50 years from?

The solar output increased a little over the first half of the 20th
century, give or take in terms of time frame. Over the last half it has
remained relatively constant. Temperature increased a little over the
first half of the 20th century, then a lot at the end, mainly over the
last 25 years. Either you believe, ... nah, I'm not going to speculate on
what you believe. The point is that if you are claiming the temperature
increase from 1980 onwards is solar driven, you have to find some way to
get the radiation from the first half of the century to the back half
(since there isn't any additional solar radiation to drive warming in the
second half) and that requires some new physical processes for heat
storage.

Ok, I think I understand you now.

Instead of long explanations to that, just take a look here, what might be
the point of your question.

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderd/id11.html
and especially then
http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/id23.html

Tell me if it's not that what you expected. There is some more in my
URL collection, but I first have to fish it out.

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:

Ok, I think I understand you now.

Instead of long explanations to that, just take a look here, what
might be the point of your question.

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderd/id11.html
and especially then
http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/id23.html

Tell me if it's not that what you expected. There is some more in my
URL collection, but I first have to fish it out.



Don't need to spend much time on that. The cooling in the 70's was
mainlydriven by sulfate aerosol. Other theories have been buried
scientifically. Pick something else.

--
Bill Asher

Lloyd wrote:

[...]

Name one who has a complete understanding of quantum theory. There
are none. So you would claim it is not true, I suppose. Your
computer is just a fantasy then.

[...]

And you are? You, the scientifically illiterate?

[...]

OLh jeez, the John Birch society is so 1950s!

[...]

You are lying.

[...]

Yes, look at ones the fossil fuel industry supports. Or look at
Hannity and Limbaugh. You do that; we'll continue to look at the
scientific sources.

[...]

You right-wing doofuses said the same thing about banning CFCs.
Banning asbestos. Banning PCBs. Banning lead in gasoline.

Lloyd does not seem to have any real interest in discussing climate,
or even in making the pretense that he is.

But he seems to live for casting aspersions and attacking the person.

Oh well, nothing new here. This is distressingly common with AGW
advocates.

FYI, my fantasies don't involve computers.

Cheers,

Rich

On Jul 12, 11:37 am, Lloyd wrote:
[ . . . ]
Maybe those black helicopters are doing it. Or maybe it's the chips
implanted in our brains!

Global warming is a Communist plot. Here's the story.
In 1932, First Citizen Stalin and the KGB arranged
to infiltrate a miniature agent into every weather
thermometer in the world. If you look at a
thermometer in a weather station, squint, and sing
the International, you'll see one of them.

Roger Coppock wrote:
On Jul 12, 11:37 am, Lloyd wrote:
[ . . . ]
Maybe those black helicopters are doing it. Or maybe it's the chips
implanted in our brains!

Global warming is a Communist plot.

It's my understanding that Lenin's tomb is a communist plot.

:-)

Cheers,

Rich

"William Asher"


Don't need to spend much time on that. The cooling in the 70's was
mainlydriven by sulfate aerosol. Other theories have been buried
scientifically. Pick something else.

What happens with the sulfate aerosol now?
S*