• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gavin Schmidt's Whining and Denial

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,238
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Gavin has really been screeching. Steve McIntyre puts him in his place.

[h=2]Gavin Schmidt and Reference Period “Trickery”[/h] Apr 19, 2016 – 1:21 PM
In the past few weeks, I’ve been re-examining the long-standing dispute over the discrepancy between models and observations in the tropical troposphere. My interest was prompted in part by Gavin Schmidt’s recent attack on a graphic used by John Christy in numerous presentations (see recent discussion here by Judy Curry).
christy_comparison_2015.png
Schmidt made the sort of offensive allegations that he makes far too often:
@curryja use of Christy’s misleading graph instead is the sign of partisan not a scientist. YMMV. tweet;
@curryja Hey, if you think it’s fine to hide uncertainties, error bars & exaggerate differences to make political points, go right ahead. tweet.
As a result, Curry decided not to use Christy’s graphic in her recent presentation to a congressional committee. In today’s post, I’ll examine the validity (or lack) of Schmidt’s critique.
Schmidt’s primary dispute, as best as I can understand it, was about Christy’s centering of model and observation data to achieve a common origin in 1979, the start of the satellite period, a technique which (obviously) shows a greater discrepancy at the end of the period than if the data had been centered in the middle of the period. I’ll show support for Christy’s method from his long-time adversary, Carl Mears, whose own comparison of models and observations used a short early centering period (1979-83) “so the changes over time can be more easily seen”. Whereas both Christy and Mears provided rational arguments for their baseline decision, Schmidt’s argument was little more than shouting.
Continue reading →
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,238
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Gav loses it - Josh 371

Apr 23, 2016 Gavin Schmidt Josh NASA
When Steve MicIntyre writes "In the past few weeks, I’ve been re-examining the long-standing dispute over the discrepancy between models and observations in the tropical troposphere." you might think you were in for a bit of a technical post - which, of course, it is - but it is also also very funny and well worth reading. It also inspired the cartoon below.

902844-26989149-thumbnail.jpg
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,238
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
[h=2]Schmidt’s Histogram Diagram Doesn’t Refute Christy[/h] May 5, 2016 – 4:42 PM
In my most recent post, I discussed yet another incident in the long running dispute about the inconsistency between models and observations in the tropical troposphere – Gavin Schmidt’s twitter mugging of John Christy and Judy Curry. Included in Schmidt’s exchange with Curry was a diagram with a histogram of model runs. In today’s post, I’ll parse the diagram presented to Curry, first discussing the effect of some sleight-of-hand and then showing that Schmidt’s diagram, after removing the sleight-of-hand and when read by someone familiar with statistical distributions, confirms Christy rather than contradicting him. Continue reading →
 

Steve Case

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2013
Messages
1,836
Reaction score
1,222
Location
USA - Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gavin has really been screeching. Steve McIntyre puts him in his place.

[h=2]Gavin Schmidt and Reference Period “Trickery”[/h] Apr 19, 2016 – 1:21 PM
In the past few weeks, I’ve been re-examining the long-standing dispute over the discrepancy between models and observations in the tropical troposphere. My interest was prompted in part by Gavin Schmidt’s recent attack on a graphic used by John Christy in numerous presentations (see recent discussion here by Judy Curry).
christy_comparison_2015.png
Schmidt made the sort of offensive allegations that he makes far too often:
@curryja use of Christy’s misleading graph instead is the sign of partisan not a scientist. YMMV. tweet;
@curryja Hey, if you think it’s fine to hide uncertainties, error bars & exaggerate differences to make political points, go right ahead. tweet.
As a result, Curry decided not to use Christy’s graphic in her recent presentation to a congressional committee. In today’s post, I’ll examine the validity (or lack) of Schmidt’s critique.
Schmidt’s primary dispute, as best as I can understand it, was about Christy’s centering of model and observation data to achieve a common origin in 1979, the start of the satellite period, a technique which (obviously) shows a greater discrepancy at the end of the period than if the data had been centered in the middle of the period. I’ll show support for Christy’s method from his long-time adversary, Carl Mears, whose own comparison of models and observations used a short early centering period (1979-83) “so the changes over time can be more easily seen”. Whereas both Christy and Mears provided rational arguments for their baseline decision, Schmidt’s argument was little more than shouting.
Continue reading →

The modelers with say that for every doubling of CO2 the temperature
should go up about 3.2°. That means that after a 40% rise in CO2 the
temperature should have gone up around 1.3°. I didn't, the models are
wrong. Schmidt can center the trend on his backside and it can't change
that fact.

8.6.2.2 Why Have the Model Estimates Changed Since the TAR?
The current generation of GCMs[5] covers a range of equilibrium climate
sensitivity from 2.1°C to 4.4°C (with a mean value of 3.2°C;
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
55,316
Reaction score
20,662
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The modelers with say that for every doubling of CO2 the temperature
should go up about 3.2°. That means that after a 40% rise in CO2 the
temperature should have gone up around 1.3°. I didn't, the models are
wrong. Schmidt can center the trend on his backside and it can't change
that fact.

LOL. No.

Leave the science to the big boys. You obviously don't grasp acceleration or lag.
 

Steve Case

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2013
Messages
1,836
Reaction score
1,222
Location
USA - Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
LOL. No.

Leave the science to the big boys. You obviously don't grasp acceleration or lag.

Every day the sun reaches its zenith at noon and the warmest part of
the day follows after a lag of an hour or two. Likewise, the warmest
days of summer lag the solstice by a few weeks. You guys want me
to believe that the warm-up caused by CO2 lags 40 years.
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
55,316
Reaction score
20,662
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Every day the sun reaches its zenith at noon and the warmest part of
the day follows after a lag of an hour or two. Likewise, the warmest
days of summer lag the solstice by a few weeks. You guys want me
to believe that the warm-up caused by CO2 lags 40 years.

No. No one really cares what you believe.

But scientists know there is a substantial lag.
 

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,821
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Originally Posted by Steve Case View Post
Every day the sun reaches its zenith at noon and the warmest part of
the day follows after a lag of an hour or two. Likewise, the warmest
days of summer lag the solstice by a few weeks. You guys want me
to believe that the warm-up caused by CO2 lags 40 years.
No. No one really cares what you believe.

But scientists know there is a substantial lag.

Do you want to argue that the warmest part of the day is not about 4 hours after the sun reaches noon? Do you wish to try to explain why the lag for global warming is soooo much longer than that of the daily cycle?
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
49,038
Reaction score
14,396
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Do you want to argue that the warmest part of the day is not about 4 hours after the sun reaches noon? Do you wish to try to explain why the lag for global warming is soooo much longer than that of the daily cycle?

It's so funny that the dogma of AGW teaches their followers that the warming from CO2 takes 100 year for 70% equalization, but refuses to accept similar lag times for solar and other natural forcing changes.
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
55,316
Reaction score
20,662
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It's so funny that the dogma of AGW teaches their followers that the warming from CO2 takes 100 year for 70% equalization, but refuses to accept similar lag times for solar and other natural forcing changes.

What's funny is that you think making this stuff up on your own is more reliable than what the experts tell you.
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
55,316
Reaction score
20,662
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Do you want to argue that the warmest part of the day is not about 4 hours after the sun reaches noon? Do you wish to try to explain why the lag for global warming is soooo much longer than that of the daily cycle?

I can link it for you.

Sorry it has big words.

If we immediately stopped emitting greenhouses gases, would global warming stop? : Climate Q&A : Blogs

Of course, there's research from later that suggests maybe even greater lag effects are possible.

https://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S38/51/51I69/index.xml?section=topstories

But, we all know Princeton scientists are part of the giant global conspiracy.
 
Last edited:

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,821
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
What's funny is that you think making this stuff up on your own is more reliable than what the experts tell you.

The basis of science is to question skeptically. To not take anybody's word for it.

When the predictions are very wide, then there is little chance of them being wrong. Or being useful. After 2 decades of further data it should be easy to narrow the range of these predictions. Why can't you?
 

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,821
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I can link it for you.

Sorry it has big words.

If we immediately stopped emitting greenhouses gases, would global warming stop? : Climate Q&A : Blogs

Of course, there's research from later that suggests maybe even greater lag effects are possible.

https://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S38/51/51I69/index.xml?section=topstories

But, we all know Princeton scientists are part of the giant global conspiracy.

The thing is I can, off the top of my head, point out many ways in which a lag of such proportions could be conceivable, but why I ask you you have to bounce it off to higher authority.

This constant appeal to such authority is the hall mark of the religious and not a scientist.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
49,038
Reaction score
14,396
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I can link it for you.

Sorry it has big words.

If we immediately stopped emitting greenhouses gases, would global warming stop? : Climate Q&A : Blogs

Of course, there's research from later that suggests maybe even greater lag effects are possible.

https://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S38/51/51I69/index.xml?section=topstories

But, we all know Princeton scientists are part of the giant global conspiracy.

So why do you and others who rely on blogs to tell you what to believe, not believe solar radiant energy, modulated by atmospheric transparency, can't have multi decade lags?
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
49,038
Reaction score
14,396
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
What's funny is that you think making this stuff up on your own is more reliable than what the experts tell you.
I'm not making it up.

Figure 4 shows the temporal response of global
surface air temperature to doubled CO2 for the coupled
model, relative to the control run, and for the mixed layer
and full-ocean Q-flux models. After 100 years, specifically
the 81–120 year mean, the coupled model has achieved
about 70% of its estimated equilibrium response

So why don't other variables that use radiant energy get this same treatment?


http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_2.pdf

Now if that doesn't work, go here:

Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 2005: Efficacy of climate forcings

and use it's link to the full paper.
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
55,316
Reaction score
20,662
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

The thing is I can, off the top of my head, point out many ways in which a lag of such proportions could be conceivable, but why I ask you you have to bounce it off to higher authority.

This constant appeal to such authority is the hall mark of the religious and not a scientist.

No, actually looking to authority when you have no strong foundation in a science is EXACTLY what scientists do.

When I see someone with a heart arrhythmia, and it looks like AF to me, but an Electrophysiologist tells me it's multi focal atrial tachycardia, I'm going with the guy who has studied ECG strips for a living.
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
55,316
Reaction score
20,662
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm not making it up.



So why don't other variables that use radiant energy get this same treatment?


http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_2.pdf

Now if that doesn't work, go here:

Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 2005: Efficacy of climate forcings

and use it's link to the full paper.

I'm not going into a denier rabbit hole on this nice afternoon.

Why don't you write a letter to Nature? I'm sure they'd be fascinated by your analysis. Send them your findings of the temperature of jet fuel and the effect on the steel girders at the WTC as well as your Bigfoot paw print analysis, too.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
49,038
Reaction score
14,396
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I'm not going into a denier rabbit hole on this nice afternoon.
You are already in denial of science.

Why don't you write a letter to Nature? I'm sure they'd be fascinated by your analysis.
Funny thing is that nobody is writing about it, That doesn't make what I say wrong.

Send them your findings of the temperature of jet fuel and the effect on the steel girders at the WTC as well as your Bigfoot paw print analysis, too.
I didn't know you have a problem with the official explanation.

I don't!
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,238
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm not going into a denier rabbit hole on this nice afternoon.

Why don't you write a letter to Nature? I'm sure they'd be fascinated by your analysis. Send them your findings of the temperature of jet fuel and the effect on the steel girders at the WTC as well as your Bigfoot paw print analysis, too.

Just more ducking, dodging and deflecting.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
49,038
Reaction score
14,396
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Why don't you write a letter to Nature? I'm sure they'd be fascinated by your analysis.

There are papers out there. just so few, they are hard to find behind the information overload of AGW papers.

By focusing on time sequences of basin-average and global-average upper
ocean temperature (i.e., from 40S to 60N) we find temperatures responding to changing
solar irradiance in three separate frequency bands with periods of >100 years, 18-25
years, and 9-13 years.

Response of global upper ocean temperature to changing solar irradiance - White - 1997 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans - Wiley Online Library
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
55,316
Reaction score
20,662
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
49,038
Reaction score
14,396
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
In other words, the data you like is overwhelmed by much more data you don't like.
I was pointing out that keyword searches for facts are often clouded by overwhelming information of another subject. It's very hard sometimes to find the facts, when too much information is uncovered with keywords used.

But that's not cherry picking! It's evidence of a conspiracy.....errr. Librul groupthink!
I didn't say it was. Why are you so full of strawmen defenses?

As long as you jump to the wrong conclusions, you are nothing but a denier of science. Once you stop being so hard headed, and listen to other pioints of view, instead of your practice of denying the information, we might be able to have a discussion.

Until then, you are nothing but a denier of science.
 

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,821
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
No, actually looking to authority when you have no strong foundation in a science is EXACTLY what scientists do.

When I see someone with a heart arrhythmia, and it looks like AF to me, but an Electrophysiologist tells me it's multi focal atrial tachycardia, I'm going with the guy who has studied ECG strips for a living.

How often does he get it right?

Is he more often right than wrong?

Is his diagnosis that the patient has multi focal tachycardia or something else wrong with their heart or some other organ but that they must give him loads of money quickly because they will die if they don't!! No actual prediction of when they will die... ??
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
55,316
Reaction score
20,662
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
How often does he get it right?

Is he more often right than wrong?

Is his diagnosis that the patient has multi focal tachycardia or something else wrong with their heart or some other organ but that they must give him loads of money quickly because they will die if they don't!! No actual prediction of when they will die... ??

The expert is almost always right.

And if not, they are always closer than the amateur.

Always.
 
Top Bottom