CERN: Climate Models will need to be revised

[Pliny]

perfect Pliny... so, you're all about the science! Yet, in repeated attempts to have you cite a scientific founded basis for your claim that, as you stated, "CERN has presented information that requires the "consensus" be reviewed"... you refuse to cite a scientific foundation; rather, instead, you bluster away. Ergo => PlinyBluster = PlinyScience

Seems you are all about the politics and I am all about the science. I would rather science remain science than become a religion.

You don't see any citations? Are we going to have to start capitalizing your name, waldo?

[Pliny]

[/size]

Harumph... indeed! Pliny, wasn't the, as you say, "one poster here", wasn't that you playing your stated guessing game - sure it was! See Pliny, in your now, trumped up Harumph, I acknowledged you actually recognized "this one" of your guessing game playlist, was fixed and responded to your stated suspicion by suggesting you, "don't hesitate to provide support for your stated suspicion". You chose not to.

Nope. Wasn't me. Why do you just ramble on and on after making an assumption which is clearly incorrect.

Seems like your MO.

in any case, you clearly (still) are mixing the two distinctly different (but related) issues of stratospheric ozone depletion and stratospheric cooling associated with climate change. Yes, most certainly, the Montreal Protocol has been a success in helping to bring a leveling off of chlorine compounds in the atmosphere... to see the beginning of their decline. Equally, per the recognized Enhanced Greenhouse Effect, the relationship between global warming in the troposphere and ozone loss in the stratosphere... clearly identifies that a growing problem related to global warming may be worsening another, preexisting man-made condition; i.e., ozone depletion.

Yes the Montreal protocol! The smell of Maurice is strong.

In any case I have never read so much BS on a subject than climate. You have contributed greatly to that as well. Climate modeling is climate modeling - the data out is only as good as the data in and while the data in may be correct it is only a model and not reality. But I don't think the science is saying that, is it, waldo? I don't think they are saying their models reflect reality. They are hypothetical based on our best estimations. I think that is what the science is saying. If the scientists are connected to the UN they are also suggesting further research be done and the policies that may reverse negative, and catastrophic events from occuring.

Although we have greatly reduced our CFCs the largest ozone hole recorded was in 2006. I don't see the newspaper headlines on that. I don't see the concern and the scramble about ozone depletion that this horribly important event created in the eighties culminating in the Montreal Protocol.

You should be screaming your lungs out, waldo. But maybe we have done all we can.

If you could have seen the Montreal Protocol coming you could have invested in alternatives to CFC's and really made a strong return on your investment, which I'm sure Maurice did. It was risky, he had to sell it, and sell it hard but he was able to get it done. "Thanks science. Let's start working on the rest of my legacy now - and my retirement fund. I have some carbon credits for sale."

Edited October 5, 2011 by Pliny

[waldo]

You don't see any citations?

that's right Pliny... you're quick to claim the initial CERN/CLOUD experiment results, as you say, "require the consensus to be reviewed"... but where are your scientific founded supporting cites, Pliny... no cites, Pliny - no cites.

[waldo]

The smell of Maurice is strong.

my gawd Pliny! You've relapsed... I was sure you had beat back Maurice... that you were done and over him. I thought your popes had been whittled down to just leave your arch nemesis, the gorical. As I said recently, "relapse is a part of recovery"... stay strong, Pliny, stay strong!

[Oleg Bach]

Not at all.

Do you feel like a "big Man" sitting behind a monitor "tattling' on anyone who says something you don't like? Does that make you feel "big and tough"?

It`s cute when a person in real life and the real world would NEVER offend you or even dare attack you in any manner - because you are their superiour in the REAL world - will get their jollies by tattling on people that they have no REAL authority over...and by doing so - have them banned for a month at a time - in effect tying a strong mans hands behind his back electronically - (which only ammounts to a slight irritation) Or as bothersome as some cyber bed bug bite... NOT ONCE have I in all the time on this site - gone out of my way and `tattled` and by doing so had them cut off from communication.........This idea that some feel big and tough...when they inconveniece someone by being a rat....is pitiful - and they should feel shame for being a manipulative weasil - who gets a kick out of manipulating moderators and members alike.

[Pliny]

my gawd Pliny! You've relapsed... I was sure you had beat back Maurice... that you were done and over him. I thought your popes had been whittled down to just leave your arch nemesis, the gorical. As I said recently, "relapse is a part of recovery"... stay strong, Pliny, stay strong!

The UN plays the biggest role in this, waldo - and it is not, as you might mistakenly think, a scientific entity. It is first a political entity. Similar to Exxon being first an oil company and not a scientific entity. Scientific research at both entities is geared toward their own interests. You are quick to vilify big oil and it's imagined corporate agenda to work entirely on the basis of profit and greed at the expense of the world's population and environment, all science connected with it is sullied. Since the UN's political purposes are the stewardship of the planet, all science connected with it is sullied. But since it aligns with your political purposes you are blind to real science. I don't see a comprehensible scientific argument from you at all. I see a lot of blustery bloviating, semantic maneuvering, denigration of respectable figures in the scientific community, and an intent to obfuscate the issue.

It is obvious from your disregard for straightening out facts that you don't care about the science a wit. You will let lies stand without commment if they suit your purpose. As an example I point to the person's post on this thread who said that the ozone hole problem had been resolved and we saved ourselves, apparently we didn't - we do not get one scientific word from you pointing out this fallacy, and definitely nothing that our reduction of CFC's has been apparently ineffectual. There must be tons of research regarding how effective the elimination of CFCs has been. Unfortunately, no there isn't. There is only a continued effort to connect the same phenomenon to other anthropogenic factors.

Get honest with yourself, waldo - you're a political animal, not a scientific one.

How could we forget Maurice?

Edited October 6, 2011 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

you are blind to real science. I don't see a comprehensible scientific argument from you at all. I see a lot of blustery bloviating, semantic maneuvering, denigration of respectable figures in the scientific community, and an intent to obfuscate the issue.

The UN is a political entity and so Waldo doesn't quote the UN as much as he does real science.

There is a lot of bluster in Waldo, but you're blind if you can't see that he knows the real science behind it as well as anyone here.

There are real scientists who dispute some aspect of AGW, but they're a subset of the ones quoted on the web. Then we have in-between scientists who may be qualified in their field, and who may have pertinent questions but who aren't familiar with the body of work that is climate science.

[TimG]

There is a lot of bluster in Waldo, but you're blind if you can't see that he knows the real science behind it as well as anyone here.

I don't believe he has any understanding of the science. He simply cuts and pastes talking points from alarmists blogs and demonstrates no understanding of the science that is behind those talking points.

His inability to understand that Tiljander proxies cannot be used in Mann 2008 is a good example. He full of bluster but no substance.

Edited October 6, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

I don't believe he has any understanding of the science. He simply cuts and pastes talking points from alarmists blogs and demonstrates no understanding of the science that is behind those talking points.

His inability to understand that Tiljander proxies cannot be used in Mann 2008 is a good example. He full of bluster but no substance.

I have a math degree with a number of undergrad courses in multivariate regression and I don't understand either of you enough to make up my mind who's right and wrong. That's where we are.

[TimG]

I have a math degree with a number of undergrad courses in multivariate regression and I don't understand either of you enough to make up my mind who's right and wrong. That's where we are.

It is good that you acknowledge the limits of your knowledge. I know this stuff. I know I am right. I know waldo is spewing nonsense. Unfortunately, he uses enough scientific sounding words that he successfully confuses people like you. Edited October 6, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

The UN is a political entity and so Waldo doesn't quote the UN as much as he does real science.

There is a lot of bluster in Waldo, but you're blind if you can't see that he knows the real science behind it as well as anyone here.

bluster... et tu?

[waldo]

I don't believe he has any understanding of the science. He simply cuts and pastes talking points from alarmists blogs and demonstrates no understanding of the science that is behind those talking points.

His inability to understand that Tiljander proxies cannot be used in Mann 2008 is a good example. He full of bluster but no substance.

sure buddy... and the day you actually put up something... anything... that isn't you parroting the denialsphere at large, "denier blog scientists" in general and your hero the never-ending shamway dealer McIntyre in particular... that will be the day you can pass judgement on anyone!

why not channel your bluster and lack of substance into actually helping poor McIntyre, after a decade+, actually put forward a reconstruction of his own... one that finally validates his self-styled (and fake/false) position as 'slayer of the hockey-stick'. Why not do that, Timmay... why not offer your bluster-bus to McIntyre... surely, that's all he would need to actually formally refute his arch nemesis Mann! Surely! Just step up Timmay - give your hero a helping hand. That must be what he's waiting for, hey? Just a lil' help from you and I'm sure we would see a formal published refute to Mann08/09 - right?

[waldo]

I have a math degree with a number of undergrad courses in multivariate regression and I don't understand either of you enough to make up my mind who's right and wrong. That's where we are.

it's really quite simple... so simple you have acknowledged it many times over already - surprising you would fall back/away from it.

whether you accept anything from anyone on MLW concerning Mann08/09, the salient points remain. No formal published refute to Mann08/09 exists. It is one of the most iconic targets of the loudest, howling, mad-barking purveyors of denial... McIntyre in particular. And yet this stumbling, bumbling crew of denying chuckle-heads, just can't seem to put any of it together in order to formally challenge Mann08/09. Repeatedly, over and over and over again, you have read TimG devolve into conspiracy... where he'll beak-off about gate-keeping, about the failure of peer-review, about his oft used term, "the TEAM", about his other oft used term, "the climate Mafia"... as a presumptive challenge as to why no formal refutations to Mann08/09 exist.

of course, when the most pointed challenges are directed at his hero, McIntyre - why McIntyre has never formally published a reconstruction, why McIntyre has never formally published a refutation of the Mann08/09 results/methodology... TimG goes mute... crickets!!! I mean really, c'mon... the shamway dealer can write a brazillion posts on ClimateFraudit, throwing raw meat to his adoring lappers, minions, malcontents... yet, he can't seem to find the time to actually formally refute Mann08/09 - say what! I put a short-leash on TimG's gate-keeping claim (showing his attempt to claim gate-keeping of Spencer papers was TimG bunk); i.e., most certainly, so-called "skeptical" papers are being published in mainstream journals... and yet, no formal McIntyre refutation to Mann08/09. Is there a problem?

[TimG]

Lets break down your nonsense:

and the day you actually put up something... anything... that isn't you parroting the denialsphere at large

So you are basically asserting that any claim made by people you don't like must be false. Do you really believe this is an argument or are you just an idiot?

I'm sure we would see a formal published refute to Mann08/09 - right?

Here you are claiming that an argument cannot be considered unless it is published in a forum that you approve of. Complete and total nonsense. Facts are facts. They can be analyzed and discussed in any forum. There is no magic to peer review. You are once again demonstrating that you know nothing about the science and all you are doing is throwing out talking points that you don't understand.

As for a my argument. I went to the Tiljander paper. Walked through the actual data and explained why it can't be used with Mann's algorithms. Any one who understands regression analysis should able to see this. It really makes no difference if someone publishes a formal rebuttal or not. My arguments are still correct and you are spouting nonsense.

Edited October 6, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

As for a my argument. I went to the Tiljander paper. Walked through the actual data and explained why it can't be used with Mann's algorithms. Your response has basically been the nonsense above.

yes, clearly... as I've stated now several times - you are a true advocate for TV weatherman Anthony Watts' 2D-picture analysis... who needs actual data, data analysis, methodology when one can simply point to a 2D graphic!!!

as for your attempted argument by authority, I also went to the Tiljander paper... in the author's own words... enjoy, again and again... it's a quick easy MLW post away!

... Fine: the proxy author, Tiljander,

from your declared authoritative source paper

, summarily states:

However, it is difficult to make climatic interpretations at the annual time scale, but short-term changes (averaged over a few years) could be estimated.

yes...

from your declared authoritative source

:

difficult... but could be estimated

; i.e.; difficult... but not impossible. Again, as stated in Mann08, from the same verbatim statements you refuse to acknowledge, as a caveat reference, Mann speaks to a possible data quality aspect in association with utilizing the proxies (i.e.; difficult/problematic... but not impossible... but could be estimated).

Per your declared authoritative source!

Standard proxy calibration technique involves normalizing a series to an annual resolved variance level... I expect Mann might have extended upon

your declared authority

to estimate calibrations, "averaged over a few years". Of course, as I stated several times earlier to you... the real salient question to arise is whether or not the calibration is on/close across the full range - hence, sensitivity testing... which, again, was done... which, again, resulted in no appreciable difference, whether the proxies were in... or out. No appreciable difference.

[TimG]

as for your attempted argument by authority, I also went to the Tiljander paper... in the author's own words...

Those words do not address the clear problems with the data which I pointed out. The fact that you cannot see that those words do not address my argument is further evidence that you don't have a clue what you are talking about and simply spewing pseudo-scientific nonsense in hopes of confusing people who can't follow the science.

[waldo]

Here you are claiming that an argument cannot be considered unless it is published in a forum that you approve of. Complete and total nonsense. Facts are facts. They can be analyzed and discussed in any forum. There is no magic to peer review. You are once again demonstrating that you know nothing about the science and all you are doing is throwing out talking points that you don't understand.

nonsense... as much as you'd like this to become some testament to the bag-lady's want to move towards some bridged post-modern relationship between blogs and formal science... that is not how science is conducted, or ever will be conducted. The facts are glaringly in your face/eyes - if McIntyre can write those brazillion posts that you lap up like gravy, he can most certainly attempt to write a formal refutation, ala the recognized formal peer-review process. Is there a problem?

[TimG]

that is not how science is conducted, or ever will be conducted.

That has nothing to do with the facts. Arguments are correct whether they are published or not. Rejecting an argument simply because it has not been published in forum that you approve of is the act of a dogmatic fool. If you can't address the arguments then you have no argument. Edited October 6, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

Those words do not address the clear problems with the data which I pointed out. The fact that you cannot see that those words do not address my argument is further evidence that you don't have a clue what you are talking about and simply spewing pseudo-scientific nonsense in hopes of confusing people who can't follow the science.

you, the same guy who fronted the insanely wrong premise of McIntyre "upsidedownyness"... you, the guy who claims temperature correlations magically shift!!!

your analysis by 2D picture is a hysterical premise in the face of the author's own words about what calibration is possible with her own proxy... "difficult on an annual time scale, but could be estimated for short-term changes"... i.e., she is most certainly "green-lighting" the use of her proxy with applied caveat. So, of course, rather than you attempt to, on any level ever, challenge the Mann08/09 methodology, calibration, validation, testing, results... you mindlessly fixate on a, wait for it, wait for it... 2D graphic image. Yes you do!

[TimG]

you, the same guy who fronted the insanely wrong premise of McIntyre "upsidedownyness"... you, the guy who claims temperature correlations magically shift!!!

Look at the data. That is what the data does. You can repeat a million times but that does not change the fact that the correlation with temperatures switches at around 200 years ago because of contamination. Your trouble is you are unable to think for yourself. If Mann says something - you treat it as gospel. You are incapable of looking at the data and drawing your own conclusions. Edited October 6, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

That has nothing to do with the facts. Arguments are correct whether they are published or not. Rejecting an argument simply because it has not been published in forum that you approve of is the act of a dogmatic fool. If you can't address the arguments then you have no argument.

this particular discussion point has nothing to do with whether or not I... or you... can address the arguments. This point has to do with scientists challenging presumed arguments - no scientists are choosing to formally respond to challenges to their science, to their papers, by responding to the chucklefest that is denialBlogWorld. Scientists are engaged in the science, not following the bullshit of denial "blog scientists" like your favoured retired mining stock huckster.

you and your ilk, plain and simple, can't formally challenge the actual science, so you hide behind a charade, a facade... you claim peer-review is tainted, except when it's not (except when you feel you can leverage it for your denial agenda). Put up or shut up - plain and simple... formally refute Mann08/09, or shut up... there would be no shortage of recognized journals, willing to review anything from McIntyre, most particularly if it was presumed to refute Mann08/09. That it has never transpired is the most telling refutation to your own personal crusade and agenda.

[waldo]

Look at the data. That is what the data does. You can repeat a million times but that does not change the fact that the correlation with temperatures switches at around 200 years ago because of contamination. Your trouble is you are unable to think for yourself. If Mann says something - you treat it as gospel. You are incapable of looking at the data and drawing your own conclusions.

again, you're a dullard - a proxy is, overall, either positively or negatively correlated... correlations are not done in isolation to the whole...

[TimG]

this particular discussion point has nothing to do with whether or not I... or you... can address the arguments.

Yes it does. I claim Mann cannot use the Tiljander data. I have walked you through the Tiljander data and explained exactly why. That argument is true no matter what is going on in the scientific literature.

You seem to think scientists are these gods that exist on another plane which mortals cannot comphrend. This is nonsense. Many of the things scientists do can be understood and criticized by people which a scientific background even if they have no particular training in the field.

Edited October 6, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

again, you're a dullard - a proxy is, overall, either positively or negatively correlated... correlations are not done in isolation to the whole.

Sorry you are the dullard. Tijlander said the Xray density decreases as temperature increase. The data in the last 200 years shows the Xray density increasing as temperature increases because of contamination. i.e. the sign of this proxy changes. The most appropriate way to deal with this problem is to leave out the contaminated data. The trouble is Mann can't calibrate proxy if he did that so he used the proxy upside down.

[waldo]

this particular discussion point has nothing to do with whether or not I... or you... can address the arguments. This point has to do with scientists challenging presumed arguments - no scientists are choosing to formally respond to challenges to their science, to their papers, by responding to the chucklefest that is denialBlogWorld. Scientists are engaged in the science, not following the bullshit of denial "blog scientists" like your favoured retired mining stock huckster.

you and your ilk, plain and simple, can't formally challenge the actual science, so you hide behind a charade, a facade... you claim peer-review is tainted, except when it's not (except when you feel you can leverage it for your denial agenda). Put up or shut up - plain and simple... formally refute Mann08/09, or shut up... there would be no shortage of recognized journals, willing to review anything from McIntyre, most particularly if it was presumed to refute Mann08/09. That it has never transpired is the most telling refutation to your own personal crusade and agenda.

Yes it does. I claim Mann cannot use the Tiljander data. I have walked you through the Tiljander data and explained exactly why. That argument is true no matter what is going on in the scientific literature.

You seem to think scientists are these gods that exist on another plane which mortals cannot comphrend. This is nonsense. Many of the things scientists do can be understood and criticized by people which a scientific background even if they have no particular training in the field.

your pomposity knows no bounds. You can make whatever claims you want to parrot - they have no bearing, they carry no weight... notwithstanding, they are wrong. You haven't a clue; you truly are a blowhard. Blog Science does not rule!