Comments on: The Plug http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/02/the-plug.html Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:05:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: beatnick http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/02/the-plug.html/comment-page-1#comment-4636 beatnick Mon, 16 Mar 2009 04:15:50 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=905#comment-4636 I like this website, and enjoy intelligent discussion about global warming. Why does is this "hunter" person allowed to post? I like this website, and enjoy intelligent discussion about global warming. Why does is this “hunter” person allowed to post?

]]> By: PaulD http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/02/the-plug.html/comment-page-1#comment-4554 PaulD Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:14:01 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=905#comment-4554 "silly rabbit - the earth’ s temperature is not driven by the sun, but by parts per million changes in atmospheric gas concentrations!" Stupid fuckwit - you seem to think these two things are mutually exclusive! “silly rabbit – the earth’ s temperature is not driven by the sun, but by parts per million changes in atmospheric gas concentrations!”

Stupid fuckwit – you seem to think these two things are mutually exclusive!

]]> By: Jennifer http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/02/the-plug.html/comment-page-1#comment-4418 Jennifer Fri, 27 Feb 2009 01:40:49 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=905#comment-4418 As was alluded to in a previous post above, AGW believers argue that it is not 'natural cooling' that causes the inconvenient drop in temperature over certain decades. It is the industrial production of 'aerosols' or pollution during these periods. This may be so, but it does pose a difficulty in evaluating the merits of AGW as even less is known about the climatic effects of aerosols than CO2. If one has an 'aerosols' variable that one can adjust up or down as convenient in the models, one can always salvage the CO2 hypothesis (at least historically). While it may not be, falling back on 'aerosols' to prop up AGW looks rather ad hoc and convenient. As was alluded to in a previous post above, AGW believers argue that it is not ‘natural cooling’ that causes the inconvenient drop in temperature over certain decades. It is the industrial production of ‘aerosols’ or pollution during these periods. This may be so, but it does pose a difficulty in evaluating the merits of AGW as even less is known about the climatic effects of aerosols than CO2. If one has an ‘aerosols’ variable that one can adjust up or down as convenient in the models, one can always salvage the CO2 hypothesis (at least historically). While it may not be, falling back on ‘aerosols’ to prop up AGW looks rather ad hoc and convenient.

]]> By: PaulD http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/02/the-plug.html/comment-page-1#comment-4416 PaulD Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:42:26 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=905#comment-4416 A person calling himself Hunter says: "pauld - for the ‘plug’ allegations to hold any water, according to the argument presented, the ‘plug’ has to be -4°C." No. You apparently don't comprehend the post. A person calling himself Hunter says:

“pauld – for the ‘plug’ allegations to hold any water, according to the argument presented, the ‘plug’ has to be -4°C.”

No. You apparently don’t comprehend the post.

]]> By: hunter http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/02/the-plug.html/comment-page-1#comment-4415 hunter Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:33:26 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=905#comment-4415 JR Frey - modellers don't 'assume' an approximately constant slope for greenhouse gas forcings - the forcings are observed. Look at the CO2 data from Mauna Loa <a href="http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends" rel="nofollow">here</a>. After the seasonal cycle is removed, the trend is simple - smooth and upward. pauld - for the 'plug' allegations to hold any water, according to the argument presented, the 'plug' has to be -4°C. The brown line is supposed to represent the 'plug'. Please point out where the brown line goes to -4°C. And if you really think the contents of this post bear any relation to sense, let alone science, then you have no business commenting on anything. JR Frey – modellers don’t ‘assume’ an approximately constant slope for greenhouse gas forcings – the forcings are observed. Look at the CO2 data from Mauna Loa here. After the seasonal cycle is removed, the trend is simple – smooth and upward.

pauld – for the ‘plug’ allegations to hold any water, according to the argument presented, the ‘plug’ has to be -4°C. The brown line is supposed to represent the ‘plug’. Please point out where the brown line goes to -4°C.

And if you really think the contents of this post bear any relation to sense, let alone science, then you have no business commenting on anything.

]]> By: pauld http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/02/the-plug.html/comment-page-1#comment-4414 pauld Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:26:27 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=905#comment-4414 Some one calling himself Hunter said: "You point out the models match past climate very well, and then claim that they vastly overpredict past warming! And apparently you don’t even notice your self-contradiction!" Even as a non-scientist, I followed the point being made in post without any problem. If anyone needs a more simple explanation, the video cited in the post explains the basic argument at a level that my daughter, a high school freshman, understood with no problem. If you really think the post contain a self-contradiction, you really don't have any business commenting on climate science. Some one calling himself Hunter said:
“You point out the models match past climate very well, and then claim that they vastly overpredict past warming! And apparently you don’t even notice your self-contradiction!”

Even as a non-scientist, I followed the point being made in post without any problem. If anyone needs a more simple explanation, the video cited in the post explains the basic argument at a level that my daughter, a high school freshman, understood with no problem.

If you really think the post contain a self-contradiction, you really don’t have any business commenting on climate science.

]]> By: J R Frey http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/02/the-plug.html/comment-page-1#comment-4412 J R Frey Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:08:44 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=905#comment-4412 OK - next question. Is it reasonable to assume (as the model apparently does) that d(GHG forcings)/dt is +K? There appear to be sporadic changes in actual temp and sporadic changes in non-GHG forcings.... if all other forcings have variability, why not GHG? ca. '88 is the only period that seems to have "natural" variability in GHG forcings. Other than that it appears to be very consistent? No? If the modelers have an assumed +K slope for GHG component and that is the basis for their model, then it validates the plug theory. So there must be a theoretical justification for keeping that GHG component at a constant slope? OK – next question. Is it reasonable to assume (as the model apparently does) that d(GHG forcings)/dt is +K? There appear to be sporadic changes in actual temp and sporadic changes in non-GHG forcings…. if all other forcings have variability, why not GHG? ca. ’88 is the only period that seems to have “natural” variability in GHG forcings. Other than that it appears to be very consistent? No?

If the modelers have an assumed +K slope for GHG component and that is the basis for their model, then it validates the plug theory. So there must be a theoretical justification for keeping that GHG component at a constant slope?

]]> By: Alex Llewelyn http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/02/the-plug.html/comment-page-1#comment-4407 Alex Llewelyn Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:27:44 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=905#comment-4407 To be honest, I don't really understand what this obsession about the "uncanny" correlation between the model and the the actual temperature is all about. The correlation isn't *that* good, at least not compared to something like this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/25/adjusting-temperatures-for-the-enso-and-the-amo/ The dampening comes not from the natural "cooling" which is so slight as to be insignificant, but from anthropogenic aerosols, which is bound up in the anthropogenic forcings model. The natural model may be some kind of plug to improve the correlation, but it is not to hide the "expected" huge 20th century warming. To be honest, I don’t really understand what this obsession about the “uncanny” correlation between the model and the the actual temperature is all about. The correlation isn’t *that* good, at least not compared to something like this:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/25/adjusting-temperatures-for-the-enso-and-the-amo/

The dampening comes not from the natural “cooling” which is so slight as to be insignificant, but from anthropogenic aerosols, which is bound up in the anthropogenic forcings model. The natural model may be some kind of plug to improve the correlation, but it is not to hide the “expected” huge 20th century warming.

]]> By: HasItBeen4YearsYet? http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/02/the-plug.html/comment-page-1#comment-4406 HasItBeen4YearsYet? Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:20:45 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=905#comment-4406 We interrupt your sanity to bring you this word from our sponsor, ... And speaking of drinking the KookAid, take a sip, sit back in you coffin, and listen to this... MESSAGE FROM <a href="http://www.godsdirectcontact.org/" rel="nofollow">“SUPREME MASTER” CHING HAI’S</a> CLIMATE SLAVE, JAMES (EAT BEANS OR DIE) HANSEN… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqN60UIbtrA No self respecting or sane scientist would have anything to do with what is obviously a cult. The man is a loon. We interrupt your sanity to bring you this word from our sponsor, …

And speaking of drinking the KookAid, take a sip, sit back in you coffin, and listen to this…

MESSAGE FROM “SUPREME MASTER” CHING HAI’S CLIMATE SLAVE, JAMES (EAT BEANS OR DIE) HANSEN…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqN60UIbtrA

No self respecting or sane scientist would have anything to do with what is obviously a cult. The man is a loon.

]]> By: hunter http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/02/the-plug.html/comment-page-1#comment-4405 hunter Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:52:55 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=905#comment-4405 The last four posts contain absolutely nothing of value, just infantile paranoid rants. It's obvious that no-one is willing or able to discuss science here. The last four posts contain absolutely nothing of value, just infantile paranoid rants. It’s obvious that no-one is willing or able to discuss science here.

]]>