Ah, yes, more ad homiems. Just displace all your ignorance and insecurity onto anyone who uses those mean old reasoning and evidence when they provide evidence that your worldview is wrong.

I mean, it's not at all crankish to demand others accept your ideas because the burden of proof is on them. Here I was thinking that for a scientific theory that's claimed to have quantitative predictive power, the burden of proof was on the person proposing the theory, that is, give some quantitative predictions, or some quantitative reasoning why predictions are only valid in ~100 years.

Do tell me, how much of your life revolves around justifying away the cognitive dissonance created by climatology conspiracy theory strawmen and oil/coal conspiracy theories? I ask, because I would like to be fair and justify my claim that you are an idiot. Are you capable of thinking at all, or do you have to get all of your thoughts and opinions from consensus and such?

Ah, yes: "McIntyre's made all these errors, but we can't be bothered to, you know, quote his words/reasoning to point out *exactly* the where why how etc of his mistake."

So, where's this mythical 2nd paper that repeats the 1935 measurements so the effect of +50ppm CO2 is quantified? Once again, you setup and fail to even knock down your 10 meter tube strawman. You could, you know, bother to check what I *actually* said "I want to know what the observed experimental data is, from a ~10 meter tube, or the observed atmosphere, or such, not computer models.", but that'd completely shatter your argument.

>It's a meaningless calculation because the error will very quickly approach the size of what's being measured. (then some random non sequitur about how the standard deviation is apparently not the quantification of *deviation* of measurement)

Seriously, you *really* need to learn about the standard deviation, or anything else you choose to argue about, because you're basically claiming up is down and black is white.

The equation was given, it matches observations. But, you can pretend that your ignorance (by your own admission) of thermodynamics means as long as I don't "prove" it to you (that is, provide an argument that makes you feel smart about some advanced scientific topic), you don't need to bother with thinking about information outside your worldview. As long as you don't admit you're wrong, project that a given physics derivation and observation is a "moving target" and such, you don't have to "feel" wrong. Ah, fun with causing cognitive dissonance in cranks.

Nice, you couldn't even point out one error in McIntyre's paper, and yet you stubbornly cling to your conspiracy theories.

You really need to spend a lot more time on (a) learning how science, specifically physics, is done, and (b) reading comprehension. You then might notice that I did not want values from models, but experimental values. But that would shatter your whole fantasy that you're some heroic "defender of truth".

>I did some thinking about this. It's a meaningless calculation because the error will very quickly approach the size of what's being measured.

You do know that the standard deviation has a very precise definition (really, go look it up), and that what you wrote is so muddle-headed, vague, and just plain meaningless. But that's ok, as long as you feel like your analogy is a substitute for knowledge of simple math.

>No it's not. I give up. Forget it. This is a waste of my time.

Ah, yes. Wikipedia does use *such* difficult to read formatting for equations. And you know, thermodynamics is just a theory, and observations that match the theory doesn't actually strengthen the argument. Reality be dammed, as long as it doesn't make you happy you can ignore any equation that fits the data and provides a theoretical understanding.

Ah, so a thermodynamic derivation that matches well with observations is your definition of a nutter. That's good to know. I'm sure that attitude won't lead to looking like a complete idiot time and again. Or, maybe some youtube video, fragmentary knowledge of physics, and name calling is just a predictable reaction of someone so ignorant and insecure, that experiment matching theory is "felt" to be a crackpot idea.

Once again, I asked for specifics, quoting more accusations about McIntyre without being able to provide attribution to what he has written will be taken as proof that said accusations are baseless.

"A derivation" has a precise meaning, it means from first (physical) principles. A calculation does not mean the same thing. BTW, providing answers isn't really helpful when the point is to follow the reasoning as to how the answer was arrived at.

I'll check the Physical Review paper at the library tomorrow, do you know if anyone has done a recent study to quantify how the absorption has changed since 1935 (from increasing CO2 and such).

Once again, the specific claim was that no one has taken the observed temperature readings, and calculated the standard deviation. Models are not observations, models *should* match observations, but that's not scientific to assume.

The dry adiabatic lapse rate on wikipedia isn't well formatted enough for you? Since you adamantly refuse to go through the trouble of plugging in constants, whose values are conveniently also on wikipedia, I think we can take that to be an admission that you agree the equation (and derivation) is correct and accurately matches observations. Let me know if you'd like any other physics issues you're confused about clarified and I'll be glad to help you out.

What mistakes - specifics examples from his 2005 paper please? It's not at all a convincing argument, and bad form to boot, to just make accusations without backing them up. From the information I can find - 'MBH98 and MBH99 were found to be "somewhat obscure and incomplete" and the criticisms by McIntyre and McKitrick were found to be "valid and compelling" ' - the ad homiem attacks, common theme of accusations of either Conspiracy Of Marketing Firms, or Crackpots Believing In Conspiracy Of Climate Scientists, and general vitriol is a substitute for good theories and data. People that "see" "hidden agendas" in others' work tend to discredit themselves, especially when they can't support it with evidence.

Why is it *so* important that policy be enacted immediately? The human race has a long history not fully understanding nature - if the consequences are *so* dire, then we should be very careful we don't muck things up even more. If it's completely unreasonable to have some rigor, because of looming catastrophe, a "tipping point", where is the data that supports this idea?

You seem to be confused about my questions involving standard deviation and experiments - if you're uncertain about what I'm saying, just say what you don't understand, and I'll clarify it for you. Here they are again, as simple as I can make them.

My specific claim about standard deviation is that no one has taken the observed temperature readings, and calculated the standard deviation from that, for 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, and 1 year. If you've read a paper which has this value, please provide a quote, and link.

"I want to know what the observed experimental data is, from a ~10 meter tube, or the observed atmosphere, or such, not computer models" - the absorption spectrum of CO2 is measured by a spectrometer over ~1cm, I think it's important to have done the (simple) experiment that would verify we know how CO2 behaves over longer distances, if it's a fundamental part of our models.

The derivation is available at the wikipedia article on Adiabatic Lapse Rate, you can find data for the atmosphere of Venus, and the least square algorithm there as well. All the other numbers are accepted values of physical constants. The equation is independent of planet, besides dependence on g, and the value for Earth is 9.8C/km, from the wikipedia article. I don't understand what you consider short-hand - if you don't understand the derivation then you need to pick up a copy of Kittel and Kroemer, Thermal Physics. It's rather disingenuous to expect me to provide a simpler derivation, but you surely can plug in numbers, do the least squares, and check that I wasn't lying about the numbers I gave.

You're aware that spectrometry gives the absorption spectrum, a distribution of the %saturated for a particular wavelength. So, you don't get to just magically throw some equations together and have the right answer, you need to notice the not so subtle fact that spectrometers give answers that are correct *only* for ~1cm path length. I'd suggest you pick up some physics books rather than reciting talking points, or even doing the experiment, but that's only if you care about looking like an idiot.

I keep hearing accusations of dishonesty Re:McIntyre and conspiracy theories, but can't find any concrete claims. The shear amount of vitriol on, say realclimate, leads me to believe that they aren't based on evidence, along with climatologists playing the martyrs, and more along the lines of "who the hell does this guy think he is, questioning *our* science when he's a journalist."

Yes, it holds on Earth (I dunno the max height, prob ~10km), and sufficiently dry. The equations for Venus and Earth are the same, just plug in g, M, gamma, you understand what a differential equation describes, right? It's from meteorology, and is why IPCC models with hydrostatic equilibrium can't simulate clouds. "The varying environmental lapse rates throughout the earth's atmosphere are of critical importance in meteorology, particularly within the troposphere." What this equation says, for both Venus and Earth, is that Pressure is sufficient to create a "livable" Earth.

Assuming Claugh & Iacono (1995) is anything like (2000), I want to know what the observed experimental data is, from a ~10 meter tube, or the observed atmosphere, or such, not computer models. From physics classes, I know how easy it is to screw up a derivation, and that's just undergrad not research. Computer modeling is something, that to regard with anywhere near the same certainty as a derivation, I'd need to at least see the data it predicts implicitly or explicitly.

Standard deviation of temperature, let's say global average. I'm lead to believe (thermometer) temperature records go back at least ~100 years, and are recorded daily. Why isn't the Sqrt(1/N Sum (x_i-mew) ) value used to show the natural variability, and provide hard, experimental evidence for weather->average->climate. This is just basic science, and by not doing it, and absolutely refusing to share data, they end up coming off like jerks that haven't done their due diligence, at best.

I'm not interested in the IPCC models for 3 reasons (1) somewhat vague predictions (at least no one's given a variable that will be statistically outside the observed average), (2) poor documentation and poor "numeric/physical rigor" (see lapse rate and clouds, among others), and (3) I need to check into Douglass et al, and what Santer et al says, but the general level of vitriol, ad homiems, and basic lack of understanding of simple scientific principles, like making it easy to duplicate your work, does not fill me with hope; see absurdity comparing quotes below.

"We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider. - Phil Jones"

"Professor Eddington's analysis of photographs of a solar eclipse confirmed the correctness of Einstein's equations. When asked by colleagues at the November 19th Royal Society Meeting to produce the data to support his claims regarding Einstein's theory Eddington replied, "Giving them the equations and source code would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people are engaged in," he added " We have 1000's of hours of time invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"

It was basically an argument that *most* of the warmth of Venus, is explainable by known thermodynamics, and it fits the data. (I was further hoping that at least some first principles radiative transfer calculations would be offered, experimental data link, or something besides a jumble of equations or model)

In no particular order: Earth, it predicts somewhat well, around the latent condensation level it diverges. Mars, no known atmospheric measurements to test (based on height/pressure). That equation is the dry adiabatic lapse rate, so depending on the humidity, you'd have to use the moist version.

As the moist adiabatic lapse rate equation demonstrates, yes, water vapor has a significant effect on atmospheric thermodynamics. I would like to know, quantitatively about feedback, the length of CO2 in the atmosphere, clouds, and many other processes, either from first principles, or experiment (like what is the decrease in transmission for various wavelengths for say a ten meter insulated tube with various atmospheres, is it still logarithmic over atmospheric distances?), and somewhat fundamentally, the calculated standard deviation of the weather for 1 year, 2 years, etc.

I don't believe there's a conspiracy. I do believe that the accuracy of the models has been greatly oversold, and the problems rationalized, and this "over-investment" has led to the claims about X caused by climate change, ad homiem attacks, and general poor state of understanding of the science, exemplified by "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider." - Phil Jones

I'll repeat, "where are the "sound, repeatable, demonstrable, falsifiable, testable" *experiments* to check that yes, our theory about how CO2 behaves in the atmosphere (or rather "toy atmosphere", for testing), is brilliantly confirmed by observations?" Or, to be perfectly precise, where is the experiment with (1) an insulated tube with various mixes of gases you wish to test (and various lengths), (2) a radiation/light source of variable wavelengths, and (3) measurements of radiation at both ends.

If spectrometry and the radiative forcing equation apply, they accurately predict the experiment, then congrats, you can use those equations. Physics equations aren't magic, and it's dishonest to misrepresent your argument with them without experiment or derivation for confirmation, just as it's dishonest to claim it's settled science, and make ad homiem attacks, when you haven't actually done the fundamental experiment, and it's fraud when you attempt to use intimidation by consensus.

Fortunately, nature has been kind enough to provide us with Venus. The adiabatic lapse rate (convective heat transport in the atmosphere) = dT/dz = -Mg/R*(y-1)/y = ~7.82K/km (I was lazy and used 100% CO2 for this, also y = gamma) which isn't too far off from the ALR calculated from measurements using least squares = ~7.74K/km. Surprise, we have experimental evidence that Venus, a planet with ~20,000X (92atm, ~96% CO2) the concentration of CO2 is quite explainable without resort to vague computer models.

As for newscientist:
(1)
Chaos does not disappear by averaging, no matter how many time you repeat it, the averaged N-S equations are just as hard to solve as the instantaneous, and iterating a crude weather model far past the point where it is valid does not magically make climate pop out. The only way you can predict a chaotic system is if it's periodic (or quasi-periodic), and then you have to determine the boundary conditions.
(2)
Still waiting on the natural variability of climate calculated from observations, a quantitative reason when weather turns to climate, and (correct) model predictions, say 3 standard deviations (or some equivalent probability) outside natural variability.

All in all a mess of non sequiturs, fuzzy sciencey analogies, and basic lack of understanding of math and physics, as well as the complexities of numerics. You probably should work on learning something about science, instead of just parroting terms and equations if you don't want to look foolish/dishonest. But then again, cargo cult science rarely figures out why planes don't land.

The jars are essentially in thermal equilibrium because of their size, they are sealed, therefore, hot air doesn't expand and rise, no convection. Simple thermodynamics.

As for the greenhouse effect and convection, assuming CO2 has the warming power attributed to it, Venus would probably be a good place for some clear effects to show. However, the adiabatic lapse rate (convective heat transport in the atmosphere) = dT/dz = -Mg/R*(y-1)/y = ~7.82K/km (I was lazy and used 100% CO2 for this, also y = gamma) which isn't too far off from the ALR calculated from measurements using least squares = ~7.74K/km. Note that this only depends on molar mass, gravitational acceleration, gas constant, and specific heat capacity, so we may safely conclude that the greenhouse effect is caused by pressure. HTH HAND

Venus' atmosphere is ~96.5% CO2, and it is claimed that the surface temperature is due to a runaway greenhouse effect. As the barometric equation and adiabatic lapse rate only depend on molar mass, specific heat capacity, and gravitational acceleration, and provides a good fit to the data, by occam's razor (a useful tool in evaluating the information content/probability of a scientific theory being right), it seems safe to assume that CO2 greenhouse gas theory is greatly overstated, and the narrow focus on CO2 is harmful because it takes money away from research into more important environmental problems.

(the 33K warming if the earth that makes life possible is attributed to CO2/greenhouse effect, which got me interested in the physics of the problem, but it seems to be much more likely to be caused by convection+ideal gas law+pressure (as a sorta intuitive explanation of the physics) )

Ah, so Trickle Down Economics is a crackpot idea when conservatives use it, but if you're using it to argue for "Green" causes, it's now en vogue? I moved and the hassles with changing your address in the system means I don't get the memos for what fads are Morally Superior.

I agree that conspiracy theorists have delusions of grandeur. What you fail to notice is the conspiracy claims by the AGW people, along with other kneejerk ad homiem attacks if you dare to ask them for predictions, say 2000-2100, including standard deviations of both observed climate and models(*). "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" does not follow "vast body of reviewed and verified climate change literature", because that literature has fallen into the groupthink of models being reality.

But, I wouldn't want to trouble you to take the time to do actually science and do experiments, especially because that would conflict with your precious messiah complex.

(*)It's rather pathetic that the level of competence in doing science is so low that this is regarded as a crackpot claim, but that's more of a problem with "science is a pile of facts, especially those that make me feel superior" crowd.

[PDF] Occam's Razor and Bayesian Analysis, a calculation of the probability of GR being correct. So what's the corresponding figure for AGW? Considering *anything* that happens with weather is attributed to CO2 based climate change, it's 0%. "Predicting" everything is the same as predicting nothing.