Jonger Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Heres my Peer review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Heres my Peer review. If your mental horizons are so limited that you have to pretend that science began in 1940, then go for it. But if you think that you are impressing or convincing anybody with that nonsense then you are delusional. You're not just wrong, you're pathetically wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 If your mental horizons are so limited that you have to pretend that science began in 1940, then go for it. But if you think that you are impressing or convincing anybody with that nonsense then you are delusional. You're not just wrong, you're pathetically wrong. I figured you would like that dose of reality... BTW, it still shows warming.... Just not as much as the chart showing extreme temp sensitivity in 1880!! LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Heres my Peer review. Specifically, what do you reject about records before 1940? Where were the mistakes made in their methodology that makes you believe they are in error? How would you do it differently if you were trying to build a historical record? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 As opposed to a blog post where the author can can anything, true or fictional, this paper was peer-reviewed. Can you see the difference? So he isn't wrong you just don't like the fact that he used a 17 year time period? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Nope, Wxtrix is correct - Tisdale is not a reputable scientist. Check for yourself - go to google scholar and look for his peer-reviewed publications. INstead of real research Tisdale chooses to write blog posts where he can say whatever he wants and never has to correct his errors. That way nasty old reality never gets in the way. Funny you mention about not having to correct errors. Gavin Schmidt (GISS) claimed that Tisdale was incorrect but today Schmidt admitted it was he that was incorrect and not Tisdale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Specifically, what do you reject about records before 1940? Where were the mistakes made in their methodology that makes you believe they are in error? How would you do it differently if you were trying to build a historical record? Umm, there is 0.1 degree shifts in ocean temps being shown from 1870. That's a terrible credibility killer in the graph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Funny you mention about not having to correct errors. Gavin Schmidt (GISS) claimed that Tisdale was incorrect but today Schmidt admitted it was he that was incorrect and not Tisdale. Interesting - I just read Gavin's post on RealClimate and even did a word search of the entire post plus the comments and there is not a single mention of Tisdale. In fact, Tisdale hasn't been mentioned at RealClimate since 2/8/2012, and that was in a comment by someone named barry, not by Gavin. So you are either mistaken or dishonest - would you care to enlighten us as to which it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 also, thanks for proving you are BethesdaBoy as he was also addicted to posting crap from WUWT. LOL, thanks for proving you are a troll and continue to act a fool after a mod. has already plainly stated I am not this former poster you speak of. By the way to apply the same metric as guys do to "deniers", I guess we shouldn't use GISS any long since they are "sloppy" with their data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Interesting - I just read Gavin's post on RealClimate and even did a word search of the entire post plus the comments and there is not a single mention of Tisdale. In fact, Tisdale hasn't been mentioned at RealClimate since 2/8/2012, and that was in a comment by someone named barry, not by Gavin. So you are either mistaken or dishonest - would you care to enlighten us as to which it is? You know you can go to Tisdale's page and read about it. Again I ask, your only problem with Tisdale's findings was his use of a 17 year period? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 does he have even one peer-reviewed publication? can you link us up with his CV? thanks. He is graphing Reynolds SST data, I don't think that is peer-review material. Thanks for trying to play gatekeeper though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 And knowing the SST's (globally) is a MUCH easier (thus more accurate) today than a century ago (kinda like my point re: the AMO, but even moreso) That said, I cede your point, to a certain extent. How the deep ocean plays in all this looms rather large IMO, as to the ultimate story of energy storage/fluxes of all the waters on the planet. I highly suspect the oceans (as a 3 dimensional whole) act much more as a buffer to rapid global air temps, then most suspect. LEK, Yes they are a large buffer. It takes an enormous amount of energy to warm the bulk oceans even a little bit. I recall reading that given the radiative imbalance at the TOA, something like the equivalent of 8 nuclear power plants of energy is being accumulated by the world oceans.....EVERY SECOND! This reminds me of some of the truly remarkable things going on in the physics of our world. For example the solar core produces energy like this: About 3.6×1038protons (hydrogen nuclei) are converted into helium nuclei every second, releasing mass and energy at the mass-energy equivalence rate of 4.3 million tonnes per second, 380 yottawatts (3.8×1026watts), equivalent to 9.1×1010megatons of TNT per second. The Sun has been doing that at near equivalent numbers for 5 billion years and can keep it up for another 7 billion. Anyway, the ocean store about 93% of all solar energy being absorbed by the Earth. Yet the surface temperature of the oceans seems not to have increased by much according to some in the past 17 years. The oceans are measured to be expanding due to increasing thermal content, ie. sea levels have risen over the past 17 years, partially the consequence of thermal expansion. Also contributing to sea level rise are melting land based ice sheets and the additional continental runoff as a consequence of extracted underground water for human use. SEE So where is the heat going if not to warm the surface? If the ocean surface does not warm, the atmosphere overlying the oceans will not warm either since the atmosphere is warmed by the surface. It will take decades for the mixing of ocean waters to raise SST so as to bring radiative balance to the TOA . Apparently this is not a linear process, the sensible warming near the surface occurs in fits and starts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 You know you can go to Tisdale's page and read about it. Again I ask, your only problem with Tisdale's findings was his use of a 17 year period? Don't dodge my question - you said "Gavin Schmidt (GISS) claimed that Tisdale was incorrect but today Schmidt admitted it was he that was incorrect and not Tisdale.". I pointed out that your statement is false. Gavin didn't say anything about Tisdale. Which makes your statement either a lie or an error. Which was it? I've asked a legitimate question, one that an honest person wouldn't have any trouble answering. Your choice to dodge the question and to try to change the subject is evidence that it was a lie, not an error. Dodge all you want, I'll keep asking it. As for Tisdale's analysis - it is wrong on many levels, not just cherrypicking dates and using a time period too short to accurately show the SST trends. Detailed debunking articles are on-line. If you were honestly interested in climate change I'd put together a longer response with lots of links - but since you are showing yourself to be a liar and a denialist troll - you're not worth the time and effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 I'm trying to evaluate him as a legitimate source No your not, if you wanted to do that you could look at the validity of his findings. You are trying to use your smug condescending attitude to assassinate the mans name and discourage others from viewing his work as legitimate. Again, he seems to be well above board with his sources so feel free to actually deal with the content and not use childish debate tactics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Don't dodge my question - If you went to Tisdale's site as I recommended you could have read all you needed to know. I guess you didn't do that. As for Tisdale's analysis - it is wrong on many levels, not just cherrypicking dates and using a time period too short to accurately show the SST trends. Detailed debunking articles are on-line. If you were honestly interested in climate change I'd put together a longer response with lots of links - but since you are showing yourself to be a liar and a denialist troll - you're not worth the time and effort. Ahh the mythical debunking followed by name calling. Typical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 I'm really not digging into OHC discussion, I know very little about it... But a quick Google of the names mentioned in this debate does pop up that page from WUWT.... So I don't think anyone here is lying about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 If you went to Tisdale's site as I recommended you could have read all you needed to know. I guess you didn't do that. Ahh the mythical debunking followed by name calling. Typical. You are dodging my question again. It has nothing to do with Tisdale's blog and everything to do with your honesty and motives. You posted a claim on this thread that was demonstrably false. My question, which I'll ask for the third time.is - were you wrong or dishonest? That can't be that tough a question to answer. And please note - parroting denialist crap from WUWT is a 'YES' in the dishonest column. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 I'm really not digging into OHC discussion, I know very little about it... But a quick Google of the names mentioned in this debate does pop up that page from WUWT.... So I don't think anyone here is lying about it. Well they aren't digging into the OHC discussion either. They are doing their usual routine where they break out all the childish debate tactics. It is their way of trying to limit discussion in this forum so that only one side is presented. They are playing a semantic word game with me where they are putting quotes with my statement of "but today Schmidt admitted it was he that was incorrect and not Tisdale". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 then just show us exactly where Gavin wrote that Tisdale was right--using Tisdale's name. from what I can find out, Tisdale has no PhD and is not a scholar. he's just a blogger with no professional qualifications, and also a big favorite at WUWT. hopefully the staff will realize you are BB3 and we'll be rid of your endless WUWT references. You do realize this is an open internet forum right? We aren't trying to persuade a government committee or present in-front of the U.N. I really am interested to know what heinous offense this Bethesdaboy is accused of? Was he threatening posters, swearing relentlessly, plagiarizing work? If we are simply looking at data and making comments on it, we don't need a PhD to post over it. Someone the other day tried telling me that we have general hurricane records going back 1000 years.... It takes NO PhD to google the methods used to come to that conclusion and post an opinion on the topic. I can tell you are not well traveled on the internet when it comes to forums, your complaints are hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Again, you are wrong.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Again, you are wrong.... How is lying an issue related to climate change and therefore suitable for this forum. If anybody wants to post their opinion on some topic that's fine - widely differing opinions are generally tolerated here. But when somebody makes something up and posts it as being fact, not opinion, then they have crossed a line into unacceptable behavior. That is what Ben did when he wrote in post #215 "Gavin Schmidt (GISS) claimed that Tisdale was incorrect but today Schmidt admitted it was he that was incorrect and not Tisdale.". That statement was easy to show as completely false. Ben has had ample opportunity to retract his statement if it was a simple mistake. Instead, he has continued to defend it as true. His actions speak volumes about his honesty and credibility. As Wxtrix has pointed out, this is a technical forum for discussing climate change science. Ideally all posters would present their positions in an open and honest fashion. Is there any other way to have an honest discussion? Ben, by his choosing to be dishonest and post complete fiction, doesn't add anything of value to the discussion. The best analogy that comes to mind (I'm an engineer) is signal to noise ratio (S/N). In any communication, in any exchange of information, you have signal (the information being communicated) and you inevitably have noise (no communication is perfect). If the noise level is too high then communication breaks down and no information gets through. A forum such as this is a communication medium where.ideas and data are the signal and errors and lies are noise. When Ben, or anyone, posts lies he is simply adding noise to the mix. Hopefully the moderators will understand this and ban him for his dishonesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocoAko Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Ah, the 'ole "elitism" claim. Degrees, peer-review, and CVs matter in big-time science. These aren't meaningless symbols. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-K Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Ah, the 'ole "elitism" claim. Degrees, peer-review, and CVs matter in big-time science. These aren't meaningless symbols. +100000000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 How is lying an issue related to climate change and therefore suitable for this forum. If you were really concerned with this you would call out Trixie who continues to refer to me as someone I am not and even a mod. has said there is no proof of this. Instead you want to play a juvenile semantics game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 If you were really concerned with this you would call out Trixie who continues to refer to me as someone I am not and even a mod. has said there is no proof of this. Instead you want to play a juvenile semantics game. Still dodging my question, I see. Your attempts to change the subject are pretty lame. This isn't about WXtrix, this is about you and your posting lies on this forum. It would be refreshing if you would man up, take responsibility for your actions, and stop posting nonsense. But I"m sure that's unlikely to happen. I'll keep asking my question until you give us an answer. On post #215 you wrote "Gavin Schmidt (GISS) claimed that Tisdale was incorrect but today Schmidt admitted it was he that was incorrect and not Tisdale." As has been demonstrated, Dr Schmidt didn't mention Tisdale at all - so your claim is blatantly bogus. My question is - are you wrong or dishonest? Or both? It is a simple question, not a semantic game in any fashion. Be a grownup and answer it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BNAwx Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Ah, the 'ole "elitism" claim. Degrees, peer-review, and CVs matter in big-time science. These aren't meaningless symbols. To skeptics like myself and many others, they aren't as meaningful as they should be either. Global warming has become too political with too much money on the line; therefore, "peer-reviewed" probably becomes "pal-reviewed" when it's all said and done. Skeptics have the right to be skeptical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocoAko Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 how much first-hand experience do you have with the peer review process? also, what about the billions of dollars funneled into the field by oil and gas? why do you accept the findings of those scientists? the peer review thing is only brought up by people who don't follow the science and think there is only a monolithic research point of view at press. it's a viewpoint built on ignorance. Time for a "Peer-Review: What It Is & What It Isn't" thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Skeptics have the right to be skeptical. The AGW crowd has worked hard to insulate themselves. They fight hard to make sure this insulation is not threatened. However it is getting to the point to where they can no long dodge observable data over the last decade especially when you compare it to their ridiculous predictions/projections. Take for instance the article by Mr. Tisdale that they so desperately have tried to discredit with childish tactics. He shows that the IPCC model mean over forecasted warming by a factor of 5 over the last 17 years. So they will then fall back on OHC and Levitus data. Of course their models have also over forecasted OHC warming and if you take the models which most match Levitus observations you get a future climate sensitivity of 1.3 to 1.5 degree C for a doubling of CO2. (done by Roy Spencer). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 how much first-hand experience do you have with the peer review process? also, what about the billions of dollars funneled into the field by oil and gas? why do you accept the findings of those scientists? the peer review thing is only brought up by people who don't follow the science and think there is only a monolithic research point of view at press. it's a viewpoint built on ignorance. Do you have a link showing this "billions of dollars"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 To skeptics like myself and many others, they aren't as meaningful as they should be either. Global warming has become too political with too much money on the line; therefore, "peer-reviewed" probably becomes "pal-reviewed" when it's all said and done. Skeptics have the right to be skeptical. +100000000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.