Discussion > Masstra2014 questions to sceptics.
Little-g
> he thinks he's brilliant and we're dickheads
Untrue. I am indeed intelligent, but wherever I have worked or visited I have soon become aware that my light does not shine the brightest. I see no reason to think that is different here. The problem as I see it is quite the reverse - you lot, think that you are collectively brilliant and that the scientific world are dickheads or impcompetents, corrupt or self interested. I have yet to see any justification for such beliefs.
> ...he's got SoD on his side and that's telling him that
> CO2 increase will cause an increase in radiative forcing
> therefore the temperature must go up. Moreover he believes
> he's found an inside track that we're unaware of that CO2,
> all other things being equal, will cause the atmosphere to
> warm..
Only a few pages back you were telling us that CO2 forcing is accepted by you and by most skeptics. And now you throw doubt on that. I really have no idea what you believe, and I don;t think you do either. But I am certain that you don't know at any non-trivial level what a "coupled non-linear chaotic system" is.
TinyCO2, you might be right.
Martin, from what I understand, if you are saying that increasing CO2 has no forcing effect you are effectively arguing that Earth is no warmer for the CO2 in its atmosphere - it would be the same temperature whatever the level of CO2. If that is a correct understanding of your views then it is a remarkable opinion, given the depth of study the subject has received. Why do so many people (including skeptics like Linzden etc) not believe you?
I did give you a way to convince me. Why not try it? SoD is in a position (intellectually and educationally) to debate this with you. If you think the case is so strong, why not debate it there?
Chandra
"Martin, [...] I did give you a way to convince me. Why not try it? SoD is in a position (intellectually and educationally) to debate this with you. If you think the case is so strong, why not debate it there?
Feb 9, 2014 at 11:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterChandra
If you genuinely wish to discuss it, why not start your own discussion thread instead of hijacking that from Mastra2014?
I'm sure Martin will engage you there, even if you tell him to go and discuss the details someplace else.
michaelhart
michaelhart - well, to be fair, I think that maestra2014 did challenge chandra to explain his views here in the expectation they would be responded to.
But there is little point in continuing the discussion. I can't see chandra ever saying something like 'well I don't agree but I can see why someone might take that view'. Discussion with someone who states they do not understand the subject and depends on appeals to authority is never going to get very far.
Martin A
"Only a few pages back you were telling us that CO2 forcing is accepted by you and by most skeptics. And now you throw doubt on that. I really have no idea what you believe, and I don;t think you do either. But I am certain that you don't know at any non-trivial level what a "coupled non-linear chaotic system" is."
Chandra -
I think you must have been re-reading Dale Carnegie. You really try make yourself appear as a pleasant person to get to know, don't you?
'But I am certain that you don't know at any non-trivial level what a "coupled non-linear chaotic system" is.'
You are quite certain about that, are you?
Perhaps one of the things that endears people to you is the way you make it clear that you assume they are your equals in ignorance.
I don't think I have used those terms here, so I am not sure why you should say such a thing. But I do in fact have a pretty good understanding of coupled non-linear chaotic systems. Just one or two of the the things I have been involved with in that area over the years:
- Studied nonlinear differential equations, including the Van der Pol equation, as a student.
- Worked with an electronic engineer to analyse why the precision transistor oscillator he was designing would 'oscillate at all frequencies' (as he put it) at high supply voltages (answer: chaotic oscillations involving nonlinearity due to excess positive feedback showing up as white noise on a spectrum analyser).
- Supervised an MSc dissertation on the stabilisation of oscillations due to finite arithmetic effects in nonlinear recursive digital filters (not strictly chaotic as, since the variables are discrete, the number of states is finite (though very large). But chaotic for all practical purposes.
Would those count as understanding coupled non-linear chaotic systems at a non-trivial level?
Martin A
Martin, you responded to what was addressed to little-g geronimo. The part addressed to you starts with 'Martin':
Martin, from what I understand, if you are saying that increasing CO2 has no forcing effect you are effectively arguing that Earth is no warmer for the CO2 in its atmosphere - it would be the same temperature whatever the level of CO2. If that is a correct understanding of your views then it is a remarkable opinion, given the depth of study the subject has received. Why do so many people (including skeptics like Linzden etc) not believe you?I did give you a way to convince me. Why not try it? SoD is in a position (intellectually and educationally) to debate this with you. If you think the case is so strong, why not debate it there?
So did I understand you right?
> Discussion with someone who ... depends on appeals to authority
> is never going to get very far.
Appeals to authority are quite common here. People like to claim the credibility of the blog and its comments because the readers are 'engineers' or whatever. That seems to go down fine with you all. You yourself like to point to your status and experience as an engineer to support your views. What you don't seem to like is people like me relying on those who study climate instead of believing you.
People like me have to depend upon authority. I can't work out for myself whether what you say about CO2 is true. I just can't. But I can read that textbooks and seemingly everyone bar a few disagrees with you. I would be stupid to believe you and not them.
Chandra
'But I am certain that you don't know at any non-trivial level what a "coupled non-linear chaotic system" is.'
The certainty of the fool. Actually there isn't much to know about coupled non-linear chaotic systems at a non-trivial level it is really easy to understand. The complexity comes in doing the sums to model them, and to that extent you're right it is a long time since I did the sums and even then I wasn't very good.
Okay you're reading text books are you? The physics of CO2 in the atmosphere is well understood, except seemingly by you, and no one on this blog has suggested other than the understanding in the scientific community, yet you, like some demented parrot, persist is saying we're denying CO2 is a GHG. Maybe it's the textbooks you've been reading, So what textbooks exactly have you been reading? Or is this another of your mendacities?
To be blunt, I don't believe you, I think you're coming on here with half digested snippets on information from websites. Of course the reason you're coming back is that no matter what you may say about the denizens of this blog, they have increased your vocabulary dramatically to the extent that you've had to look up words in the dictionary and repeat the meaning as though we didn't know what we'd said. Just like your digestion of our views on CO2 as a GHG.
You seem proud to be dependent upon others for your views, not surprising really, although I have the impression you think you're the sharpest knife in the cutlery drawer you can't work out for yourself what we're saying about CO2 is true. Well you really have to be dumb not to understand what we're saying about CO2 because it has to be in the "textbooks" you've been reading (ha ha ) as no one here has done anything but repeat for you the standard textbook version of what CO2 does.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." Richard Feynman.
geronimo
Come on Martin, it is an easy question. Did I understand you correctly? Are you really saying that the planet is no warmer for the CO2 in its atmosphere?
Little-g, I said nothing about having read a textbook.
Chandra
Chandra - when Trenberth and co talk about 'the missing heat', do you understand what they are referring to? Would you like to explain in a line or two what they mean by that expression?
Martin A
.And do you understand the notion of a warm object being in thermal equilibrium?
Martin A
Is this Chandrasekhar speak for not reading text books?
"But I can read that textbooks and seemingly everyone bar a few disagrees with you. I would be stupid to believe you and not them."
So what have you been reading?
geronimo
Martin, your non-answer makes me think that you do indeed think that the planet is no warmer for the CO2 in its atmosphere. I find it very starange that an engineer can believe that. Perhaps I will ask a few questions on your ideas at SoD to see whether I am misjudging you, since you are reluctant.
Yes, I understand thermal equilibrium. Regarding Trenberth, you could look at the SKS page to clear up any confusion you have.
Geronimo, the answer is in the 5th word. Your lack of proficiency in English doesn't surprise me much. Most of your fellow countrymen and women also have trouble with their own language.
Chandra
I agree with an earlier poster who suggested that it was maybe right to end Chandra's time on BH. A number of people have debated him to a standstill on various points, it is not as if people refuse to engage with him. The problem is that he/she succeeds in derailing numerous discussions which is, I am sure exactly what he/she intends.
Dung
Chandra - You said "Did I understand you correctly? Are you really saying that the planet is no warmer for the CO2 in its atmosphere?"
Please re-read my words and see if I said anything even remotely like that.
So far as I can see, to interpret anything I have said in this thread or elsewhere as having that meaning must involve, on your part, either some profound misconception about 'the missing heat' or simply wilful misunderstanding.
Bye.
Martin A
Chandrs: "Little-g, I said nothing about having read a textbook."
Chandra "But I can read that textbooks and seemingly everyone bar a few disagrees with you. I would be stupid to believe you and not them."
Chandra: "Geronimo, the answer is in the 5th word. Your lack of proficiency in English doesn't surprise me much. Most of your fellow countrymen and women also have trouble with their own language."
I think it's time for you to go. You are a liar and have contempt for the people of the UK.
geronimo
Manipulative. Also obsessive and lacking insight into others. Personality disorder symptoms.
splitpin
splitpin
You're too kind.
Disruptive pain in the neck is much closer to the mark.
I agree with Dung. There does come a point in dealing with any troll when it becomes just too much like trying to herd cats. For a while I thought Chandra was simply a warmist having an argument for the sake of it, which is fair enough; it's not the best way of making us examine our own prejudices but it will do. Then I took him for a recalcitrant adolescent. Finally I concluded he is simply a reincarnation of BBD who has "discovered" Science of Doom and Skeptical Science and trots out sound bites and factoids from there without really understanding what they mean.
Time to go time!
Mike Jackson
A liar? Your seeming inability to read or count makes me a liar? Seems I have learnt another part of "skeptic" vocabulary.
Chandra
geronimo
I hate to say it, but he's right.
It takes a bit of finding but his exact words were "But I can read that textbooks ... disagree ..."
So his fifth word is 'that', not 'textbooks'.
Which, of course, just makes the situation even worse and makes him less worthy (if that is possible) of our attention. He can't be bothered to read the textbooks so he comes along here and pontificates on a subject he knows nothing about other than, as I said in my last posting, the dubious factoids that he gleans from the likes of Cook's (anything but)SkepticalScience and a few cherry pickings from Science of Doom.
He's another BBD and should go the same way.
Mike Jackson
> It takes a bit of finding but ...
Well you had the sentence ("But I can read that textbooks...") and I gave you the number 5. And let's face it, the number 5 was superfluous for deciphering the sentence for anyone who can actually read English. But it took you "a bit of finding". In any normal environment an admission like that would make you seem like the class dummy (although that place goes to little-g really), but here I guess it makes you top of the class for managing.
As you are keen on berating me for not reading textbooks, perhaps you could reveal your favourite textbook on the subject. Try and do it without using a search engine... Oh silly me, when did a journalist ever read a physics textbook, still less understand one.
Chandra
Manipulative. Also obsessive and lacking insight into others. Personality disorder symptoms.
splitpin
What's your point, Chandra?
You seem very worried about people "berating" you. First it's Maestra (Feb 8, 2014 at 7:15 PM) who you proceed in your turn to berate at length for daring to criticise your attitude. Not a gentlemanly way to behave to a lady who has chosen to come to this site for help as an escape from the "badgering, browbeating and accusations" (her words) that she had experienced — as we all have — at places like RealClimate and Cook's and Tamino's sites only to fine we had been invaded by somebody equally boorish and even more ignorant.
Then you decide that I am "berating" you for not reading physics text books which requires quite a distorted interpretation of what I wrote. What I am criticising is the general offensiveness of your behaviour since you have nothing constructive to say and are only admitting your ignorance by quoting gobbets of half-digested scientific factoids from web sites that you quite clearly don't understand.
As you were told up-thread: stop digging. You're just making yourself a laughing-stock.
(I don't have a "favourite" physics textbook, by the way. Climate is too big a subject to be covered by one textbook. But I do try to keep up. How about you? I suggested a look at part 8 of SoD's course on CO2. Have you done that bit of homework yet?)
Mike Jackson
Since you complain that I "can't be bothered to read the textbooks", tell us when you last bothered to read a relevant textbook. The likelyhood of you having done that since your school days is vanishingly small.
Chandra
Mike - I'd suggest letting it drop. You are not going to communicate with the person in any meaningful way.
splitpin
Hello Chandra,
Further up the thread you say "people like me have to depend upon authority." Why?
Paul Thomson
Chandra, as I said, I did not think my words would convince you.
"The radiative forcing of the surface-troposphere system due to the perturbation in or the introduction of an agent (say, a change in greenhouse gas concentrations) is the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus long-wave; in Wm-2) at the tropopause AFTER allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropo-spheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values". (IPCC)
In other words, a concept that has no physical existence, that can exist only within computer models and which is incapable of being validated (and, equally, of being falsified). This give a lucid illustration of how climate science is not science, despite having the word in its title and wearing some of the clothes of science. If a concept can't be verified by experiment, it makes no difference how many 'learned people' believe in it, it remains unverified.
A good principle when things are uncertain is to look for the simplest explanation that requires the fewest assumptions.
Instead of looking in the deep ocean, under the carpet, or elsewhere, to find what has happened to "the missing heat" that radiative forcing says should be there, climate scientists might well take a hint from Nature. With their models unvalidated, they cannot rule out that Nature is whispering: "I'm sorry but the static temperature of the past fifteen years is simply because there is actually no imbalance between incoming and outgoing energy flows. The missing heat is nothing but a phantom conjured up by the approximations and errors in your models."