The graph I linked scales logarithmically from 0.1micrometres to 100 micrometres.

What are all these references to 5mm. Radiation?

Raff,
If you like I'll post your comment and we can see what happens, as I never had a problem with any comments there.

Jan 24, 2016 at 12:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

and later:

Raff
Why should I get bogged down arguing your point with a third party. It's a bizarre thought, ...

Jan 27, 2016 at 4:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

Bizarre thoughts are perhaps your thing, Sandy.

EM, the 5mm is the wavelength of the 60GHz absorption band of O2 (3e8/6e10 = 5mm) - the frequency used by the satellites and by UAH/RSS to produce what Martin says is NOT a global average temperature (what it is, he has yet to say - I can't wait).

Raff

Sorry. I thought it was related to the "Is O2 a greenhouse gas?" thread.

Martin A has a number of strange ideas regarding statistics.

What EM, strange ideas like you can't produce meaningful confidence intervals if you don't know whether the data you are dealing with are independent and identically distributed? (The situation that seems to apply whenever you blithely state confidence intervals.)

Or that strange statistical ideas such as that you can't compute meaningful confidence intervals for things that are not random? [Not long ago, you stated your belief that all things that obey the laws of physics are deterministic - ie non-random.]

Raff's "5mm" response was to your apparent belief that O₂ does not absorb/radiate at 5mm wavelength and likewise, your apparent belief that the black body radiation of the Earth does not include radiation at microwave (eg 5mm) wavelengths. I found that a bit strange in someone who has put so much effort into studying the subject of thermal radiation.

EM, a while back, I asked:

Maybe my senility has fogged my memory but I have no recollection of suggesting that "the output of thousands of scientists since ~1816 was a ploy to control the world". Could you please remind me where I said such a thing? (I would not dare to suggest that you had imagined that I said it - even though, in the past, you have been known to imagine things about me and then to state them as if fact.)

Still waiting for you to jog my memory. Is the long wait an indication that perhaps you did imagine it (and it then became your reality, as often seems to happen with the things that you imagine)?

Martin, I don't know if EM meant that you personally believe that "the output of thousands of scientists since ~1816 was a ploy to control the world" but the idea that climate science is being used in a conspiracy to create world government is certainly something I have seen "skeptics" discuss without apparent embarrassment or push-back by other "skeptics". If you don't want to be tarred by that brush, perhaps you should indicate you disagree with the crazys.

So I'm still waiting to know what you call the measures provided by RSS/UAH and the radiosonde data. The things is, Roy Spencer has a post where he discusses "Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures" and he doesn't say he's presenting "bogus science". The RATPAC data we plotted says it represents "Annual mean temperature anomalies for 7 regions -- hemispheres, globe,tropics..." which, for the "globe" data set looks awfully like your "bogus science" global average temperature. So as you said:

- Satellite measures: possibly useful but I'd want to know a lot more than I do before putting any trust in them.

- Sonde measurements: I imagine they are conducted and recorded in a systematic and professional fashion and less subject to having their history continually re-written.

you'd have to conclude that these measures are in fact also bogus science. Since you reject surface temperature records as "unfit for any purpose whatever" and now the other measures are bogus too, you have rejected all of the main measures by which we can see whether climate is changing. And as you reject GCMs because they are unvalidated (another reason why you must reject satellites and sondes) you have also rejected the main means by which we can study what might happen. Yet you seem to think there is a "pause", like Simple Simon who knows it without looking at the data. That is an odd position for such an apparently educated and clever person to take. It makes me wonder whether instead of you disassociating yourself from the crazies, it shouldn't be the other way round....

So I'm still waiting...

Raff, please be patient.

Martin, I don't know if EM meant that you personally believe that "the output of thousands of scientists since ~1816 was a ploy to control the world" ...

Sounded like that to me. EM seems to have a habit of imagining something about me and then stating it as if it were fact.

I had responded to an earlier comment by EM...

"Not surprisingly, models projecting large CO2 increases projected large temperature increases. Runs projecting low CO2 increases projected lower temperature increases..."

Yes, not surprisingly at all. Since they were programmed to do that, it would have been astounding if they had not done so.
Jan 22, 2016 at 12:09 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

I had assumed it was common knowledge that GCMs are programmed to simulate "trapping of heat" by atmospheric CO₂.

EM retorted

(...) You seem to think that the climate conspiracy decided what results it wanted the model to produce, and then worked backwards, writing software to match.

This is the difference between a genuine criminal trial and a show trial. The former examines the evidence and uses it to derive a verdict. A show trial started with the verdict and then fiddled the evidence to suit.

Are you seriously suggesting that the output of thousands of scientists over 200 years is a deliberate plot by "them" to control the world? If so, " senile old fool " seems entirely inadequate.
Jan 22, 2016 at 1:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Are you seriously suggesting that the output of thousands of scientists over 200 years is a deliberate plot by "them" to control the world? If so, " senile old fool " seems entirely inadequate.
Jan 22, 2016 at 1:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

That is a question followed by a conditional (hint: the ? and the 'if'). It is far from a statement of fact.

On the other hand it does seem to be a fact that you reject all of the main temperature indices as bogus science and yet still adhere to the "pause" meme. How do you justify that contradiction to yourself intellectually? Or is it just what Yins call "visceral"?

Martin A

If you can confirm unequivacally that you do not believe in any climate conspiracy, I will happily apologise.

Raff
You claimed you couldn't post there (Not A Lot Of People Know That), implying that what you'd said was censored. So as I've never had problems there the thought was that you give me the words and we could see if comments were censored, for Not A Lot Of People Know That blog I have never seen anyone, apart from you, claim that they couldn't post comments. I was skeptical of your claim and wanted to test it.

I said I'd post your comment, I didn't say I'd argue your case.

Sandy, I just posted this on the Decadal Global Temperature Bet thread:

Hi, can anyone point me to the discussion that led to the bet please. It is very odd for a warmist to agree that UAH/RSS are "the best we’ve got" - unless the meaning was that they are the best TLT satellite records we've got (best 2 out of 2).

But when something more interesting than this comes up on his site, I'll take you up on that offer if it still open.

Then I am sorry, but my comment stands.

He didn't miss it, he just hasn't stopped laughing yet. To think an oil company would fund people who say idiotic things for a hobby is a joke. You and Martin could perhaps do your double act of divining pauses in data that you don't believe in at the Edinburgh fringe, maybe with the Yins hanging round the back handing out pages of "compelling evidence" for a theory he can't quite put his finger on. It'd be a cracker.

Simon Hopkinson

I don't know whether or not big oil has funded climate change deniers.

At least two DAs in the US are investigating Exxon as we speak.

If they are found to be funding climate change denial while their own scientists were telling them it was happening, a court is liable to find against them for fraud.

Shall we let the court decide?

Simon Hopkinson

Is this what you were asking if I believed?

Wei-Hock Soon, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who routinely denied a connection between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, took $1.2 million from fossil fuel companies, including Southern Company Services, in return for “deliverables.” Soon used the term when describing his research papers on climate change, creating an apparent conflict of interest.

Simon Hopkinson

I don't really do belief, but I do like evidence.

Radical Rodent

I think I just found a climate change denier.

Soon took money to publish false science intended to discredit climate change.