Who the f@ck are you????? If I gave you a freshman physics question, could you get it right?
Why does someone need a title that specifically says "climate scientist"? What really matters is whether the person can do science. (In those particular cases, the people could not, being that they denied global warming... but their lack of title in a particularly low field in science is not the problem.)
I think not being able to do freshman physics is more disqualifying than not having the specialized title in a lowbrow science field.
edit
Denier: "I’m so tired of that Trenberth guy. He’s a waste of a very otherwise intelligent brain."
So called Climate Realist: "Do I need to spell it out. That is also an ad hominem arguement"
That is not an ad hominen argument. It is an insult. An ad hominem argument would, for example saying that someone was wrong because he did not have the right academic title or did not publish "peer reviewed papers". To be an ad hominem argument the argument has to be that someone is likely wrong because of an indirect reason relating to status. Insults are not necessarily ad hominem arguments. And ad hominem arguments are not necessarily even totally unreasonable, although Gringo's were as are the rest of the scientifically unskilled people here here who blabber about "peer review" and academic titles.
I don't think so. Seemed pretty clear and straightforward to me. Warming is influenced by events and larger jumps follow pauses. In addition, warming is not solely manifested in surface/air temperatures, bodies of water can absorb heat at various depths and influence average temps. He might be wrong-that I can't say. But he is certainly not obfuscating and after reading through it a couple of times I don't think what he is saying is that misleading...the Blackboard thread actually seems to have more of an agenda.
EDIT: Once again, I find one of your questions interesting; I do think it is obvious that your intention is to poke holes in AGW theory and that is fine from my point of view; I'm certainly skeptical of the significance and timing of the influence mankind has on climate. My point of view is that regardless of your agenda, you bring very interesting commentary and questions to this forum, which is sadly lacking in too many other respects.
disagree. his entire argument if you read the original paper is that there are pauses in the long term increases in temperatures. That main conclusion does not change. I'd wait for the peer review replies instead of depending on blogs like Blackboard. Lucia is not much better than Watts.
It is certainly true that most of your thousands of past Qs and As involve deliberate misleading. You might actually be completely correct with the insinuation of this latest (probably, like 99% of your Qs) fake question, but why should anyone waste time on a 1% chance of an exception? (Even if 1% is 25 times greater than .04%).
Agree! It's just like the controversy in the discrepancy between Mann and Briffa back in 1998. http://floppingaces.net/2013/04/06/globa...
The shenanigans of these people take away from the science. They gotta hide the decline because it goes against their theories. Many scientists have proposed many studies that go against AGW, but they have to go through the ELITEST PEER REVIEW PROCESS. 97% of those scientists who "peer review" papers believe in AGW according to the many AGW supporters here. So what's the point of having the peer review process at all?
This is precisely why there is a controversy. They obfuscate and mislead people.
---------------------------------------...
A quote from my link : "If climate scientists are unoffended by the failure to disclose adverse data, unoffended by the trick and not committed to the principles of full, true and plain disclosure, the public will react, as it has, by placing less reliance on pronouncements from the entire field – thus diminishing the coin of scientists who were never involved as well as those who were. This is obviously not a happy situation at a time when climate scientists are trying to influence the public and many have lashed out by blaming everyone but themselves, using the supposed exonerations by these ineffectual inquiries as an additional pretext."
--------------------------------------
http://www.principia-scientific.org/supp...
Gee! Look what NASA is saying now.
--------------------------------------
I guess that means 97% of climate scientists were wrong! LOL!
I think it should be a crime, to alter data and graphs (including cherry picking) for the purpose of misleading. and that's by anyone pro or anti
Wow, is this really the best you guys can come up with? He says ten years and he meant twelve? And you're a fine one to talk to Gringo about trashing people, your whole question is about trashing Trenberth (and not the first time either). And "...this changes the entire argument...? Only in some sort of bizarro denier world.
Trenberth's post states that there have been a few hiatuses in temperatures. By picking and choosing the end points it can be shown that the planet has cooled over a number of decades. However the overall warming has been positive. Trenberth also states what I have posted in here numerous times about how the PDO has gone into it's neutral or negative phase which affects the ENSO cycle. The planet is still heating. He also poinst out the energy imbalance and 'heat' energy doe snot always go into warming the atmosphere. Past measuring devices, however, were only able to measure parts of the system. This Lucia person picks and chooses her own end points in an attempt to show that there was no cooling period when, in fact, if you look at the graphs which she uses as 'proof' you can see where she definitely picks and chooses her end points. That is the whole argument he of making in that you should pick and choose short term end points but look at the long term trend. The terms she is asking to define are pretty straight forward. The questions she poses have little to do with what point that is attempting to be made.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/... (Note: Trenberth, according to this graph, should have stated 1987 to 1995 instead of 1996.)
Pinatubo erupted in 1991, Chichon in 1982 and Fuego has had continuous eruptions but the one they are talking about was in 1974/75+. Volcanic aerosols spend between 2 and 3 years in the atmosphere after an eruption before being rained out. Of course these played a role in the cooling of the atmosphere during this time period. However many of these eruptions occurred when the temperatures were already in a downswing. The point Trenberth is making is that the PDO has a very real effect on climates and affects the ENSO cycle.
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.late...
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
The volcanic eruptions did cause extended cooling during those times but the PDO was in it's positive phase for two of those cycles, the last two, and the eruption of Fuego, which seemingly had little effect on the trend, occurred during a substantial negative ENSO cycle. The basic point I think he is trying to make is that there are many things that can have an effect on the climate, which is the reason why there have been extended periods of year-on-year cooler temperatures in the past. The recent year-on-year cooler temperatures can be explained by the PDO and the ENSO working together. The heat is still in the system, as evidenced by the energy imbalance of the system, it has just not gone into warming the atmosphere.
Yes, Gringo was out of line by going into an ad hominem rant. If anything, a nuclear engineer would have a vested interest in being biased in favor of global warming, as there is no other reason to choose nuclear power over coal. Nevertheless,
"I’m so tired of that Trenberth guy. He’s a waste of a very otherwise intelligent brain."
Do I need to spell it out. That is also an ad hominem arguement.
<
Disagree.
Who the f@ck is Lucia? Isn't she a mechanical engineer specialized in radio-active waste?
<<"I’m so tired of that Trenberth guy...>>
Who the f@ck is Luis Dias? Does he regularly publish peer reviewed papers on climate? Or is he just a regular Lucia/WUWT/insert favorite denier blog reader who hasn't got an effing clue about climate science?
Oh, I just LOVE Lucia's own comment (#3) where she calls Trenberth incompetent yet has had to update her own post due to mistakes she made.
Trenberth recently submitted a post on the Royal Meteorological Society website addressing the claim of a recent pause in warming: http://www.rmets.org/weather-and-climate/climate/has-global-warming-stalled
Lucia at The Blackboard has an anaylsis of the graph Trenberth provides in his post. The main question is why Trenberth references the period 2001-2012 when his graph clearly shows he puts up a trend for 2001-2010. By actually adding the 2001-2012 period as Lucia does, this changes the entire argument. And there are several other questions about his analysis as well such as neglecting to mention that his two earlier trend comparisons encompass major volcanic eruptions.
See here for details: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/trenberths-missing-trends/
The first comment in The Blackboard thread:
"I’m so tired of that Trenberth guy. He’s a waste of a very otherwise intelligent brain. If he spent so much time trying to understand the climate as he does trying to spin the data to conform to the Cause, we would all benefit from it."
Agree or disagree?
