#Moved, thanks.

cohenite // Oct 18, 2008 at 3:56 am

At the intro to this fascinating discussion the Douglass study showing no THS is referred to; a posse of AGW scientists, including Santer, Schmidt, Jones and Sherwood, have put together a little effort refuting the Douglass paper and the general idea that there has been no troposphere warming in contradiction of AGW; the link is here; any comments, given that Ferenc’s theory is dependent on there being no THS?

http://www.realclimate.org/docs/santer_etal_IJoC_08_fact_sheet.pdf

By the way, Ferenc, I think Jan’s idea is good; set up a website with a donation box; dilettantes’ like me with some lazy money are always willing to donate to a worthy cause; and here in Australia, we love the underdog.

First, Santer at al admit to having used wrong data from satellites and sondes for years. Not smart enough to pick it up? They do not provide figures or explanations or corrections for this in their question set. Instead, they ignore their own past errors and get stuck into Douglass et al.

Then Santer at al state – as if this means anything concrete in the real world – that :
Research published by this group
indicates that there is no fundamental discrepancy between modeled and
observed tropical temperature trends when one accounts for: 1) the (currently large) uncertainties in observations; 2) the statistical uncertainties in estimating trends from observations.

Using logic rather than science, you can account for a highly improbable state of anything if you allow for large uncertainties. A new-born calf can have 2 heads because we can see preserved specimens in museums. In an ensemble, the number of heads on a calf exceeds 1. Observationally correct, but not in accordance with usual understanding. Not what you’d use for predicting.

If you are aware of errors in data, you find them, fix them and explain them before you publish. You do not repeat them with differnt spin in a later paper. That is the scientific equivalent of spitting in church.

Fu et al, Sherwood and Allen and now Santer et al; AGW knows it has a problem with no THS, which is why it is trying to deconstruct the wheel and substantiate mirages; if it wasn’t so serious it would be sad.

#3 cohenite
“trying to deconstruct the wheel and substantiate mirages; if it wasn’t so serious it would be sad.”

We need a cartoonist, a childrens’ storybook writer (Square, triangular, rectangular, wheel, flat tire). A percentage of the take from Miskolczi’s pot of Virtual Internet Gold, the end linearly extrapolated alarmism.

Franko; an interesting ‘cartoon’ would be Miskolczi sitting on his theory’s verifications, with Hansen sitting on the verifications for AGW for comparison; maybe on your website you could have growth charts for the 2 theory’s indicating those verifications. Would Miskolczi be higher or lower than Hansen?