Dessler says that Spencer’s model matches the data, but it is still wrong.
“He’s taken an incorrect model, he’s tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct,” Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, said of Spencer’s new study.
Arthur Smith says that Spencer mismatches the data by a few trillion degrees.
Arthur Smith has now done the full mathematical proof for what I showed by playing around with MATLAB. UPDATED UPDATE: Arthur went on to show that, given the mathematical form of Spencer’s model, he would have to start his model at?To = negative a few trillion degrees in 1000 A.D. to have his model produce a suitable anomaly in 1900 to adequately fit the 20th century data.
Discover Magazine says they are against ad homs – at the end of about 10 paragraphs of them.
I was also surprised to find Spencer is a big supporter of Intelligent Design. I was initially reticent to mention that, since it seems like an ad hominem.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/
I’m not going to be the one to bring up the subject of Kennedy’s religion. – Richard Nixon
“he’s tweaked it to match observations”
What a classic quote. Like the opposite of ‘hide the decline.’
If one has a model, and reality doesn’t match it, the model is what needs adjusting. That is unless you’re an alarmist, in which case you alter reality.
That adequately sums up the kind of world in which alarmists live.
I suspect this is why Hansen’s records changed – to fit the expectations of models. If you’re allowing the data to tell you the answer, you WOULD adjust the model.
them ladies do protest too much
I don’t think the public has realized that the “scientists” have “adjusted” the temperature record to the extent that they have done so. The famous example of the medieval warming period just disappearing is the most obvious one, but there are many places where they adjust the record to fit the model rather than adjust the model to fit observations.
Does anyone know of a good link to posts that discuss this phenomenon?
Hey huishi! Try this…
http://www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-fake-temperatures.html
and this…
http://blog.qtau.com/2010/05/dude-where-is-my-thermometer.html
I have just found this deeply dishonest post by a Ca. academic.
http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/australian-carbon-tax/
See if it strikes you that way?
While decide just which set of facts to skewer him with.
Sandy, it isn’t dishonest(per se,) more than it is deluded and misguided.
“Is this really bad? I’m not sure. I hope however that the Australian carbon tax goes forward to the point where we can see its effects instead of merely speculate about them.”
You can tell him, yes everyone paying more for a necessary product is bad, especially when the company responsible for the product doesn’t get to reap the increase of cost. In the end, this will effectively kill the industry and thus jobs. The net result will be higher costs for electricity and lower employment, when employment and use start toward the bottom of the curve, it will result in less revenue for the nation in forms of taxes. In the end, everyone loses.
Also, you can laugh hysterically at his desire to “see the effects”. Can one detect a 0.0001 degree lowering of temps? Australia doesn’t emit enough CO2 to make any difference one way or the other. Yes, per capita they are high, but the nation is so sparsely populated, you guys could eliminate CO2 emissions altogether and the worlds total emissions would continue to rise at about the same rate as it is today.
for starters Spencer’s model matches the model output used as data. In the field of climatology all the original data has been “Corrected” by it through a model just enough to get the desired results. This practice starts at NCDC, who supplies the GHCN that everyone uses for their land surface “Data”. This they combine with some version of HADCRU or some other form of SST data that is also the output of a model.
RSS and UAH take satellite measurements and run through a model to correct “Known” problems with Satellite “Data”. Each uses their own special sauce to arrive at results that each claims to be best.
They are all wasting our money with this “Charade” which only exists in the minds of the promoters that receive funding to promote it. Without Climatologists there would be no global warming to worry about because the whole thing is a Fairy Tale!
GIGO RULES!
I respect Spencer for showing the models used to promote AGW by GHG is flawed but I still think the paper should have been Braswell, Spencer 2011. Of course Dressler is the Aggie Joke and we have had Travesty Trenberth weigh in on this so it hits them where it hurts.
You mean this GHCN?
http://blog.qtau.com/2010/05/dude-where-is-my-thermometer.html
The very same GIGO product!
The “Discovery” article is horrible. For a magazine that calls itself “scientific”, we have: ad hominems, appeal to number, appeal to authority, conspiracy theories (yes, they do bring up Big Oil).
But it gets worse: On Mr. Spencer’s own web site, blogger “IA” links one who praises Dr. Spencer to the Oslo massacre. Disgusting. (I would have responded to that miserable *******, but for some reason, my browser doesn’t work well with Dr Spencer’s blog.)
I have the same prob there. Sometimes I can post…… other times, not so much…..its maddening.
I don’t know anything about it. Sorry!
I think its hosting related. WP has lots of servers so it isn’t typically a problem on wp, but Spencer’s, I think his is run by a single server, so when traffic is up on his page, its difficult to post. ….. maybe, I hadn’t spent much time looking into it.
So, Dr. Spencer is just another in line of a very long line of prominent scientists that believe in ID. Max Planck posited that a belief in God is requisite to both religion and science. But, what would he know. Freeman Dyson is another, as was Henry Eyring, Georg Cantor, Lord Kelvin, Louis Pasteur, Gregor Mendel, Temple Chevallier, Thomas Bayes, Isaac Newton…. just to name a few….. I think that puts Dr. Spencer in some pretty good company. Were I to be victim of such ad homs.
But, of course, that doltish author of the Discover article wouldn’t know science if it slapped upside his head. He actually believes ID has been disproved. lol, but, he did check with Trenberth to get his moronic opinion about Spencer’s work. But the most laughable part of his idiotic article is this,
“I’m not a fan of ad hominems, but the recent attacks on the science of climate change, evolution, and the Big Bang by the far right ….”
Uhmm, hey, imbecile!!! Yeh, you!! Phil Plait!!! Look up Georges Lemaître, you complete and total moron! This is why your psuedo-science is dying. Because the advocates are entirely vapid. We’re just suppose to dismiss Spencer’s work because RC and CP said so? Or because the author of the Forbes article is tied to a think tank that supposedly gets oil money? Buffoon. You wonder how many of us read the paper, did you? If you did, what did you find that wasn’t correct?
This cretin can’t even get his ad homs and association fallacies right. He’s one of the many that are living proof that evolutionary principles are incorrect! His existence directly refutes natural selection!
Albert Einstein once said: