Replies

upwelling

Took another look at the demenocal-2000 data and he mentions strong seasonal upwelling. If this data is only measuring strength of that, then I'll ignore it and move on to the next data set.

You then read it and seemed to feel that it was sound. So when I do a critical analysis of it you say that I am "simply pretending to scientifically review the Soon paper." So I would guess that you are simply pretending to admit that there are errors in it?

You have provided no scientific review of the Soon hypothesis and conclusions as I did in post 131. You merely presented a bunch of nitpicks that you found in various GW sites about the errors he made. You claimed a "devastating" attack, but provided no systematic review of the paper. I on the other hand have looked and continue to look at the actual data to see if it supports Soon's hypothesis. Because the bottom line is that irregardless of what Soon said and how he said it, I (and most other people on this forum) want to know whether or not his hypothesis it true.

As for CL, the notes from his readme are as follows:

Removal of all forcing except greenhouse gases from the ~1000 year time series results in a residual with a very large late 20th century warming that closely agrees with the response predicted from greenhouse gas forcing.

His assumption of CO2 forcing is not supported by any raw data in his possession, it is a hypothesis only supported by simulations. He then smoothed his historical data based on assumed statistics about natural mechanisms that also labels "forcing" although they are not the same thing (i.e. particulate cooling is not forcing). So his historical data was smoothed to (conveniently) eliminate any MWP or LIA warming. He did not choose to release his raw data.

Humm, I did provide several "nit-picks" that showed that Soon was not interpreting the data correctly. And the "nit-picks" that I found were based on papers that were presented to me by you and WSOG. So in fact statistically things aren't looking too good for Soon (and no, you can't accuser me of bias since I had no hand in selecting the papers). Since he has not understood these, how many others has he got wrong? I don't intend to spend my time going through all his references, however I am interested in the ones where he seems to have his facts straight and if you can recommend any (after you have reviewed his paper to ensure that he has his facts right) I would appreciate knowing about them.

I on the other hand have looked and continue to look at the actual data to see if it supports Soon's hypothesis. Because the bottom line is that irregardless of what Soon said and how he said it, I (and most other people on this forum) want to know whether or not his hypothesis it true.

Err, I hate to pop your bubble, but it was you who wanted to accept Soon as given. I, on the other hand, did look at the data and the papers and presented the information. I do find your comments about me posting from a GW site ironic. If I post from somewhere else I generally reference or at least say "from a site" and anyone can ask me if they wish. If you can find any evidence of me posting from a "GW site", please post it. Right or wrong, my comments are my own.

On the otherhand earlier on this thread I came across a post, cut and pasted with out reference from the CO2 Science site. Your comments on that please?

However in regards to the truth. As you are, I am also merely a lone individual in search of scientific truth. Although you seem to have a strong interest in rhetoric as well.

His assumption of CO2 forcing is not supported by any raw data in his possession, it is a hypothesis only supported by simulations. He then smoothed his historical data based on assumed statistics about natural mechanisms that also labels "forcing" although they are not the same thing (i.e. particulate cooling is not forcing). So his historical data was smoothed to (conveniently) eliminate any MWP or LIA warming. He did not choose to release his raw data.

Like a spiral in a spiral and a wheel within a wheel ... and around we go in circles. You are not looking at the dataset or methodology that was given in the paper that I referenced because you are not looking at the relevant paper. There was nothing in that paper talking about CO2 forcings! You came up with that by looking at the data for another paper of his. There is a reference to the data that he used but nothing about the methodology. So without knowing anything about it you say that the data is smoothed, etc. Your comments may be valid as applied to Crowley 2000, but mean nothing as applied to Crowley and Lowery 2000. Your appeal to probability is looking like a long-shot.

Oh, and a small point but in climatology particulate cooling is considered a forcing.

Again, please wake me if you find anything of interest.