Klimaforskning - hjemmeside
Startet av Jostemikk, oktober 11, 2013, 03:09:10 AM
SitatRichard S Courtney says: October 10, 2013 at 10:15 AM I think it useful to copy to here a post I made on WUWT. It is the following.richardscourtney says:October 9, 2013 at 2:06 pm Friends:I like and respect both Roy Spencer and Willis Eschenbach. Also, I have had direct interaction with each of them in the past, so I am saddened at this situation and I do not intend to take sides.However, I write to make a point of fact.Roy Spencer is mistaken when he thinks the work of Ramanathan and Collins (R&C, Nature, 1991) is similar to the work of Willis Eschenbach, and he is also mistaken in his misunderstanding that Willis was unaware of the work of R&C.A few weeks ago I raised the subject of the R&C Effect in a WUWT thread discussing a Guest Essay from Willis. At September 22, 2013 at 10:40 am I cited, referenced, quoted the Abstract of that paper by R&C, and I explained it. The post is athttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/22/the-eruption-over-the-ipcc-ar5/#comment-1423700In that post I wrote"The R&C Effect can induce a fall in surface temperature when surface heating is increased. And the Eschenbach Effect does that, too.Subsequently, and in response to Greg Goodman, I posted a more full explanation of the R&C Effect and its great difference from the Eschenbach Effect. That post was at September 22, 2013 at 11:30 am and this is a link to ithttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/22/the-eruption-over-the-ipcc-ar5/#comment-1423748In that post I wrote"I point out that the Ramanathan & Collins (R&C) effect induces cirrus not thunderstorms. They argued – initially against much opposition which their finding withstood – that when sea surface temperature reaches 305K the induced evapouration rate is so great that warm air rises to lift evapourated moisture so high that cirrus formation occurs. This cirrus sets the maximum surface temperature by reflecting sunlight so it cannot reach the surface.The Eschenbach effect raises heat from the surface to high tropospheric altitude where it radiates to space. It starts to operate at temperatures below 305K.They are very different – and complimentary – mechanisms."As he normally does in threads discussing his essays, Willis interacted throughout that thread. He made no disagreement of any kind with my posts.Hence, I am certain that Willis Eschenbach was fully aware both of the R&C Effect and its fundamental difference from his proposed Eschenbach Effect in his recent writings. Clearly, Roy Spencer was in error to have suggested otherwise. Being the gentleman I know him to be, I anticipate a retraction of that assertion.Richard
SitatRoy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says: October 10, 2013 at 10:27 AM Richard, the general concept of deep moist convection acting as a thermostat can (and has) included any number of components. Whether (1) thick cirrus shutting off sunlight, or (2) convective heating of the upper troposphere (negative lapse rate feedback), or (3) subsidence induced clearing of cirrus (Lindzen's infrared Iris), or (4) increased precipitation efficiency drying out the middle and upper troposphere...They have ALL been addressed before, and NONE of it is new! So, once again, I am having to spend my time doing other peoples' homework.
SitatRichard S Courtney says: October 10, 2013 at 11:21 AM Dr Spencer:I had sincerely hoped this matter would have been ended in an amicable manner by now. Sadly, that has not happened.Indeed, you seem to want to continue it and I am at a loss to understand why.In your above article you write"In 1991, Ramanathan and Collins advanced in Nature their theory of surface temperature regulation by deep moist convection in the tropics. This became known as the "Thermostat Hypothesis", which led to a field experiment (CEPEX, 1993). Yet, on WUWT, you will find Willis talking about the Thermostat Hypothesis as being 'his' theory. For scientists, this would be a major faux pas."I fail to understand how that can be read as anything other than an accusation of plagiarism of the work of R&C by Eschenbach.But Eschenbach has NOT claimed he originated the R&C Effect, the Lindzen Iris or any other effect you have mentioned in your reply to me. Eschenbach claims novelty for his idea of a mid-day thunderstorm effect and has provided empirical evidence for its existence. That idea is NOT anything like the R&C effect.I assure you that I have done my "homework" over the last three decades of studying the relevant literature so I am well versed in the literature but nobody can know or have read everything. Hence, I would be very grateful if you could refer me to a paper which presents Eschenbach's idea prior to his proposing it. I am not aware of such a paper and I would present it to Eschenbach if I knew of one.I sincerely regret that this disagreement has arisen between two people whom I admire and for no constructive purpose which I can see. My only desire is to find a way to resolve it.Richard
SitatRoy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says: October 10, 2013 at 11:27 AM It is you who suggested plagarism...I suggested he probably just thought it up on his own as an original thinker. So don't put words in my mouth.And *NO* scientist would have advanced a thunderstorm based "Thermostat Hypothesis", after all of the work done in this area. I have already pointed you to the general subject areas...you can google them. Actually, it is up to Willis (or you, if you are his surrogate) to tell me what new climate cooling mechanism Willis has proposed that has not been addressed before?
SitatRichard S Courtney says: October 10, 2013 at 12:03 PM Dr Spencer:I have attempted to help resolve the matter. OK, you want to continue it.I am the "surrogate" of nobody: your suggestion is unworthy of you.And I did NOT 'put words in your mouth'. I quoted you verbatim and stated the only understanding of those words I had (and still have).You have made the claim of prior art. I do not know of such prior art, and a google is not likely to increase my existing knowledge of the literature much so is not likely to reveal that prior art.When you make an assertion as serious as you have made then it is your responsibility to substantiate it and it is not mine.I stated the claim to novelty which Willis has made and you dispute. OK, if your dispute has merit then cite your evidence and prove your point.I have answered all your points to me. But I have completely failed to resolve the matter and may have made it worse so I will withdraw.I regret that you do not want me to support both you and Willis Eschenbach.Richard
Sitat fra: Jostemikk på oktober 11, 2013, 03:09:10 AM Ikke er de spesielt intelligente disse "vitenskaperne". Ikke er de høflige. Ikke er de ærlige. Ikke er de i stand til å innrømme feil, og et skremmende fellestrekk som blir mer og mer synlig ettersom det presser seg nærmere og nærmere overflaten til allmenn beskuelse, er deres smålighet, misunnelse og grenseløse selvgodhet.
SitatAlec Rawls says: October 10, 2013 at 10:59 pm Willis asks of Roy:SitatNow, perhaps as you say, someone before me advanced the same hypothesis I've put forward, which is that the time of the daily onset of the tropical thunderstorms and cumulus clouds regulates the global temperature with little regard for changes in forcings. But it certainly wasn't Ramanathan and Collins ...So I still await your identification of the study which put forward that hypothesis prior to my own journal publication.It would seem that the publication he has in mind is his own withdrawn "Nature's Thermostat" essay, but he can't say it, because in some fit of doubt withdrew from the public eye one of the best things he has ever written, and now nobody remembers (except for me it seems). No wonder Roy is upset in a degree that seems hard to fathom, as Willis notes:SitatIt seems as if I've unknowingly done something that has deeply upset you, but I'm not clear what it is. If so, you have my apologies.I think the way to make this better is for WUWT to republish Roy's 2007 essay in its final form as Roy withdrew it in 2008, so that everyone can see how much of Willis' thermostat hypothesis had already been put forward by Roy. It's Roy who is not getting the due credit, but he feels he can't ask for it and it seems to be eating him up. We need to make Roy whole. It was crazy for him to withdraw something so good that he had put so much work into. He should get credit, as well as noogies for his lack of faith in his own work. And all credit to Willis as well.
SitatNow, perhaps as you say, someone before me advanced the same hypothesis I've put forward, which is that the time of the daily onset of the tropical thunderstorms and cumulus clouds regulates the global temperature with little regard for changes in forcings. But it certainly wasn't Ramanathan and Collins ...So I still await your identification of the study which put forward that hypothesis prior to my own journal publication.
SitatIt seems as if I've unknowingly done something that has deeply upset you, but I'm not clear what it is. If so, you have my apologies.
SitatPointman says: October 13, 2013 at 4:48 am When someone attacks you in a public forum like a blog, you're entitled to reply and in a public forum as well. How you shape that reply is of course your call and the onlookers will make up their own minds.On balance, I'm disappointed by Dr. Spencer.Pointman
Sitat fra: Jostemikk på oktober 13, 2013, 15:33:55 PMDet ser ut til at det mer og mer handler om klimaforskning/-saken som en levevei for både Dr. Spencer og en hel haug andre, og selv en mann som Dr. Spencer klarer ikke tenke utenfor dette karrieremessige sikkerhetsnettet.
Sitat fra: Jostemikk på oktober 13, 2013, 15:33:55 PMKanskje det kunne ført til interessante betraktninger om vi startet en tråd om fordeler/ulemper med en verden der det ikke fantes en eneste klimaforsker de siste 25 år? Ville menneskeheten lidd under, eller hatt en fordel av, at ikke et eneste ord var nevnt om jordens klima? For meg personlig framstår hele galskapen som en større og større avledning fra det som er menneskehetens reelle problemer.
Sitat fra: Jostemikk på oktober 13, 2013, 15:33:55 PMEtter at denne tråden på WUWT nå har blitt fullstendig kuppet og ødelagt av idioter med hjernevegring, synes det å passe bra med en sent innkommen kommentar fra Pointmann, en blogger mange her på forumet synes å ha sansen for.