Q&A

I think you are on the wrong tack. Perhaps instead of asking for an apology, you should seek some spiritual guidance from Father Graham, or even from Sister Jennifer. Perhaps he or she can recommend a sermon or two from the Church of Skeptology. Archbishop Bob or Cardinal Roy might just have the spiritual tonic you need to cure your doubt.

Yes, you're right Q&A, the second paragraph is as you say, but if you read further down you'll see that according to how the Walker Circulation is defined by other meteorologists there are some additional circulations (I assume that by cell you mean circulation). All of which demonstrates that some meteorologists call things by names that the majority don't. The Walker circulation, according to the preponderance of the documents I can turn up on Google, refers to the circulation named by Walker in the Pacific Ocean, which is the definition that this document uses under Figure 1!

I wasn't trying to buy an argument about the Walker Circulation in my first post, I asked you for clarification: "Q&A, what do you mean "Walker Circulation cells"? There's only one that I'm aware of. Can you explain in clear terms what it is you are trying to say and what bearing it has on Spencer's work?"

I'm still waiting for that.

And I see Fester is still asserting that making air colder leads to lower pressure. I'm waiting for his explanation of how this can be so too. Not that this has anything to do with Spencer's work either. I'm also waiting for his explanation as to why, when South Australia shows a similar warming pattern to the rest of the continent its warming alone comes uniquely from polar influences. It might, I just want to understand how he thinks it does.

GrahamY

The Walker Circulation cells?

They are interlinked and coupled to both land and ocean systems.

If you had not interceded with your diatribe and vitriol we could have learned more about them and how they influence climate and more specifically, how they impact on Spencer’s work.

If you had read (understood) the paper by Lau and Yang rather than attack me and cherry-pick over semantics and descriptors (typical denier defence mechanisms) you would have seen the connection to Spencer’s work (and Keiran’s question) … then we could have progressed.

Yet, you have the audacity, the gall … to say YOU are still waiting for clarification?
That’s a joke, right?

I doubt very much Roy Spencer would have denied the existence of the 3 cells in the Walker Circulation. Yet you insisted I was wrong and accused me of being dishonest (you have not retracted your accusations) … why in hell should I bother with you?

You are the one that has delayed, obfuscated and no doubt killed any further discussion about this article.

Col,

I am sorry for the delay in reply.

The following link best explains and delineates the views/comments shared by me and the disparity of those (misguided as they may be) by you; whether it be science/art, risk management, “socialism by stealth”, opportunity, profit/loss, sustainability, political ideology, climate change, etc.

Bye for now
______________

Everybody (that is still watching)

This links to a talk given by Stephen Schneider. It is about 80 mins in length and requires some bandwidth.

http://www.cctvsalem.org/dempsey.php

It is the “Sixth Annual Dempsey Lecture”
Global Warming: Is the Science Settled Enough for Policy?

BTW, Spencer’s paper was published in August last year and the errors and corrections in the Argo system weren’t notified till October. I have not been able to find any corrections to Spencer’s paper yet.

Q&A I think your last but one post bears out a charge of dishonesty, as well as your claims about the our posting system penalising you. If you can explain the link between the Walker and other circulations to Spencer's work, explain it, don't expect me to work it out for you.

On the issue of corrections to ARGO, I'm not clear why it has a bearing on Spencer's work. He's dealing with the Aqua satellite. You might like to explain that too.

"Col,

I am sorry for the delay in reply.

The following link best explains and delineates the views/comments shared by me and the disparity of those (misguided as they may be) by you; whether it be science/art, risk management, “socialism by stealth”, opportunity, profit/loss, sustainability, political ideology, climate change, etc.

Bye for now"

Your posting of a web link to someone making a speech has nothing to do with the question asked, for you to illustrate from the text of this thread where I had made a single "misguided Statement".

Similarly, Dickie has been notably silent on substantiating his claim that I made statements in support of Cartels.

So Q&A and Dickie, your failures to address these simple requests, to substantiate your statements in the simplist form, stand as testament to your lack of professionalism.

These failings will hang around you like the dead albatross hung around the neck of the ancient mariner.