Bonmot says:

"Neither understand 'time series statistical analysis', a point Tisdale alluded to himself in his WUWT post."

To quote csteele, now we are getting somewhere; bonmot, please explain the 'time series statistical analysis' which you say negates what Ferd did [and csteele, you will note I did acknowledge him; and I have checked him; have you?]; in particular can you explain the difference between a linear trend and a linear time trend and can you explain which F&R used to produce their result of a clear AGW signal?

I am genuinely interested in your response to this because this is the nub of csteele's infatuation with the Greenhouse effect and whether it has an infinite trend a la tipping point[s] or is a homeostatic process via MEP, or some other correcting mechanism.

Feel free to include Levitus's latest paper on Ocean Heat Content, which also raises this issue:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051106.shtm

Dear cohenite,

You really are an enigma aren't you.

It really is pretty straight forward.

You believe in the green house effect and you believe that CO2 is a warming gas, both of which are major planks of the global warming science, yet you reject that science.

More to the point if you don't believe in the science of global warming then why are you so intent on attempting to use many aspects of that same science to try and disprove people like Hansen and others? Surely these are tainted tools you are using. Shouldn't you just reject them outright and be done with it?

Its kind of like using illegal wire tapping to disprove a case of illegal wire tapping, ultimately quite circular.

Further you are in the habit as in your last post of asking people to use that 'tainted' science to make their case. But why should they bother if any case constructed using the tools you reject will be inadmissible in your eyes?

Perhaps just a short precise post by yourself on where exactly you stand would be a really positive thing to move forward with. That would neatly illustrate your grasp of the issue and put to bed the impression you only get others to engage in the technicalities so you can transpose discussions from other blogs to counter them.

As to Ferd (I'm assumimg its a pseudonym for Fred) I did not say you had failed to acknowledge him just that I, and I assume others, had a problem recognising where he ended and you resumed. No biggie.

“You believe in the green house effect and you believe that CO2 is a warming gas, both of which are major planks of the global warming science, yet you reject that science.”

An example of why my position is NOT contradictory or enigmatic:

CO2 is a warming gas and the Greenhouse effect, badly named, does exist but AGW science is flawed; AGW science says CO2 is the dominant greenhouse gas [see Lacis et al] and is both responsible for most of the warming which has already happened and will happen; in respect of the first point this proves it wrong:

http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/ramanathan-coakley-1978-role-of-co2.png

In respect of the latter, this proves that wrong:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/co2_modtrans_img2.png

Simple as that.

Anyway, that’s enough; I’m getting no response to the ‘technical’ issues I keep raising, just the usual obfuscation and patronising and that’s boring.

Dear cohenite,

I am more than happy to get more technical with you since by doing so we may well ascertain whether your position is truly enigmatic or contradictory.

Plus I do welcome the unqualified nature of your assertion in your above post.

What you have given me is a prime example of exactly what I was talking about.

You use the science from Ramathan and Coakley 1978 to attempt to disprove something yet from the same paper we have this;

Quote;

Schneider [1975] concludes that the models of Manabe [1971], Ramanathan [1975a], and Schneider [1975], provide the most reliable estimates for (change in) Te, which estimate 1.9, 1.5 and 1.45K respectively, for a doubling of the CO2 concentration. All three models neglect the 10um and 7.6um bands of CO2 (see table 7). More recently Augustsson and Ramanathan [1977] adopted the radiative-convective model of Ramanathan [1976], reevaluated (change in) Te after including all of the CO2 bands listed in Table 7, and estimated (change in) Te = 1.98K.

End quote.

The science you have accepted in allowing you to make the claim this paper disproves something is in total agreement with the science of global warming that you reject.

Why shouldn't I take this as being contradictory?

That’s correct csteele; Ramanathan also notes that Schneider and the rest of the model results are based on fixed cloud altitudes and fixed relative humidity; neither are ‘real world’. The latest research on cloud impact on radiative balances is here:

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~sgw/PAPERS/2011_Cloud_encyclopedia_submitted.pdf

This paper confirms the negative feedback from clouds because it establishes a strong correlation between total cloud cover and temperature with total cloud cover declining over the last 4 decades as the GAT has increased.

In respect of RH, AGW theory relies on it being constant [AR4, wg1, CHP3, p40]; it appears to be decreasing:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00003.1

I am happy to discuss Ramanthan’s formative paper more if you care to comment first on my interpretation of his Table 6 and its comparison of the relative effects of H2O and CO2 on radiative trapping, to use Greenhouse terminology.

Your Job link csteele, it’s a treasure – thanks.

To extend “Ehyeh asher ehyeh” a little further. Anthony will be what Anthony will be; ergo a part-time solicitor pretending to be a part-time ‘climate scientist’.

It may not be “evident in the usual hurly burly of the debate” (at least for the casual onlooker) but many here have for a long time understood where Cox/Cohenite is coming from. In this respect I have to disagree with your statement “we are certainly making progress in understanding the other’s position”. Indeed, if it wasn’t for his blog or his allegiance/alliance with other so called “sceptics” like Jo Nova, Jenifer Marohassy, Anthony Watts, the ‘Lord’ Christopher Monckton, etc, etc. then yes, your optimism could have been justified.

Nevertheless, I think your post (Tuesday, 28 August 2012 11:09:25 PM) sums Anthony/Cohenite up quite well. As to “getting technical” with Anthony, what’s the point (given this previous post of yours)? Indeed, as you have alluded, it becomes quite circular.

If Anthony/Cohenite really wants to “get technical”, he would take up the suggestion to contact Professor Stefan Rahmstorf directly. Then post back here. After all, Stefan is one author of the F&R paper Cox keeps banging on about.

.

Anthony Cox/Cohenite

>> please explain the 'time series statistical analysis' which you say negates what Ferd did ... in particular can you explain the difference between a linear trend and a linear time trend and can you explain which F&R used to produce their result of a clear AGW signal? I am genuinely interested in your response to this… (sic) <<

My response:

rahmstorf<at>pik-potsdam.de

Or if you’re more open minded (smiley), try going to Foster’s site and use Tisdale as the search term:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/?s=tisdale

Look at 'Tisdale Fumbles, Pielke Cheers' for starters.

As to Levitus, I haven’t the time to do your homework (lunch break beckons).

ps: congrats on breaking 100 - too bad it's mostly off topic and mostly your posts :)