Null Hypothesis101 #2 the response

{I forgot about this one from a couple days ago that I didn't get to post.}

A quick update from a coffee shop in Corrales, NM

Krischel responded at OurChangingClimate with the following that seems to totally evade the simple questions about "null hypothesis" I'd asked about.

krischel Says:  July 21, 2014 at 02:21 

@citizenschallenge: 

Yes, “consensus” is a political idea, not a scientific one. Science doesn’t work through consensus, it works through the strict application of skepticism to necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statements. 

#1 – the verification of experiments, or observation of data, is not subject to consensus. CO2 has risen steadily for the past 17 years, while global average temperatures have had no statistically significant warming, no matter how many people wish to deny that. 

#2 – Medical “science” is a lot more primitive than you would believe. A sad amount of focus is put on epidemiological studies (observational studies), which leads to all kinds of false flags, causing treatment and medical advice that is actually *damaging* to humanity. Hormone replacement therapy and low-fat nutrition advice come immediately to mind. 

#3 – A “consensus” is poll of people where their opinions align. 

#4 – I’ll be a bit more specific -> in all fields of science, blindly accepting the “common understanding” is a negative. We should always be brutally skeptical of even our most cherished and deeply held beliefs. Without challenges to the “common understanding”, science simply does not progress. 

That being said, having a common understanding of the scientific method is *crucial* to the proper practice of science. Sadly, this isn’t generally the case in the AGW debate.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

krischel Says: July 21, 2014 at 02:21 -  

"Yes, “consensus” is a political idea, not a scientific one."

~ ~ ~ 

Do you actually believe that?

What's the point of designing reproducible experiments - 

if not a desire to find support in "consensus"?

~ ~ ~ 

Don't you appreciate that the "consensus" is nothing more than the "general agreement" among informed experts.

And that the consensus is always provisional in light of new and better information?

krischel's crazy making and “consensus”

I'm playing a little catch up here since I've been out of wifi range for days and am only within range for a short while, so this will remain slightly behind the conversation at http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable where K's taken the conversation from "null hypothesis" to "consensus".

krischel Says: July 21, 2014 at 02:21 

@citizenschallenge: 

Yes, “consensus” is a political idea, not a scientific one. Science doesn’t work http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/#comment-26489 through consensus, it works through the strict application of skepticism to necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statements. 

#1 – the verification of experiments, or observation of data, is not subject to consensus. CO2 has risen steadily for the past 17 years, while global average temperatures have had no statistically significant warming, no matter how many people wish to deny that. 

#2 – Medical “science” is a lot more primitive than you would believe. A sad amount of focus is put on epidemiological studies (observational studies), which leads to all kinds of false flags, causing treatment and medical advice that is actually *damaging* to humanity. Hormone replacement therapy and low-fat nutrition advice come immediately to mind. 

#3 – A “consensus” is poll of people where their opinions align. 

#4 – I’ll be a bit more specific -> in all fields of science, blindly accepting the “common understanding” is a negative. We should always be brutally skeptical of even our most cherished and deeply held beliefs. Without challenges to the “common understanding”, science simply does not progress.That being said, having a common understanding of the scientific method is *crucial* to the proper practice of science. Sadly, this isn’t generally the case in the AGW debate.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

krischel Says: July 21, 2014 at 02:21 -  

"Yes, “consensus” is a political idea, not a scientific one. "

~ ~ ~ 

Do you actually believe that?
What's the point of designing reproducible experiments - 
if not a desire to find support in "consensus"?
~ ~ ~ 

Don't you appreciate that the "consensus" is nothing more than the "general agreement" among informed experts.

And that the consensus is always provisional in light of new and better information?

Ironically you denialist types turning this principle of "consensus" into some tar baby - is nothing but another ruthless profoundly cynical political strategy that has stonewalling as it's goal rather than good-faith learning.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  

#1 Has nothing to do with consensus, because you refuse to acknowledge the warming of polar regions and ocean depths. - you have presented a cheap Argument from Ignorance.

#2 Why did you ignore the "consensus" question?  Merely complaining that medical sciences aren't perfect, get's no one anywhere.

Tell me, if you suffered severe bodily injury, would want to be taken to your favorite mechanic or your PhD philosophy sparing mates - or would you prefer to be dropped off in a certified Emergency Room?
Think the principle of "consensus" might have something to do with that choice?

#3 Is an example of the pure cynicism that is the lifeblood of the contrarian.  Trying to compare the process of learned folks who have expert level understanding and the conclusions they draw from their experiments and experiences - with the flakey civilian population who can be swayed by any well scripted soundbite, since they appear too mesmerized by Hollywood expectations to have any interest in actually understanding the fundamental of our planet's climate system.

#4 There's a big difference between "brutally honest" (which is a necessary and good thing when done in good-faith) and being a malicious vandal who uses lies of convenience (such as your #1) to confuse and stonewall - rather than to learn and move forward in our understanding.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

krischel Says: - July 17, 2014 at 08:02 

Did you actually read the climategate emails? The dirty tricks, lies, and attacks on reputable scientists came from the warmists :)

~ ~ ~

CC:  I already answered in the affirmative - yes I have read many of those emails.

Now, how about you sharing which of those emails you find most heinous?

Can you support that opinion with any facts?

Oh, and exactly who are these "reputable" scientists that were "attacked" and what did those "attacks" consist of?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Krischel does a great job of avoiding direct responses, instead constantly layering in ever more layers of misrepresentation and avoidance.  So I invite anyone to respond to these simple questions I raise.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

"Null Hypothesis" 101

I'm having a conversation with Krischel at Bart Verheggen's weblog.  It started with a guest post by Hans Custers' considering the question "is climate science falsifiable?" which has turned into an endless discussion pretty much held up by Krischel and his claims that somehow climate science hasn't and doesn't properly use the "Null Hypothesis".  Many have tried arguing with Krischel who defy all.  I admit this stuff gets over my head, but even without having a thorough understanding myself, I can catch evasions and inconsistencies and poor arguments.  There is a difference between a real expert explaining himself and a poser.

Still, I am into this for the dialogue and I've asked K to help me better understand his claims that climate science is somehow invalid for such and such a reason…

I started by expressing my basic understanding and we shall see where it goes from there:

Is Climate Science falsifiable?

By Jos Hagelaars

 Bart Verheggen'shttp://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/


July 17, 2014 at 07:23 {the following has been slightly edited and added to}
OK krischel help me out, 
I'm trying to study up on this "Null Hypothesis" 101, using:

Basic concepts of hypothesis testing
Handbook of Biological Statistics
http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/stathyptesting.html
~ ~ ~
Null Hypothesis Martyn Shuttleworth
https://explorable.com/null-hypothesis
~ ~ ~ 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
~ ~ ~
Sure, pretty basic stuff, but that's were understanding starts, with the basics.

In any event, krischel I'm trying to understanding this Null Hypothesis and how it's supposed to function regarding dynamic geophysical processes, process that can not be measured with absolute precision.

Seems to me Null Hypothesis is a statistical test that scientists use for very specific questions within specific parameters as part of gathering date and producing studies.

Seems to me the "consensus" is the result of thousands of small Null Hypotheses succeeding or failing and each providing another pixel of information.

I believe you try to get people to focus on the pixels in order to ignore the image.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mind you I'm no scholar - I'm coming at this from a more worldly view - you see, I'm an old handyman, these days I'm constantly confronted with old homes and their nightmare situations of all varieties.  In other words, I feel like I live "Null Hypothesis situations" every time I'm on a job - so I think I know something about approaching unknown  situations where how I assess the situation and the choices I make, result in big differences in outcomes.

Then I read your evasions to Hans Custers/Bart Verheggen/Willard/Victor Venema...

In truth when reading your stuff all I hear is philosophizing with no connection to how the real world operates. That's why I keep saying you set impossible standards (so of course your expectations will never be met.)

Still, I'll listening to you if you're into sharing some critiques, comments, suggestions on the following specific questions and why they might or might not meet your expectations?  

How's this for a string of Null Hypotheses:

Our planet, by the good fortune of it's orbital local plus the stability afforded by it's partnership with our moon, evolved into a global heat distribution engine, infinitely complex, yet composed of basic and understandable components {Y?N}

These components follow fundamental understandable rules of behavior. {Y?N}

{Scientists know about the various drivers that influence our climate as the eons of time changes march by, perhaps not with absolute precision, but resolution short coming should not make us blind to trends and where they are taking us.}

GHG levels are but one of our climate's features - 
but GHGs is still a major driver that acts in concert with other "drivers". {Y?N}

Society has introduced geologically massive quantities of these GHGs into our thin atmosphere. {Y?N}
~ ~ ~

Here's a null hypothesis test to run some models on:
Warming a closed system will energize that system. {Y?N}

Energizing our planet's hydrological cycle and adding moisture to it will result in enhanced torrential rain and drought and wind events. {Y?N}

A warming global heat distribution engine will not impact the hydrological cycle of our planet - meaning there will be no change in historical weather patterns.  {Y?N} 

Nasif S. Nahle - a look at Science in a Vacuum

{edited 7/16/14 evening}

Back on October 23, 2012, {Before creating WUWTW to funnel my "virtual dialogue with climate science denialist" types into}, I wrote a post about Nasif Nahle over at citizenschallenge.blogspot.com a biologist by training and experience.  The man's interests extend beyond biology to a whole spectrum of our planet's processes.  He's a guy I can identify with, you know that spirit of curiosity encompassing all of this creation we inhabit.

But Nahle has taken his passion a step further and we have our differences.  He occasionally comments, though always saying pretty much the same thing.  His most recent comment,

7/13/14 - It's not my own reality. Science has to do with experimentation. If you're a scientist, you could REPEAT my experiments and then report your results. As long as you don't do it, you'll be lying. (At Nasif S. Nahle... Google "Scholar"... and atmospheric CO2 cooling )

has inspired me to bring his conversation over here.  Like myself, Nahle has lots of conviction and we've invested a good deal of our lives soaking up all the information we can, devoting time to "specialize" here and there as we fancied.  Like myself among a certain crowd we've attained a degree "authority."  Even within our-own-eyes we feel we have attained an above average level of understanding and deserve some of the trust a few have in us. 

Now, here's where the difference comes in,
and it has to do with that all important "ego thing"
The big question: How full of our selves are we?

Myself, I believe in my understanding.  I do so because my decades long skeptical pursuit of information is a process, a life's adventure.  I am open to new information and validating that info is the game.  I have had my ego bruised and battered, publicly and privately by having my presumed understanding shown to be way out of date, or way off the mark.  But that's part of the fun - like getting bruised while cavorting on canyon lands slickrock, it's part of the game of life and learning, otherwise we wouldn't be out there in the first place.  

I appreciate that my understanding is provisional, always vulnerable to newer or better information.  Thing is, when proven wrong while the bruises heal whole new realms of understanding and appreciation have opened up to us.  I love it!  To me that's what life and growing and being witness to this incredible creation we were born into is all about. 

I also understand that folks who have spent years and live's focused on studying specific issues know way the heck more than I do.  Experts are experts for a very good reason!  And though at times I might think I know plenty and them mistaken - I'd never imagine that my fragmentary knowledge could trump their professional understanding.  Only fools could ever presume to achieve expert status with the ease of a bit of dedicated part-time study. 

And only a fool can't accept that the higher math of science is a "For Members Only" affair - if you don't comprehend it, you don't comprehend it and should butt out.  Making sweeping and earth-shattering claims with fragmentary understanding belongs to the realm delusion.

Yet, here we have a jack of all trades claiming to contradict decades worth of the generally accepted physics of atmospheric Carbon dioxide and Republican/Libertarians are eating it up. 

The Unspoken Backbone of Climate Science Denial

{edited Monday evening}
I've become convinced that the unmentioned backbone of climate science denial is Faith-based Thinking with it's accompanying absolutism that creates a profound disconnect from Earth's "environmental" realities and the needs of future generations.

I believe communicators would benefit from better incorporating (heck, understanding) the mindscale of these folks who believe they understand Thee Word and Will of Thee God Almighty of Time and Space, something all the "Holy" books warn us is absolutely incomprehensible, but that all too many presume to have figured out.  

It matters because this faith-based refusal to look outside their bubble get's translated into the way they avoid and "evaluate" (or should I say evade) real world Earth observations and other scientific information.

For instance, Republican's still despise "Environmentalists" or anyone who wants to defend or speak on behave of our planet's biosphere and its animal/plant inhabitants with a contempt that reveals a profound ignorance of, and hubristic disregard for, our planet's miraculous folds within folds of inter-connected life-support systems that sustain each and everyone of us.

My musing was inspired by this response that Dan Barker offered to a Christian waving scripture around. He did an excellent job of defining the issue with a clarity I can only dream of achieving.  Thus I'll share his words. I have taken the liberty to transcribe his response and I hope some will find this of interest and pass it along.

This video is not about climate science, it's about recognizing who you are dealing with and considering how to better represent and defend your own rational approach in the face of Faith-based attacks and evasions.

Dan Barker - On Needing A Personal God

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hpI-OdwxDw&feature=youtu.be

Bantaawan lagundong

2:15 - ... maybe there was this self-proclaimed messiah named Yeshua, ...

2:30 - But the things that he said were put into his mouth many many many many years later.  One thing he said, if he said it, that I think is actually worthwhile.  

He (Jesus) said: They who are a whole, those who are healthy don't go to a doctor.  

It's only they who are sick. 

Christians have a pessimistic view of human nature, 

you (Kyle Butt) think human beings are sick and need a doctor to be fixed up,

you (Kyle Butt) think there's something wrong with us and we need to be "saved"

you (Kyle Butt) think that if we would submit to the doctor that he would heal us 

But we atheist and agnostics don't view ourselves as sick, we don't view ourselves as sinners, we don't feel a conviction of wrong.  We make mistakes, we don't buy into this supernatural mythological lie that you people are promoting that there's actually something spiritually wrong with humanity. 

3:25 -  Suppose you were convicted of a horrible crime, you were in prison, and then you learned that you were being released, 'wow, you'd feel free. Wow, I'm being saved, you'd feel wonderful and I would feel better too. 

But what would make you feel better, knowing that you'd been released because of the good graces of the Governor who decided to bestow mercy upon you and pardon you and let you free, which would be pretty neat if that happened.  Or knowing that the reason you were being released was because you were found to be innocent of the crime in the first place.  What would give you more dignity, what would make you feel better for the world to know, 
'Hey I didn't even do that crime' ?  

4:00 - That's how we atheists and agnostics are, (holding up the Bible)

we don't buy into this ancient primitive book of contradictory and unhistorical, unscientific words.  These are just words on a page.

This book was written by human-beings, human-beings make mistakes.

What were they exempt?  Were they super-humans or something? 

Did they never misinterpret? Did they never goof?

Why are you conferring some supernatural authority to these human beings -

their in all religions as well.

4:30  -   If you look at the Bible, with not a bias of faith and loyalty, you can see very easily that this is not a reliable book to base our life on.

But most of your arguments are based on quoting the scripture as if it were some kind of magic talisman - oh quote the Bible that will make everything important.  

Well it doesn't!

And if you don't buy into that myth in the first place, if you don't see yourself as sick, if you don't see yourself as needing a savior, if you rise above that toddler mentality of putting yourself down, of denigrating your rationality, denigrating you... whatever urges you have to sin, and we all have them.  

5:00  -  But view yourself neutrally as a natural creature in a natural environment doing the best we can to truly figure out how to be moral human-beings with reason and compassion, then you could be a better person.  I'm not saying your a bad person, but get rid of the baggage, get rid of the monkey off your back.  And take some advice of Jesus, don't be one of the sick people that has to go to the doctor.

Clap your hands and say I did not commit the crime.

Most Christian are afraid that people are going to start thinking for themselves, the Bible says very clearly, Paul says "Bring into captivity every thought onto the obedience of Jesus Christ."  Captivity is not freedom, and in Proverbs, "Lean not on your own understanding.  

Most Christians are afraid that people will think for themselves, most atheists are afraid that they won't.    

Dan Barker 

Freedom From Religion Foundation 

https://ffrf.org/about/getting-acquainted/dan-barker

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Here's a full version of what Dan has to share

Dan Barker - Losing Faith in Faith Lecture

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmPqUkB-mVE

BPofABC

Uploaded on Nov 9, 2011

Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, 
presents his "Losing Faith in Faith" 
lecture at Chico State University in the Fall of 2011.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Discussion with Pete Ridley #5 Barrett's MODTRAN

This is my second post to Pete Ridley's response to "Discussion with PR #3" since his response was quite long winded (2150 words), including a thousand words worth of diversion into John Cook bashing that inspired an independent response, see "Discussion with PR #4"

Here I wanted to get back into attempting to figure out what Pete Ridley's trying to say regarding various MODTRAN model outputs.  Unfortunately, he already responded this morning and totally avoided the substance and questions of this post, instead spewing out more petty complaints and distractions.  

Since, Pete can't seem to get himself to focus on the substance of his claims and these posts and I don't want to play an endless game of dog-chasing-tail with him, I've rejected his latest off-topic comment and await one that sticks to the substance of this series of posts and that address some of my very reasonable and specific questions.  
{cc - 8:30am MDT}

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/spotlighton-psi-acumen-ltd.html?showComment=1404937678421#c8690081790713282323

{lines 6 to 68}PART 1 ... CC wrote “ .. I do hope my links helped you get clear on some of your misunderstanding regarding the mistaken CO2 saturation meme? .. ” -  

Ridley writes: NOPE!! I’ve never mentioned “saturation” or its derivatives. It was you who on 7th July pretended to jump to the conclusion that I want you “ .. to leap on the contrarian ‘discovery’ that CO2's insulating effect get's saturated .. ” 

~ ~ ~

"Pretend" what?  I was quite explicit:

"I imagine at the root of your riddle is that you want me to leap on the contrarian "discovery" that CO2's insulating effect get's saturated, thus we have nothing to worry about and can add as much as possible.  Am I close?"

So why the drama queen act?  

Why not simply answer the good-faith question I asked?  You know Pete, had this been a constructive-rational discussion you would explain where and why you're convinced I'm mistaken.  But you don't do that, do you?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

when in reality (as you full well know) I quite reasonable drew your attention to and hoped “ .. that you would acknowledge the diminishing impact on OLR of increasing atmospheric CO2 content .. ”.

~ ~ ~

You pointed me at some links, here's what you wrote:

"Let me make a suggestion. If you seriously wish to improve your lay understanding of the greenhouse effect get a copy of Dr. Jack Barrett's introductory booklet "Global Warming: The Human Contribution" (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Global-Warming-The-Human-Contribution-ebook/dp/B0083IOWPU). It only costs about US$3 and should clear up most of your misconceptions."

~ ~ ~

Curiously now that I've had time to look in to this Dr. Barrett I find that real working atmospheric experts find this chemist's home spun theory filled with misconceptions.

http://web.archive.org/web/20100302192409/http://rpuchalsky.home.att.net/sci_env/esef_thread.txt

Jack Barrett who is at Imperial College in London  (and was supposed to publish these ideas in Spectrochemica Acta, ~1994)  said somethinglike this: 

   - The lowest thirty meters of the troposphere already contains
sufficient CO2 and H2O to absorb all the radiation emitted by the
Earth's surface (except in the "10 micron" {7.5-14 5m} window). 

   -When CO2 absorbs the emitted radiation it does not re-emit it
because in its radiative lifetime (105s) it suffers 104 collisions,
which are enough to transfer the energy to N2 and O2 which do not
emit IR radiation.  Hence emission of IR from the Earth's surfaces
to outer space is prevented at all wavelengths except in the 10 micron
window.  

Under such circumstances further additions of CO2 to the
atmosphere would be expected to have little effect on the average
global temperature.  For example, the burning of all the fossil fuels
on earth would raise the CO2 level to 1400 ppm, from its current
level of about 355 ppm.  If the above reasoning is true this could
cause vegetation to flourish, as it did during the Cretaceous period
(144-65 million rears ago, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth) and when
it is now thought that the temperatures were not too different from
what they are currently  (Nature 370, 453(1994)).

Here is the response that came later: 

   Barrett's analysis assumes that global warming is driven by changes
in the radiation balance at the Earth's surface.  This is not so. 

What happens is something like this: 

   It is true that the CO2 molecule suffers many collisions between
the time that it absorbs radiation from the solid Earth, and re-emits
it in all directions.  This means that it is in thermal, and radiative
equilibrium with its surroundings at each altitude.  As we go up in the
troposphere, the temperature of that atmosphere drops, and hence the
temperature of the CO2 at greater elevations also drops.  At these lower
temperatures found at the top of the atmosphere, the energy is radiated
into space because there is so little CO2 above it that the atmosphere
is essentially transparent at these emitting wavelengths.  

However, at that altitude the intensity of the emitted radiation is decreases
(recall the Steffan-Boltzmann law says that: I is proportional to T4).  Thus the
loss of radiative loss of energy to space from this altitude drops,
because of the presence of the CO2 in the atmosphere.  If now more CO2
is added to the atmosphere then the level from which the emission occurs
rises.  

Since the temperature of the emitting CO2 is even lower,
radiation leaving the Earth is reduced.  The climate then warms until
once again the input of solar radiation just balances the radiative
loss to space.  The fact that near sea level the CO2 concentration is
sufficiently high to absorb all the radiation in the main CO2 band
is therefore irrelevant!
~ ~ ~

This Jack Barrett has quite the track record.  He's exactly the sort of person I would classify as a "wingnut" precisely because he creates his science in the vacuum of his own mind, then when the folks, who understand what he's working at, point out his numerous errors - rather than listening to them, thinking about it and learning more - he starts pointing that grand conspiracy finger, everyone else is the fool and he's a self-imagined Galileo fighting for truth, justice and the American Way.  Yea, right and heat seeking missiles can't recognize to their targets.  

~ ~ ~

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jack_Barrett 

Barrett is not a climate scientist 

According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, there is a "JC Barrett" listed as a co-author of a single research paper on cloud densification published 13 years ago. 

In an article published in 1994 in the New Scientist he suggested that the lowest 30 metres of the troposphere already contains all the CO2 necessary to absorb all the radiation reflected and emitted back by the earth's surface at most infra-red wavelengths, except for the "window" between 7.5 and 14 micrometres, through which radiation escapes back into space. [3] Other scientists strongly disagree with him. [4] 

~ ~ ~ 

http://www.desmogblog.com/jack-barrett 

November 1995 

Barrett was a signatory to the “Leipzig Declaration.” According to SourceWatch he was also a keynote speaker at the Leipzig Declaration launch. [5], [6]
The declaration states, “we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions. For this reason, we consider the drastic emission control policies deriving from the Kyoto conference – lacking credible support from the underlying science – to be ill-advised and premature.” 

--- 

Barrett co-authored a paper with the UK climate change denier and former BBC broadcaster David Bellamy titled “Climate stability: an inconvenient proof” which was published in Civil Engineering in May, 2007. The paper sets out to prove that, even if there is a doubling of carbon dioxide in the next decade, it “will amount to less than 1°C of global warming.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

       

Ridley, then you went on:

"I repeat, that is pseudoscientific gobbledegook and you can find out why by looking here (https://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/secc_edu/images/AtmConcentration.bmp) and here (http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/atmospheric-composition).

~ ~ ~ 
Why won't you simply explain what you're driving at - are we disputing atmospheric gas concentrations, or what?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

If you don’t understand the point that I’m making then ask a scientist such as Dr. Jack Barrett (http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page3.htm). While you are at it spend some time reading the excellent articles that he and Professor David Bellamy provide. They are targeted at lay people like thee and me."

~ ~ ~ 
So what the hell is this, you initiated this dialogue, don't tell me to read someone with a terrible reputation.  Tell me yourself, if you have a clue, if not, what are you doing here?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Ridley continues:

I can’t imagine anyone who fails to understand the difference between “diminish” and “saturate” ever being able to understand the message from those MODTRAN plots that I sent you, but you fully understand the difference, don’t you!. 

I really don’t believe that you are as stupid as you try to make out. The impression that I keep getting from your comments is that you are deliberately distorting what I say so that you can continue promoting your CACC propaganda. 

Your” .. You give the impression that you think it's simple as 1+1=2 .. ” comes across as just another example of your wriggling and squirming. One thing for sure, those MODTRAN plots that I sent to you do give a much clearer picture to laymen like thee and me than would the scientific formulae upon which MODTRAN is based of what happens to the OLR when atmospheric CO2 concentration changes from 0ppm through to 700ppm. 

~ ~ ~
You keep telling me how wrong I am and that it's right there on the graphs, "anyone can see it".  Well no, anyone can't see it!  And even if they can "see it" WHAT DOES IT MEAN?  And if you can't explain it, take your tease somewhere else, because all you're doing is crazy-making.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

They show clearly that there is no saturation effect but a diminishing impact upon OLR as atmospheric CO2 content increases, most noticeable at levels significantly lower than they have been for centuries. 

~ ~ ~
Now Ridley, can you please explain what that means?
And how does what you're thinking differ from what the links I've shared here (and at our discussion #3) are talking about?

And of what significance is it for current CO2 trends and our warming situation these days?
How big, or little, is this effect of your's in relation to the established big effects that are currently being measured?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ridley writes:

I love this from the extract that you used “ .. even a small number of CO2 molecules is sufficient to completely absorb the IR beam .. ”.   On the other hand those plots do show clearly that the effect on OLR diminishes considerably with increasing concentration and that any increase from the 280ppm levels claimed to have existed pre-industrial revolution have had and will only have a marginal impact.

~ ~ ~ 
Then what is your explanation for Earth observations over the past half century?  And how does this help us understand today's situation and the near future of 400++ppm?
         
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I also loved how in almost the same breath you talked about “ .. everything I've read by real practicing experts .. ” then referred to John Cook’s skepticalscience.com blog 

~ ~ ~ 

This is quite the twist.  Ridley, you just wanted me to learn from a home-made atmospheric "text" book by a one-time chemist who claims he has disproven 100 years worth of atmospheric physics.  

And now you start picking on John Cook for not being a practicing scientist when he never claims to be such an expert, nor does Mr. Cook claim to be smarter than the practicing experts as your friend Dr. Barrett clearly does!  

Mr. Cook is a reporter, a communicator and collector of peer-reviewed scientific publications, he is also the archivist of the best on-line collection of peer-reviewed climatological literature, one that's geared toward the curious lay-person out there.  It's all about the science and John seems an honorable man fulfilling a much needed function in this "public debate" about global warming.

PS http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/07/discussion-ridley-4-skepticalscience.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

           

It seems to me in closing I should repeat some of those questions you ignored from Discussion with Pete Ridley #3

What in the world are you going on about?  

I wrote our atmosphere's insulating medium (GHGs) has increased by a third.   

Mr. Ridley Are you claiming that is false? 

CO2 has increased by 40%(today) 

As of 2000: "Until the past two centuries, the concentrations of CO₂ and CH₄had never exceeded about 280 ppm and 790 ppb, respectively. Current concentrations of CO₂ are about 390 ppm and CH₄ levels exceed 1,770 ppb. Both numbers are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years. (N2O from below 270 ppb to over 400 ppb)"  http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/industrialrevolution.html 

Water vapor is the tricky one because it is temperature dependent and varies a great deal with time and location.  The basic thumbnail figure I've read is that for every degree C° of warming water vapor increases 7%, but like you hinted at, H2O packs the greatest insulating punch. 

OK, now what's your issue Ridley? 

Are you complaining that my 1/3 was a convenient round number and that I didn't bother to figure it out to a few decimal points? 

Is it the H2O? 

Is it long lived greenhouse gases? 

Although none of that actually has to do with MODTRAN, or the OLR reading at the TOA... does it?  {outgoing longwave radiation at the top of atmosphere} That's a different issue, isn't it?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Sources used in "Discussion with Pete Ridley #3"

MODTRAN Infrared Light in the Atmosphere 

http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/modtran.doc.html 

- - -

The first global warming skeptic 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=414  

- - - 

Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation – Part One

January 3, 2013 by scienceofdoom 

http://scienceofdoom.com/2013/01/03/visualizing-atmospheric-radiation-part-one/

- - - 

Atmospheric Physics Thermodynamics 2 

N. Kämpfer

Institute of Applied Physics University of Bern

5.3.2013

http://www.iapmw.unibe.ch/teaching/vorlesungen/atmosphaerenphysik/FS_2013/AT_FS13_Thermodynamics_2_handout.pdf