Even if Ned and Karl just presented the data points on their Ts/Tna vs Pressure graph without any mathematically defined curve, it’d be obvious to most sensible people that there’s a smooth continuum there which strongly resembles other well known pressure temperature relations.
Yes, but they didn’t did they? The smooth continuum is also consistent with the greenhouse effect. The thicker the atmosphere, the more GHG and the greater the temperature difference between the surface and effective radiating layer caused by the lapse rate. So why favour N&Z?
Lol. I’ll take that seriously when you produce your smooth curve plot of Ts/Tna vs [radiative parameter]. Until then, you’re just blustering.
Expecting a completely smooth curve is obviously unrealistic. There are large differences in atmospheric composition between the planets which means that any exact fit is likely to be spurious (i.e. over-fitting). Better to use a model based on physics not (bad) statistics.
The Poisson-like P-T relationship Ned has discovered is expressed as the Surface T with atmosphere divided by Surface T with no atmosphere, plotted against surface pressure. What “(bad) statistics” are you referring to? These are just plain physical parameters.
overfitting and over-parameterisation, not acocunting for degrees of researcher freedom, not properly investigating out of sample prediction. All of these things a bad statistics.
BS Gavin. There is no ‘fitting’ or ‘parameterisation’ involved in dividing surface T by no-atmos T and plotting that ratio against surface pressure. And the paper contains four out of sample predictions, one now validated, another awaiting data from the Mercury probe. Read it.
It’s almost as if Roger was ignoring what I wrote and just making the same assertions again and again. The model can’t predict Venus as an out-of-sample prediction because the second component is there to bodge the model for that planet.
Venus’ surface pressure lies on a smooth continuum with other bodies’ surface pressures relative to the ratio of their actual and no-atmos surface temperatures, regardless of the no doubt imperfect numerical expression derived to describe it. No radiative factor has matched that.
More argument by attrition. The N&Z model needs a separate component to get the temperature of Venus right, thus is can only predict the temperature of Venus if it is specifically baked into the model. That is overfitting, and smooth continuum most likely spurious.
It’s not attrition Gavin, I’m just having to respond to your continued misrepresentations of what the data show. Not the numerical model Gavin, the data. The data have no ‘fitting’ to be ‘overfitted’. The data are what they are.
Sure it can Gavin. But only by introducing lots more parameters than Ned uses, and ‘adjusting’ them planet by planet on an ad hoc basis to obtain a model fit. And even after $$$ billions spend. Climate models disagree about Earth’s surface T by 4C.
Thanks Gavin, I’ll leave it there.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Terminology problem: this ‘greenhouse’ doesn’t have any sides – so it’s not a greenhouse.
oldbrew, you are not supposed to point out the flaws in the pronouncements of IPCC oracle and its minions, especially when said flaws don’t fit the perceived wisdom of fear, uncertainty and doubt.
There is also a problem with that picture – the atmosphere doesn’t have a lid on it.
Many problems with the picture 😐
Data is not good enough for them. Had the same problem with Willis Eschenbach. They only trust models. Never buy a Bridge off such folk!! Good work, and it is hard work. Brett
My god. That was a real head banging conversation with a nonentity. Separating the real world from the modelled world seems to be the most difficult exercise a climate scientist can do.
@Stephen R, I agree with you that it is almost impossible to separate a climate scientist from their models for the simple reason that if they do peek out from their model fantasy land the real world hits them and they haven’t a clue how to deal with that.
I fear that a much greater effort will be needed to rehabilitate the members of the the church of climatology than any of the brainwashed members of another religious cult.
Agree Stephen R and Ivan.
Roger why talk to some nonentity that does not understand the basics and is blinded by socialist ideas. Referencing that fool Peirrehumbert is a clue to his political leanings rather than knowledge of factual information. The saying is one should not judge a book by its cover. In Pierrehumbert’s case he looks like a “green” hippy socialist fool which he clearly is. But the book cover is wrong – there are no principles inside, so supporting the saying.
TB: good story there (Wiki, 6:37 AM) about why Ford’s American customers preferred the Japanese version of a gearbox in their cars to the US one, even though both were made to the same spec.
Deming: “the performance of anyone is governed largely by the system that he works in”.
– – –
Re the tweets: Upton Sinclair — ‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.’
We can’t have empirical data interfering with our fancy/fanciful climate theories, can we?
Deming – a hero of mine……..