Are you scientifically literate?

[PLC1]

When I was a kid in the 70's we had this kids news programme and I can remember hearing about scientists predictions of impending global disaster from these mutant killer bees coming out of South America and how we were all going to be stung to death and that essentially we were all doomed...............

Then, and I think this just after we had Ebola! According to the scientists Ebola was going to descend on the northern hemisphere buoyed on by genetic mutation and mass migration - some bozo from darkest Africa was going to get on a plane and infect us all. Images of blood oozing corpses were supposed to litter the streets and again we were all doomed..........

Then we had West Nile Virus which was supposed to be some variation on Ebola or something equally as nasty but again according to the scientists it was another case of corpses, death and general mayhem and we were all doomed................!

I tell you when I was in my mid-teens I was paranoid of winged critters, sneezes and anyone new that ventured into our street!

Then came the eighties and we all had mad cow disease or BSE or croitzfeld whositsname disease! According to the scientific wisdom of the day pretty much anyone that ate beef was going to have to be very careful, being infected by this virus would make you bang into things whilst walking sideways and dribbling profusely - eventually it would fry your brains. The scientists were predicting mass human vegetation over a twenty year period and that basically any schmuck that had eaten anything remotely beefy was basically doomed...........!

What else did we have had that the scientists and journalists have ramped out of all proportion? The ozone holes! We were all going to have our brains fried from cosmic rays because the ozone layer was disappearing and planetary doom was predicted. Remember SARs, swine Flu, bird flu and AH YES and the millennium bug. Remember the millennium bug! Again the scientists and pasty faced geeks convinced us that planes were going to fall from the sky, power stations would grind to a standstill and life on this planet would cease to exist, death and destruction, riots and maelstrom would engulf the whole of civilisation.........we were all doomed

And now global warming. Predictions by those self same scientists of global doom and destruction we're all bloody well doomed.............again!

Now forgive my cynicism but I'm bored with scientists predicting doom.

OK, I can see where you might be just a tad cynical about dire warnings of disaster.

It is not a part of the global warming theory that we are headed toward disaster. That part is manufactured by political types, just like some of the other stuff you mentioned was most likely hyped by non scientists.

 

[palerider]

According to this, it would be -18 degrees C:

The mean temperature of the moon is 10 degrees F. It has no atmosphere. How do you suppose the earth would be so much colder?

The warmer the atmosphere, the more heat escapes into space. The point at which temperature stabilizes depends on several things, among them, the composition of the atmosphere and the season of the year.

Actually, the less atmosphere there is the more heat escapes into space, but fundamental errors are your stock in trade.

I've posted the science of GW so many times, I'm tired of it. You'd just say that the source was not credible anyway, so why bother?

Actually, I would state that the science was not credible and go about stating why. Simply assuming that one source or the other is credible because it agrees with you is more your style.

Yes, a part of global warming is natural. The science is quite clear on that issue. The politics of the issue are never so clear.

Which part? And feel free to provide some observed proof to support the claim.

Man made greenhouse gasses are accelerating the process, not the only cause. 100 years of the industrial age compared to 14,000 years of natural warming is quite a time difference, don't you think?

Provide some observational proof that manmade greenhouse gasses are accelerating the process. Not simulations, not claims based on assumptions, but actual proof. The paleo record indicates that the present interglacial period is not unusual in the least other than perhaps warming is somewhat slower than previous periods.

Oh, yes, I miss that mile thick sheet of ice very much. I'd like to get my spear and go hunting mammoth, wouldn't you?

If the retreat of that much ice is normal, why does the continuation of the very change that caused invoke feelings in you that the sky is falling?

Ice ages come and go. The difference now is that humans are accelerating the change.

There is not one shred of observed proof to support that statement. It is derived from political scare tactics, not observed science. But do feel free to provide proof if you believe any exists.

What we really ought to do is to quit arguing over what is obvious, and start researching what is more obscure, like just what kinds of changes we might be likely to see in a given area.

At this point the only thing that is obvious is that the climate has changed from day one and will continue to change with us or without us. What is not obvious is that we could do something about the climate even if the entire world had the will. That is not obvious at all but the actual science suggests that we could no more change the climate than we could stop the tides.

 

[numinus]

The mean temperature of the moon is 10 degrees F. It has no atmosphere. How do you suppose the earth would be so much colder?



Actually, the less atmosphere there is the more heat escapes into space, but fundamental errors are your stock in trade.



Actually, I would state that the science was not credible and go about stating why. Simply assuming that one source or the other is credible because it agrees with you is more your style.



Which part? And feel free to provide some observed proof to support the claim.



Provide some observational proof that manmade greenhouse gasses are accelerating the process. Not simulations, not claims based on assumptions, but actual proof. The paleo record indicates that the present interglacial period is not unusual in the least other than perhaps warming is somewhat slower than previous periods.



If the retreat of that much ice is normal, why does the continuation of the very change that caused invoke feelings in you that the sky is falling?



There is not one shred of observed proof to support that statement. It is derived from political scare tactics, not observed science. But do feel free to provide proof if you believe any exists.



At this point the only thing that is obvious is that the climate has changed from day one and will continue to change with us or without us. What is not obvious is that we could do something about the climate even if the entire world had the will. That is not obvious at all but the actual science suggests that we could no more change the climate than we could stop the tides.

Ok. You've sold this piece of information. What is pertinent -- if co2 isn't causing global warming, then what is?

First off, the earth isn't isothermic within its atmosphere. It allows free energy to enter and leave the system. That isn't what isothermic means.

Secondly, the mean temperature isn't relevant. It could stay, say 20 degrees celsius all day or it can vary from 40 degrees half of the time and 0 degrees the other half and it would still be 20 degrees mean temp. What is relevant is the range of variance. A larger variance would less likely support life than a smaller one.

Lastly, and perhaps the most vexing, you say that climate fluctuates radically over geologic time. This isn't at all conducive to the perpetuation of life as we know it. Why would it fluctuate so?

 

[PLC1]

Actually, the less atmosphere there is the more heat escapes into space, but fundamental errors are your stock in trade.

Actually, I've stated the exact same thing. Apparently, resopnding without reading is your stock in trade.

Actually, I would state that the science was not credible and go about stating why. Simply assuming that one source or the other is credible because it agrees with you is more your style.

That would be refreshing.

If the retreat of that much ice is normal, why does the continuation of the very change that caused invoke feelings in you that the sky is falling?

The sky is falling? Yes, it would be refreshing if you would respond to what I've actually posted.

At this point the only thing that is obvious is that the climate has changed from day one and will continue to change with us or without us. What is not obvious is that we could do something about the climate even if the entire world had the will. That is not obvious at all but the actual science suggests that we could no more change the climate than we could stop the tides.

All of the above is correct, and one more thing is also correct: We have returned enough carbon dioxide and methane to the atmosphere to raise the temperature faster than it would have otherwise.

No, the sky is not falling.
No, we can't change global warming.
Yes, climate change has been a part of Earth's history since the beginning.
No, you aren't responding to any of my statements.

 

[palerider]

Ok. You've sold this piece of information. What is pertinent -- if co2 isn't causing global warming, then what is?

The truth is, we don't know. Climate science today is not yet even in its infancy. Until we know the basics, we will have no idea what drives the climate. Physicists and chemists, are sure that warming is not being driven by CO2 as it reached its saturation point (the point at which it can absorb no more OLR) at a far lower atmospheric concentration than is present today.

First off, the earth isn't isothermic within its atmosphere. It allows free energy to enter and leave the system. That isn't what isothermic means.

Perhaps not perfectly isothermal, but that is a far better description than the glass house.

Lastly, and perhaps the most vexing, you say that climate fluctuates radically over geologic time. This isn't at all conducive to the perpetuation of life as we know it. Why would it fluctuate so?

Again, we really don't have any idea why it fluctuates so. Till basic questions like the overall sign of climate forcings, the albedo, and how energy passes through the atmospheric system, we simply won't know what drives the climate. What I can tell you though is that there is no chemical reason to suspect that a minor greenhouse gas that has long since reached its saturation point has anything to do with further warming and since AGW theory is based on CO2, the theory itself doesn't warrant serious consideration.

 

[palerider]

If you have any interest in CO2 beyond the sky is falling hype, here is a relatively short, concise explanation as to why CO2 is not the culprit.

CO2 Absorption Spectrum
There is no Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming

Saturation is a term physicists use when all suitable radiation gets absorbed, so adding more CO2 cannot absorb more radiation. Whatever CO2 did in the past, adding more CO2 cannot change anything.

Proof one: Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide saturates (absorbs to extinction) at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions.* This means there is no radiation left at the peak frequencies after 10 meters. If then there is a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, the distance of absorption reduces to half, or 5m. A reduction in distance is not an increase in temperature. Convectional currents stir the heat around removing any relevance for distance.

Scientists who promote the global warming hype try to work around this fact by claiming something different happens higher in the atmosphere, which they claim involves unsaturation on the shoulders of the absorption peaks. (See Disputed Zone.) The difference due to height is that the absorption peaks get smaller and sharper, so they separate from each other. Near the earth's surface, the absorption peaks for water vapor partially overlap the absorption peaks for CO2, while there is less water vapor high in the atmosphere. Supposedly, separating the peaks creates global warming. There is no credibility to that claim. It is nothing but an attempt to salvage global warming propaganda through fake rationalizing of complexities.

What it means is that climatologists admit there is no mechanism at lower levels of the atmosphere, and their rationalization for higher up is phony.It's important to realize that radiation from the sun does not greatly heat the atmosphere, because the sun must give off high frequency radiation in the area of visible light, which goes through the atmosphere. Something as hot as the sun cannot give off low frequency radiation. Temperature determines frequency. This means that most of the sun's radiation heats the surface of the earth, and then the heat moves from the earth's surface into the atmosphere through conduction, convection, evaporation and infrared radiation. The infrared radiation can be absorbed by so-called greenhouse gasses.


Heat leaves the planet through long wave infrared radiation.

Absorption Peaks

Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). This means that most of the heat producing radiation escapes it. About 8% of the available black body radiation is picked up by these "fingerprint" frequencies of CO2.

Several decades ago, before global warming was an issue, scientists concluded that carbon dioxide blocked 8% of the infrared radiation from going through the atmosphere. This is consistent with bandwidth. The width of the 15 micron peak is two microns wide from outer edges of shoulders. The total range of infrared radiation is about 100 microns, tapering off after 50 microns.

A measured absorption spectrum is shown here. See an exactly measured 15 micron peak in Heinz Hug's paper.

Heinz Hug* showed that carbon dioxide in the air absorbs to extinction at its 15µM peak in about ten meters. This means that CO2 does whatever it's going to do in that amount of space. Twice as much CO2 would do the same thing in about 5m. There's no significant difference between 5m and 10m for global warming, because convectional currents mix the air in such short distances.

Attempted Fix

This is nothing new. Climate scientists know that more CO2 does not result in more heat under usual conditions. So the mythologists among them try to salvage the global warming propaganda by pretending that something esoteric occurs higher in the atmosphere. The difference is that the absorption peaks for CO2 separate from the peaks for water vapor. Then supposedly, radiation which misses CO2 does not get picked up by water vapor and travels into outer space; and more CO2 causes less radiation to get missed on the shoulders of the peaks.

Everything about that rationalization stretches reality to a point of misrepresentation. The increase in CO2 levels could only be relevant for the last cycle of absorption near the outer edges of the atmosphere, where there is not enough influence of the lower atmosphere to be significant. But the rationalizers claim it is significant in the mid levels of atmosphere. Not so. Doubling the CO2 would only shorten the distance of radiation travel before total absorption occurs.
The outer edges of the shoulders of the absorption peaks are said to be unsaturated, because they don't absorb all radiation available to them. The unsaturated area is virtually nonexistent. The image at right shows how the distance of absorption increases as shoulder molecules get thinner. Where the molecules are one tenth the density, the distance is ten times as much, which is 100 meters. Where the density of one hundredth, the distance is 1,000 meters. Where is the unsaturation supposed to be? Fake equations are contrived to show a result in contradiction to the obvious logic.

The question is phrased in terms of what happens when CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled. Doubling only shortens the distance the radiation travels before being completely absorbed, as shown in the small image.

The green part of the image is the absorption spectrum superimposed onto the atmospheric effects. The yellow areas on the edges of the shoulders are supposedly where the heat is added to the atmosphere.


At mid levels of the atmosphere, the center of the peaks would absorb at about 30m instead of 10m, while the shoulders would absorb at about 300m instead of 100m. Reducing those distance by half is not relevant. But just like relativity, if it takes more than a mouthful of arguing to prove them wrong, frauds decree the obfuscation to be fact.

As shown on the page titled "Crunching the Numbers," the quantities involved are so miniscule as to be totally incapable of causing global warming.

There's another major reason why the fix is unreal. Supposedly, it is the outer shoulders on the CO2 peaks which are responsible for global warming. Not only is a small percent of the CO2 influenced by the shoulder radiation, but the distance increases for absorption. There is more nitrogen and oxygen per CO2 molecule in this area. Dilution reduces the temperature increase per unit of energy. If there is 5% as much CO2 on the shoulders, it is spread over 20 times as much space in the atmosphere. This means the temperature effect on the shoulders should be multiplied times 5% twice—once for the decrease in amount of CO2 and once for the dilution of the energy in the atmosphere. So much dilution of so few molecules could not be responsible for a significant amount of temperature increase....

http://www.nov55.com/ntyg.html

 

[PLC1]

If you have any interest in CO2 beyond the sky is falling hype, here is a relatively short, concise explanation as to why CO2 is not the culprit.

CO2 Absorption Spectrum
There is no Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming

Saturation is a term physicists use when all suitable radiation gets absorbed, so adding more CO2 cannot absorb more radiation. Whatever CO2 did in the past, adding more CO2 cannot change anything.

Proof one: Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide saturates (absorbs to extinction) at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions.* This means there is no radiation left at the peak frequencies after 10 meters. If then there is a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, the distance of absorption reduces to half, or 5m. A reduction in distance is not an increase in temperature. Convectional currents stir the heat around removing any relevance for distance.

Scientists who promote the global warming hype try to work around this fact by claiming something different happens higher in the atmosphere, which they claim involves unsaturation on the shoulders of the absorption peaks. (See Disputed Zone.) The difference due to height is that the absorption peaks get smaller and sharper, so they separate from each other. Near the earth's surface, the absorption peaks for water vapor partially overlap the absorption peaks for CO2, while there is less water vapor high in the atmosphere. Supposedly, separating the peaks creates global warming. There is no credibility to that claim. It is nothing but an attempt to salvage global warming propaganda through fake rationalizing of complexities.

What it means is that climatologists admit there is no mechanism at lower levels of the atmosphere, and their rationalization for higher up is phony.It's important to realize that radiation from the sun does not greatly heat the atmosphere, because the sun must give off high frequency radiation in the area of visible light, which goes through the atmosphere. Something as hot as the sun cannot give off low frequency radiation. Temperature determines frequency. This means that most of the sun's radiation heats the surface of the earth, and then the heat moves from the earth's surface into the atmosphere through conduction, convection, evaporation and infrared radiation. The infrared radiation can be absorbed by so-called greenhouse gasses.


Heat leaves the planet through long wave infrared radiation.

Absorption Peaks

Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). This means that most of the heat producing radiation escapes it. About 8% of the available black body radiation is picked up by these "fingerprint" frequencies of CO2.

Several decades ago, before global warming was an issue, scientists concluded that carbon dioxide blocked 8% of the infrared radiation from going through the atmosphere. This is consistent with bandwidth. The width of the 15 micron peak is two microns wide from outer edges of shoulders. The total range of infrared radiation is about 100 microns, tapering off after 50 microns.

A measured absorption spectrum is shown here. See an exactly measured 15 micron peak in Heinz Hug's paper.

Heinz Hug* showed that carbon dioxide in the air absorbs to extinction at its 15µM peak in about ten meters. This means that CO2 does whatever it's going to do in that amount of space. Twice as much CO2 would do the same thing in about 5m. There's no significant difference between 5m and 10m for global warming, because convectional currents mix the air in such short distances.

Attempted Fix

This is nothing new. Climate scientists know that more CO2 does not result in more heat under usual conditions. So the mythologists among them try to salvage the global warming propaganda by pretending that something esoteric occurs higher in the atmosphere. The difference is that the absorption peaks for CO2 separate from the peaks for water vapor. Then supposedly, radiation which misses CO2 does not get picked up by water vapor and travels into outer space; and more CO2 causes less radiation to get missed on the shoulders of the peaks.

Everything about that rationalization stretches reality to a point of misrepresentation. The increase in CO2 levels could only be relevant for the last cycle of absorption near the outer edges of the atmosphere, where there is not enough influence of the lower atmosphere to be significant. But the rationalizers claim it is significant in the mid levels of atmosphere. Not so. Doubling the CO2 would only shorten the distance of radiation travel before total absorption occurs.
The outer edges of the shoulders of the absorption peaks are said to be unsaturated, because they don't absorb all radiation available to them. The unsaturated area is virtually nonexistent. The image at right shows how the distance of absorption increases as shoulder molecules get thinner. Where the molecules are one tenth the density, the distance is ten times as much, which is 100 meters. Where the density of one hundredth, the distance is 1,000 meters. Where is the unsaturation supposed to be? Fake equations are contrived to show a result in contradiction to the obvious logic.

The question is phrased in terms of what happens when CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled. Doubling only shortens the distance the radiation travels before being completely absorbed, as shown in the small image.

The green part of the image is the absorption spectrum superimposed onto the atmospheric effects. The yellow areas on the edges of the shoulders are supposedly where the heat is added to the atmosphere.


At mid levels of the atmosphere, the center of the peaks would absorb at about 30m instead of 10m, while the shoulders would absorb at about 300m instead of 100m. Reducing those distance by half is not relevant. But just like relativity, if it takes more than a mouthful of arguing to prove them wrong, frauds decree the obfuscation to be fact.

As shown on the page titled "Crunching the Numbers," the quantities involved are so miniscule as to be totally incapable of causing global warming.

There's another major reason why the fix is unreal. Supposedly, it is the outer shoulders on the CO2 peaks which are responsible for global warming. Not only is a small percent of the CO2 influenced by the shoulder radiation, but the distance increases for absorption. There is more nitrogen and oxygen per CO2 molecule in this area. Dilution reduces the temperature increase per unit of energy. If there is 5% as much CO2 on the shoulders, it is spread over 20 times as much space in the atmosphere. This means the temperature effect on the shoulders should be multiplied times 5% twice—once for the decrease in amount of CO2 and once for the dilution of the energy in the atmosphere. So much dilution of so few molecules could not be responsible for a significant amount of temperature increase....

http://www.nov55.com/ntyg.html

What an interesting thesis by Gary Novak. Here is more about the author.

 

[palerider]

What an interesting thesis by Gary Novak. Here is more about the author.

A circumstantial ad hominem supported by the writings of a moonbat. How very clever. Now feel free to disprove anything that was stated.

 

[numinus]

The truth is, we don't know. Climate science today is not yet even in its infancy. Until we know the basics, we will have no idea what drives the climate. Physicists and chemists, are sure that warming is not being driven by CO2 as it reached its saturation point (the point at which it can absorb no more OLR) at a far lower atmospheric concentration than is present today.

What is, in your opinion, the most promising line of research? Surely, in the process of verifying the effects of co2, some avenues would have opened up.

Perhaps not perfectly isothermal, but that is a far better description than the glass house.

I do not wish to quibble with you over definitions except to say that if a systems allows heat to enter and leave, isothermic would be the furthest thing to describe it. 'Not perfectly isothermic' is even more ridiculous since there is no such thing as a perfectly isothermic system.

Again, we really don't have any idea why it fluctuates so. Till basic questions like the overall sign of climate forcings, the albedo, and how energy passes through the atmospheric system, we simply won't know what drives the climate. What I can tell you though is that there is no chemical reason to suspect that a minor greenhouse gas that has long since reached its saturation point has anything to do with further warming and since AGW theory is based on CO2, the theory itself doesn't warrant serious consideration.

Enlighten me.

What are these basic questions, how is it pertinent to the climate temperature fluctuations and why the hell is it unknown?

 

[palerider]

What is, in your opinion, the most promising line of research? Surely, in the process of verifying the effects of co2, some avenues would have opened up.

The most promising line of research would be getting a handle on how energy moves through the atmospheric system. Till you can accuratly predict the energy budget in any system, you can't begin to understand what is really happening. Today the field of climate "science" is about where chemistry was when alchemists were trying to develop the philosopher's stone or turn base metals into gold. They are performing experiments trying to create predetermined outcomes. Climate "science" won't grow into an actual science till they become more interested in what is happening than the political and economic power that can be derived if they achieve a certain outcome.

CO2 is not the answer.

I do not wish to quibble with you over definitions except to say that if a systems allows heat to enter and leave, isothermic would be the furthest thing to describe it. 'Not perfectly isothermic' is even more ridiculous since there is no such thing as a perfectly isothermic system.

Perhaps I shoudl have stated that there are isothermal layers in the atmosphere but that would have entailed going deeper into the science than is really practical on a discussion board with someone who really doesn't have a grasp on the basics.

http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/atmosphere/atmospheric_structure_p2.html

http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/269/

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Atmosphere_layers

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/metadata/published/NCDC/C00301.xml

Enlighten me.

What are these basic questions, how is it pertinent to the climate temperature fluctuations and why the hell is it unknown?

I gave you the basic questions already. Do I need to repeat? How are they pertinent? Lets just look at one. The earth's mean temperature for example. Today we can't say with a degree of accuracy better than a couple of degrees. Climate "science" is claiming a temperature increase of 0.38 degrees C over the past 50 years and is stating that it is mostly manmade. To start, claiming a temperature rise that is 0.076 of your margin of error is one thing, to actually suggest that we take action on such a suggestion is laughable. Does that fact alone not start the critical thinking bells in your brain to ringing?

As to the others like knowing whether the net value of all climate forcings is postive or negative or even knowing all of the climate forcings for Pete's sake; do you not think that might be a good thing to know before you start making or suggesting worldwide economic changes that will cost trillions of dollars? Are you really willing to entertain such suggestions based on a line of scientific inquiry that doesn't even have a firm grasp on bare bones basics?

And why are the answers unknown? I already told you. Because at present, climate "science" is researching to prove preordained conclusions rather than to find out. When they get past trying to turn lead to gold and start trying in earnest to find out why, then the answers will begin to come and climate science can begin to be taken seriously.

 

[numinus]

The most promising line of research would be getting a handle on how energy moves through the atmospheric system. Till you can accuratly predict the energy budget in any system, you can't begin to understand what is really happening. Today the field of climate "science" is about where chemistry was when alchemists were trying to develop the philosopher's stone or turn base metals into gold. They are performing experiments trying to create predetermined outcomes. Climate "science" won't grow into an actual science till they become more interested in what is happening than the political and economic power that can be derived if they achieve a certain outcome.

CO2 is not the answer.

Perhaps I shoudl have stated that there are isothermal layers in the atmosphere but that would have entailed going deeper into the science than is really practical on a discussion board with someone who really doesn't have a grasp on the basics.

http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/atmosphere/atmospheric_structure_p2.html

http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/269/

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Atmosphere_layers

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/metadata/published/NCDC/C00301.xml

Perhaps you should have explained more thoroughly. You never know when someone competent is actually reading.

You are approaching the problem from an 'energy budget' in a thermodynamic system like the atmosphere, no? For a system to be isothermic, it is either absolutely permeable (heat goes in and out hence the system's temperature remains the same) or it is absolutely adiabatic (it allows no heat to pass through).

Clearly, the earth's entire atmosphere is not isothermic even if the temperature of some layers are constant. Otherwise, we wouldn't be talking about an energy budget to begin with.

Is that basically it or do you have other climatology term I'm not aware of?

I gave you the basic questions already. Do I need to repeat? How are they pertinent? Lets just look at one. The earth's mean temperature for example. Today we can't say with a degree of accuracy better than a couple of degrees. Climate "science" is claiming a temperature increase of 0.38 degrees C over the past 50 years and is stating that it is mostly manmade. To start, claiming a temperature rise that is 0.076 of your margin of error is one thing, to actually suggest that we take action on such a suggestion is laughable. Does that fact alone not start the critical thinking bells in your brain to ringing?

Obviously.

If you are saying that the standard deviation for temperature measurements is a couple of degrees, your margin of error would be twice that -- representing a 95% confidence level of your measurement. A variance of 0.076 degrees celsius per year (or even 0.38 degrees celsius for the entire 50 years) is way too negligible to base a conclusion on.

As to the others like knowing whether the net value of all climate forcings is postive or negative or even knowing all of the climate forcings for Pete's sake; do you not think that might be a good thing to know before you start making or suggesting worldwide economic changes that will cost trillions of dollars? Are you really willing to entertain such suggestions based on a line of scientific inquiry that doesn't even have a firm grasp on bare bones basics?

Explain.

What are climate forcings? How are they measured? What is the significance of a positive or negative net value?

And why are the answers unknown? I already told you. Because at present, climate "science" is researching to prove preordained conclusions rather than to find out. When they get past trying to turn lead to gold and start trying in earnest to find out why, then the answers will begin to come and climate science can begin to be taken seriously.

Is it expensive to measure climate forcings independently? Do you need a truckload of grant money for this?

 

[top gun]

Denying the effects of CO2 is ridiculous.

It can be and has been thousands of times easily proven in small scientific models. The only variable is how much the entire planet can deal with without disastrous effect because it is true that our wonderful Ecosystem tries hard to balances itself.

But it's much like pouring raw sewage into a creek. Our Ecosystem will purify a certain amount by the time the creek feeds into the stream, then into the river and then into the lake. But there is a tipping point to where to much at one time is being added and the lake becomes saturated & polluted.

 

[palerider]

It can be and has been thousands of times easily proven in small scientific models. The only variable is how much the entire planet can deal with without disastrous effect because it is true that our wonderful Ecosystem tries hard to balances itself.

Models. Meaning simulations. The problem is that it can't be proven in actual physical experiments because CO2 does not behave as it is programmed to behave in the simulations.


"My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood [THAT IS FUNNY] of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. [...] But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models. "

Prof. Dyson explains that the many components of climate models are divorced from first principles and are "parameterized" -- incorporated by reference to their measured effects.

"They are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behaviour in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere," he states.

Prof. Dyson learned about the pitfalls of modelling early in his career, in 1953, and from good authority: physicist Enrico Fermi, who had built the first nuclear reactor in 1942. The young Prof. Dyson and his team of graduate students and post-docs had proudly developed what seemed like a remarkably reliable model of subatomic behaviour that corresponded with Fermi's actual measurements. To Prof. Dyson's dismay, Fermi quickly dismissed his model.

"In desperation, I asked Fermi whether he was not impressed by the agreement between our calculated numbers and his measured numbers. He replied, 'How many arbitrary parameters did you use for your calculations?' I thought for a moment about our cut-off procedures and said, 'Four.' He said, 'I remember my friend Johnny von Neumann [the co-creator of game theory] used to say, with four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.' With that, the conversation was over."

Prof. Dyson soon abandoned this line of inquiry. Only years later, after Fermi's death, did new developments in science confirm that the impressive agreement between Prof. Dyson's model and Fermi's measurements was bogus, and that Prof. Dyson and his students had been spared years of grief by Fermi's wise dismissal of his speculative model. Although it seemed elegant, it was no foundation upon which to base sound science. "

Source: Freeman Dyson - Professor Emeritus of Physics - Princeton University

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08...mate_heresies/

 

[palerider]

You are approaching the problem from an 'energy budget' in a thermodynamic system like the atmosphere, no?

I am not approaching climate change from an energy budget. I am not attempting to explain it, or predict it. I am saying that anyone who is attempting to explain or predict what is causing climate change or what may exacerbate it had damned well better be able to accurately describe how energy is passing through the system. Today, climate "science" has hardly scratched the surface and instead simply makes assumptions that they program into their simulations'

What are climate forcings? How are they measured? What is the significance of a positive or negative net value?

You claim "competence"; tell me about them and why the projections, and suggestions of a branch of scientific inquiry that is presently in its infancy should be taken seriously if it is unaware of the net sign of all climate forcings or even what all of the climate forcings are.

Is it expensive to measure climate forcings independently? Do you need a truckload of grant money for this?

Is it? Tell me O competent one.

 

[numinus]

I am not approaching climate change from an energy budget. I am not attempting to explain it, or predict it. I am saying that anyone who is attempting to explain or predict what is causing climate change or what may exacerbate it had damned well better be able to accurately describe how energy is passing through the system. Today, climate "science" has hardly scratched the surface and instead simply makes assumptions that they program into their simulations'

Obviously.

My education in fluid mechanics is confined to viscous fluids in laminar flow. Transposition of derivatives in the mechanics of rigid or deformable bodies is more or less straightforward. Conservation of mass, energy and momentum still applies.

That is not the case for non-viscous fluids in trubulent flow like the atmosphere. There simply are too many unpredictable forces and the many assumptions do not apply in this case.

I was simply wondering how a scientist such as yourself propose to model such a thing, if it were even possible.

You claim "competence"; tell me about them and why the projections, and suggestions of a branch of scientific inquiry that is presently in its infancy should be taken seriously if it is unaware of the net sign of all climate forcings or even what all of the climate forcings are.

You are asking me the why of 'climate forcings' when I do not even know what the hell 'climate forcings' are??? It certainly didn't come up in the courses I've taken. You are the first I read it from. I'm going in this discussion without a single preconception.

Is climate forcing the same as viscous forces?

Is it? Tell me O competent one.

You had better believe I'm competent -- competent enough to determine bs if I see one.

So, am I to assume that the entire purpose of this thread is to debunk present agw and not to offer a more plausible alternative? Frankly, I can live with that -- if nothing is forthcoming at all from you.