Are you scientifically literate?

[PLC1]

Yes it was a hoax. It was a trial hoax if you will. Just to see if the general population had been dumbed down enough to not realize that they were the victims of a hoax.

Care to talk about the chemistry ivolved?

The biology involved might be more appropriate.

Three hoaxes, then: global warming, the ozone hole, and the theory of evolution, all perpetrated on a gullible public in order to gain political power. Is that really your position, or am I misreading your posts?

 

[palerider]

OK, so you were wrong when you said it was warmer.

No. I was not wrong because I never said that the upper atmosphere was getting warmer. One of three things is happening here. 1) you are so intent on nitpicking me that you can't keep up. 2) you are scientifically illiterate and don't grasp what is being said. 3) you are being deliberately dishonest by claiming that I have said things that I have not said.

Do feel free to bring forward any quote from me stating that the upper atmosphere is getting warmer.

 

[palerider]

The biology involved might be more appropriate.

It is strictly a chemical matter. If you care to discuss it, the chemistry isn't very complicated and I would be happy to walk you through it.

Three hoaxes, then: global warming, the ozone hole, and the theory of evolution, all perpetrated on a gullible public in order to gain political power. Is that really your position, or am I misreading your posts?

The ozone hole hoax was perpetrated for the benefit of algore's largest contributor (3m) who just happened to have the "perfect" substitute for freon but they couldn't sell it because there simply was no market for it.

Global warming is about redistributing wealth.

And I don't ever remember suggesting that evolution was a hoax. Putting more words in my mouth? Erecting a strawman to attack?

 

[PLC1]

No. I was not wrong because I never said that the upper atmosphere was getting warmer. One of three things is happening here. 1) you are so intent on nitpicking me that you can't keep up. 2) you are scientifically illiterate and don't grasp what is being said. 3) you are being deliberately dishonest by claiming that I have said things that I have not said.

Do feel free to bring forward any quote from me stating that the upper atmosphere is getting warmer.

Post 98:

Not at all. For example, a rise in the methane concentration in the atmosphere will result in more OLR being absorbed which one might intuit to result in a net temperature rise. Recent research, however, has shown that rising temperatures result in lower humidity levels in the upper atmosphere which result in a net cooling effect.

OK, so your assertion was not that the upper atmosphere was getting warmer, but that the warming in the upper atmosphere resulted in lower humidity levels, which resulted in a lowering of temperature.

That wasn't what your sources said at all, of course, and is totally illogical.

But, you're correct that you didn't say that the upper atmosphere was getting warmer and staying that way.

 

[PLC1]

And I don't ever remember suggesting that evolution was a hoax. Putting more words in my mouth? Erecting a strawman to attack?

Originally Posted by PLC1
Just wondering: Is evolution another hoax perpetrated by scientists on the gullible?

Your answer:
Yes it was a hoax. It was a trial hoax if you will. Just to see if the general population had been dumbed down enough to not realize that they were the victims of a hoax.

That one is pretty clear: Yes, it was a hoax. No doublespeak about how it was a hoax, but it's hoaxiness turned it into a truth. Yes, it was a hoax.

I really don't have to put words into your mouth. What is coming out is absurd enough as it is.

 

[palerider]

Post 98:

Not an answer. I still don't know whether you can't read, can't understand, or are simply being dishonest. I can tell you that there is no assertion by me there that the upper atmosphere is getting warmer. Reread very slowly for comprehension.

OK, so your assertion was not that the upper atmosphere was getting warmer, but that the warming in the upper atmosphere resulted in lower humidity levels, which resulted in a lowering of temperature.

No. Again, read what I said rather than what you wish I said. Clearly I was not asserting that the upper atmosphere was warming as evidenced by the images I provided for you clearly showing that warming was not happening in the upper atmosphere contrary to computer model predicitions.

 

[palerider]

That one is pretty clear: Yes, it was a hoax. No doublespeak about how it was a hoax, but it's hoaxiness turned it into a truth. Yes, it was a hoax.

I really don't have to put words into your mouth. What is coming out is absurd enough as it is.

The error was mine. I simply cut the wrong statement. I meant to leave your quote:

"The ozone hole hoax? Yes, i remember that one. Didn't we quit using Chloroflourocarbons in spray cans in order to stop the ozone hole from increasing? Is the ozone hole still a problem now?"

The response that it was a trial hoax was intended for that statement. Now, do you care to have the hoax proved to you or not? I fully understand that you might not. I suppose it can't be easy learning that you have been a dupe for so very long.

 

[PLC1]

The error was mine. I simply cut the wrong statement. I meant to leave your quote:

"The ozone hole hoax? Yes, i remember that one. Didn't we quit using Chloroflourocarbons in spray cans in order to stop the ozone hole from increasing? Is the ozone hole still a problem now?"

The response that it was a trial hoax was intended for that statement. Now, do you care to have the hoax proved to you or not? I fully understand that you might not. I suppose it can't be easy learning that you have been a dupe for so very long.

I'm just trying to understand your point of view. So, evolution is not a hoax perpetrated by scientists in order to gain political power, but climate change is just that, and the ozone hole was a trial hoax to see if they could get a gullible public to believe it.


Further, the warming of the upper atmosphere caused a net cooling due to the decrease in humidity.

Unless there is some other way to interpret:

Recent research, however, has shown that rising temperatures result in lower humidity levels in the upper atmosphere which result in a net cooling effect.

Which still isn't what your links said, but, I'm just trying to figure out just how you see this great conspiracy of the world's leading climatologists.

 

[palerider]

I'm just trying to understand your point of view. So, evolution is not a hoax perpetrated by scientists in order to gain political power, but climate change is just that, and the ozone hole was a trial hoax to see if they could get a gullible public to believe it.

The ozone hole was a payback by algore to his largest campaign contributor. A mandated purchase of their product. They did pretty well on that deal don't you think?

Further, the warming of the upper atmosphere caused a net cooling due to the decrease in humidity.

Still erecting strawmen? I never said a word about warming in the upper atmosphere and actually took time to post a graphic for you illustrating that warming is not happening in the upper atmosphere. Dishonesty is not a good debate tactic so why do you persist in it?

Unless there is some other way to interpret:

My words don't need interpretation. They may be taken at face value. I described a warming in the lower atmosphere did I not; by describing a senario in which less OLR gets into the upper atmosphere, causing a lowering of relative humidity and therefore a net cooling effect. Never once did I mention, imply, or infer warming in the upper atmosphere. Again, feel free to bring forward any quote from me in which I did.

So again, are you up to discussing the ozone hoax or is finding out that you have been duped on two fronts just too much for you to take?

 

[numinus]

No signifigant change in OLR in the wavelengths absorbed by CO2. There is a slight decrease in the amount of OLR in other wavelengths that may or may not be attributable to us. Methane, for instance.

Not at all. For example, a rise in the methane concentration in the atmosphere will result in more OLR being absorbed which one might intuit to result in a net temperature rise. Recent research, however, has shown that rising temperatures result in lower humidity levels in the upper atmosphere which result in a net cooling effect.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100128/full/news.2010.42.html

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100128_watervapor.html

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm

Again, there are simply too many unknowns at this time to take any dire warning or economic suggestion seriously.

Tell me if I understand what you are saying.

You are treating the atmosphere as a very complex, open thermodynamic system. You are trying to determine the inter-related macroscopic quantities of work, heat, free energy (I suppose since we include the biosphere) and perhaps entropy by examining spectroscopic data in the molecular level. Obviosly, you need probability theory to do this, that is, relating the over all effects of a large population of particles by their individual motions or states.

Is that the jist of climate science?

Present models, for example, when run in reverse don't postdict the medieval warm period or the little ice age. Neither do they postdict the levelling off and actual decrease of the temperature in the past 18 years or so. If a program can't even account for what has happened, how much credibility can it have for predicting the future.

Again, how significant is this 'medieval warm period' or 'little ice age' to the big picture of geologic time? As I have said above, the study involves probability math. There is no exact right or wrong here, only a right or wrong within tolerable limits of error.

In my line of work, the exact numeric conclusion is just as important as the variances that accrue from the methodology employed in arriving at that number. In short, to what confidence level may the end-user employ the information I am providing? Is it correct to within 20, 50 or a 100 ppm? What are the possible or most likely outliers in the data set and how is it significant to the result? Are these outliers random errors or do they occur systematically in the data gathering process? etc. etc.

No, but with the various climate gate scandals presently going on, a rather large amount of attention has been focused on the methods of computer modelling used by various climate "authorities) and the findings have been far less than stellar. Information isn't hard to find.

I'd rather talk about this with you than google, if you don't mind.

I don't see how any one is expected to do any science without models. And models are mathematical algorithms, are they not? They are only as accurate as the mathematical assumptions that you put into them, no? And when you are starting from the motion of infinitessimal particles and how they translate to the big picture, it is obviously a problem of probabilities.

Which goes back to my original question -- how are the errors in postdicting significant? Are they merely statistical glitches occuring in a very, very large population over a very, very long time or is there something fundamentally wrong with the model itself?

I started school a very long time ago with a keen interest in bio mechanical robotics (when the field was hardly more than science fiction) but by the time I barely passed calc III by the skin of my teeth despite hours upon hours spent in the math lab, I knew that the math would be my downfall if I were to pursue engineering.

LOL

I'd think you gave up too easily if that is the case. Everyone is going to have to claw their way through higher math. And the most important practical problems aren't neat. They invariably have solutions involving some messy partial differntial.

The good thing about it is that we aren't expected to do all these by hand. We have all sorts of softwares for this.

 

[palerider]

Tell me if I understand what you are saying.

You are treating the atmosphere as a very complex, open thermodynamic system. You are trying to determine the inter-related macroscopic quantities of work, heat, free energy (I suppose since we include the biosphere) and perhaps entropy by examining spectroscopic data in the molecular level. Obviosly, you need probability theory to do this, that is, relating the over all effects of a large population of particles by their individual motions or states.

Is that the jist of climate science?

All I am doing is pointing out that we lack the basic knowledge required to make any rational prediction with regard to the climate. The entire theory of AGW rests today on manmade CO2 emissions and the fact is that CO2 reached its saturation point within the atmosphere a very long time ago.

Again, how significant is this 'medieval warm period' or 'little ice age' to the big picture of geologic time? As I have said above, the study involves probability math. There is no exact right or wrong here, only a right or wrong within tolerable limits of error.

They are just a very small part of the climate history of the earth. The ever changing climate of the earth. However, they become very signifigant when the church of AGW starts claiming that the present warming is "unprecedented" within this geological period. So signifigant that Mann, et. al. actually tried to make it disappear from the climate record. The fact is that the medieval warm period was global in nature and was considerably warmer than present temperatures.

When one looks in historical context, there is nothing unusual at all about the present climate trends.

Which goes back to my original question -- how are the errors in postdicting significant? Are they merely statistical glitches occuring in a very, very large population over a very, very long time or is there something fundamentally wrong with the model itself?

The problem is with the climate models themselves. They are programmed to achieve a predetermined result. Here is a list of the more respected models and their comparison to observed data. As you can see, they don't fare well and today, climate science is based upon these models rather than observed data.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm

The good thing about it is that we aren't expected to do all these by hand. We have all sorts of softwares for this.

When I graduated from college, "software" was as much science fiction as biomechanical robotics. Soon after I graduated, a pocket calculator became available on the market that could add, subtract, multiply and divide and wonder of wonders do square roots for the unbelievable price of $175.00. I used a slide rule in college but we weren't allowed to use them for most tests.

Education was a whole different adventure in the old days.

 

[numinus]

All I am doing is pointing out that we lack the basic knowledge required to make any rational prediction with regard to the climate. The entire theory of AGW rests today on manmade CO2 emissions and the fact is that CO2 reached its saturation point within the atmosphere a very long time ago.

They are just a very small part of the climate history of the earth. The ever changing climate of the earth. However, they become very signifigant when the church of AGW starts claiming that the present warming is "unprecedented" within this geological period. So signifigant that Mann, et. al. actually tried to make it disappear from the climate record. The fact is that the medieval warm period was global in nature and was considerably warmer than present temperatures.

When one looks in historical context, there is nothing unusual at all about the present climate trends.

The problem is with the climate models themselves. They are programmed to achieve a predetermined result. Here is a list of the more respected models and their comparison to observed data. As you can see, they don't fare well and today, climate science is based upon these models rather than observed data.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm

You mean we're not even at fluid dynamics???? And the simulation got 27 postidictions wrong as compared to 1 right and 4 indeterminate contradictions???? Good grief!

Now I see where you're coming from. Al gore is scheduled to do a series of talks in town. And he got some of the biggest sponsors to foot the bill. It even got people talking about it at the local starbucks I go to. What a shameless scam!

When I graduated from college, "software" was as much science fiction as biomechanical robotics. Soon after I graduated, a pocket calculator became available on the market that could add, subtract, multiply and divide and wonder of wonders do square roots for the unbelievable price of $175.00. I used a slide rule in college but we weren't allowed to use them for most tests.

Education was a whole different adventure in the old days.

LOL.

And I thought I had it tough!

 

[palerider]

You mean we're not even at fluid dynamics???? And the simulation got 27 postidictions wrong as compared to 1 right and 4 indeterminate contradictions???? Good grief!

Now I see where you're coming from. Al gore is scheduled to do a series of talks in town. And he got some of the biggest sponsors to foot the bill. It even got people talking about it at the local starbucks I go to. What a shameless scam!

I would just like to see some hard evidence before the whole world jumps on a multi trillion dollar bandwagon in an attempt to revamp the way business is done in the world today. Computer simulations, while they have a place, are slaves to those who do the programming and if an agenda is at work, the simulation can be made to serve an agenda as easily as it can be made to serve a legitimate search for knowledge.

To date, there is not a shred of observed evidence that man is capable of changing the climate, much less actually doing it.

LOL.

And I thought I had it tough!

Your kids will think that they have it tough and you will tell them what tough was really like in the old days when you went to school. I remember my grandad telling me that when he went to school they weren't even allowed to use slide rules.

 

[orogenicman]

The issue isn't whether the climate is changing as the climate has always been changing. The issue is whether or not man has anything to do with it and the science says no while the pseudoscience says yes. Which do you believe?

So what do you think happens to our atmosphere (and our biosphere, Mr. Biochemist) when we pump 6 billion tons of greenhouse gases into it every year (and actually increase the amount each year, and the rate of increase)? Do you think it just mysteriously disappears, or does it build up EXACTLY like the data has shown that it has been doing for the past century or more? You do realize that CO2 levels are now higher than they've been in 15 million years, and that there is no natural process or combination of natural processes that can account for this increase? You do realize that the south ocean has reached a tipping point in acidification, and that, in fact, it is the single most important sink for carbon on the planet, but that it has reach or soon will reach CO2 saturation? Right? What then, Pale Rider?

Now, maybe you're ok with that level of human-induced change. Maybe the rapid expansion of the deserts doesn't bother you because you don't live in or near one. Maybe decades long droughts are something to look forward to, in your view. Maybe it's ok to you if the sea level continues to rise and displace tens of millions of people. In that case, I guess you'll be opening your home to some of the refuges, eh?

There is no climategate. The real crime was that government e-mail servers were illegally hacked into in order to steal confidential e-mails that were then used to scuttle what was then an upcoming global conference on Global warming. The irony is that there was nothing at all to any of the allegations, but the mission was accomplished, nonetheless.

 

[palerider]

So what do you think happens to our atmosphere (and our biosphere, Mr. Biochemist) when we pump 6 billion tons of greenhouse gases into it every year (and actually increase the amount each year, and the rate of increase)?

The first thing you must prove is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. To the best of my knowledge, there is no mechanism by which a gas can absorb and retain infrared energy. All of the chemistry I have ever taken says that gasses absorb energy (absorption spectrum) and nearly instantaneously emit that precise amount of energy as an emission spectrum. If you know of a mechanim by which a gas can absorb and retain energy, by all means describe it and provide a credible link or bibliographical reference.

Do you think it just mysteriously disappears, or does it build up EXACTLY like the data has shown that it has been doing for the past century or more?

It is pretty clear that you have been victimized by pseudoscience. Tell me, how long do you believe the residence time of CO2 is in the atmosphere?

You do realize that CO2 levels are now higher than they've been in 15 million years, and that there is no natural process or combination of natural processes that can account for this increase?

Of course there is. Your own statment proves that you are wrong. The fact that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been higher (much higher) in the past is hard, undeniable proof that there are natural process that can explain the atmospheric CO2 process.

You do realize that the south ocean has reached a tipping point in acidification, and that, in fact, it is the single most important sink for carbon on the planet, but that it has reach or soon will reach CO2 saturation? Right? What then, Pale Rider?

Prove it. The science certainly doesn't support your doom and gloom, chicken little, the sky is falling claims.

Modern-age buildup of CO2 and its effects on seawater acidity and salinity

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006.../2006GL026305.shtml

Now, maybe you're ok with that level of human-induced change.

My bet is that you can't produce a single shred of hard observed evidence that establishes an unequivocal link between man's activities and the changing claimte. Do feel free to step up to the plate and prove me wrong. You would be the first.

Maybe the rapid expansion of the deserts doesn't bother you because you don't live in or near one.

Which deserts are "rapidly" expanding past their historical "borders"?

Maybe decades long droughts are something to look forward to, in your view.

Which locations are experiencing drought in which drought is not part of their history, and which ones are experiencing unprecedented droughts?

Maybe it's ok to you if the sea level continues to rise and displace tens of millions of people.

Sea level has risen 500 feet in the past 14,000 years, tell me, what exactly is surprising about the fact that some rise might continue? As to the catastrophic sea level you envision, perhaps you should read some actual science based on real world observations rather than simply accept the predicitons of notoriously bad climate simulations.


Estimating future sea level changes from past records

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...e048d209419e037b88ee85e8e3e6089b&searchtype=a

Geocentric sea-level trend estimates from GPS analyses at relevant tide gauges world-wide

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...2e4cdb9646699b660c84d82c87cf6233&searchtype=a

New Perspective on Global Warming & Sea Level Rise: Modest Future Rise with Reduced Threat

http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/qu707917x567h4x2/

Sea Level Changes in Bangladesh New Observational Facts

http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/575k5821r2w23t73

Some problems in the reconstruction of mean sea level and its changes with time

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...08fc4081d917d2c3018ad06f6c855956&searchtype=a

There is no climategate. .....

Mental masturbation on an epic scale.