Lagboltz
Well-Known Member
OK, but nit picking metaphors is going a bit overboard.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Astronaut Claims Climate Alarmism is Complete .. Bu .. Bunk
- Thread starter GBFan
- Start date
Werbung:
Posdibly. But thats him and everyone gets the same treatment me included.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
I wasn't then, but I certainly can be. Another that's often misunderstood, is my use self deprecating humor... such as, calling myself an asshole that spews crap arguments. I'm making fun of myself, because I think it's hilarious, and I also think a lot of posters take themselves way too seriously.
Most people are too entertained with attacking their opposition. That becomes all they know, or care to learn. They don't usually bother looking through their own views for contradictions. They certainly don't see any entertainment value in doing so, they just see a threat to their beliefs, so they treat me as they would any other opponent, and go on the offensive.
I genuinely like to try and reason out the views of others, in the way I reasoned mine out for myself... in the absence of contradictions. That's a lot more difficult than you might imagine... So the questions I ask you, or anyone else, are the same ones I would ask myself... And my answers would have to satisfy the harshest critic, even my own dictionary... I don't ask anything of others I don't expect from myself... Which is why I'm cool with humor, sarcasm, and wit, but I do not use those things to avoid dealing with any contradictions I have identified as existing.
Or... you could recognize that Pale is his own individual, you are yours, and I am mine.
That depends... What modifications do you feel would be necessary for this graphic to more accurately represent reality? As an absurd example: Reversing the direction of the arrows might be considered a "slight" modification, but it would drastically change the original concept being conveyed.
I have to ask, because I do expect serious statements I make to be taken literally, but... Did you really mean to say "all climate scientists believe" the information presented in the graphic to be true? (inverse of that question) Are there really 'no' climate scientists who do, can, or have disputed the claims being made in that graphic? Because I thought there were...
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
That's me, Mr. Equality.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
I just mentioned that I expect my serious statements to be taken literally... In the case of metaphors, or analogies, I carefully choose the concepts, interactions, and verbiage contained in them. The purpose of a metaphor should be to simplify complex concepts into easily understood primary concepts, while maintaining the continuity of an unambiguously stated interaction. The deserted island I mention in another thread is one such example.
On the micro level; 2 individuals vote to enslave the 3rd individual on that island.
On the macro level; 200 million individuals vote to enslave the other 100 million individuals on that continent.
Non-Contradictory perfection, applicable to government at any scale.
Last edited:
Lagboltz
Well-Known Member
Palerider was playing a win-at-all-costs game where he was willing to compromise his dignity by disavowing solid laws of physics as idiotic bullshit, and making up his own version of physical laws to suit his argument. His game was fun because he was so full of self contradictions. Your original comment implied to me that you were going to play palerider's game too, and so I decided to continue from where he left off.
GenSeneca said:
The graphic would remain the same, but the energy radiation numbers from different scientists over the past, present and future might vary by maybe 5% or so. Computer power improves by a factor of 10 every 5 years, so many computations can be made more accurately, e.g. the earth can be divided into a finer grid of earth "pixels".
Temperature measurement stations that dotted the globe from the late 1800s have increased, been moved around, or were compromised by urban growth. This non-uniformity of temperature station history has to be compensated by a sophisticated interpolation scheme. As the schemes improve and urban interference is more accurately modeled, the chart of yearly global warming history will change.
Whenever that change happens there is a huge outcry from "deniers" that scientists have fudged the data.
GenSeneca said:
All reputable climate scientist should believe the graphic within the roughly 5% variation I mentioned. The reason is that the sun input energy can be easily measured, and the output of IR from the earth is easily calculated to exceed the sun energy by around a factor of 2.5. So there must be a large backscatter feedback or the earth would freeze solid. The graphic must include those large factors.
Of course there are whackos in practically every field of science. Climate science is no exception. I have read three of their papers that palerider pointed out. Their science was totally full of holes. I went into detail in another thread and can reference it if you want.
The controversy among legitimate scientists lies mostly in the back radiation on the far right of the graph. Given the large backscatter of H2O, the controversy is just how much effect the more trace molecules can have on top of the H2O backscatter. There is also always a controversy on the altitude profile of thermal energy from ground to the upper atmosphere.
If you accept the above analysis and are interested, I can go into what I think are both sides of the controversy of greenhouse backscatter.[/QUOTE]
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
I asked for proof of your statement regarding the ability to rise above the politics in discussing the topic... We seem to have made progress.
It seems logical that as we get closer to the peak of our current warming period, those numbers will necessarily have to change...
Those pixels would be approximations of reality, and I would consider conclusions based on such data to be viewed accordingly. Perhaps you recognize this too, and that is why you have not yet formed a belief about particular outcomes.
If I understand correctly, interpolation is used to offer approximations to fill in the gaps from available historical data.
Are you exaggerating, or do you mean that literally?
Lagboltz
Well-Known Member
It's more than that. My uncertainty is also largely based on the details of the overlap of absorption spectra of H2O and the various GH gases and the nonlinear manner in the way the gas densities affect the temperatures in the lower troposphere. I can't find any technical detail on the web because that level of the theory is in journals, which generally have web subscription rates of around $50. Politicians and people have to choose what media or organization they are going to believe.
That's right.GenSeneca said:
No exaggeration. If backscatter suddenly disappeared, the surface radiation from earth would be the full 396 W/mm while receiving only 161 W/mm from the sun. The earth would rapidly cool until a new equilibrium is reached. That is, the earth surface radiation would also have to be 161 W/mm to match the sun. That level of radiation corresponds to an average earth surface temperature of a frigid -40 degrees F; solid ice in the oceans. Of course it ain't going to happen.GenSeneca said:
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
To this point, I see a great deal of averages and approximations in data being used at multiple levels. Such information would serve as faulty premises when extrapolated to project future climate. To some extent, you agree the that it's reasonable for me to question the validity of any projected outcome. But I'm not sure you'd agree with me in saying the methodology being used is deeply flawed; there are simply too many variables still missing or unknown, and the practice of extrapolating approximated data is not sound.
About the GHG's... I hadn't looked at the numbers before, but when I did I notice the percentages are different with regard to incoming (28%) and outgoing (10%) on the graph, and that stood out. Is that an error, or can you explain how that's possible?
Lagboltz
Well-Known Member
Projected outcome is the hardest thing for anyone to believe. Including me. To me the question is: is there an energy imbalance right now? If so, how much? What are the error limits?
GenSeneca said:
Interpolation approximation of temperatures has very little ramification because radiation power is a function of temperature from absolute zero, which is -272 C. That means the earth is about 287 degrees K. (Kelvin measured from absolute zero) If there is a +/- 1 degree error, that is only a 0.3% error in Kelvins. The plus and minus errors will largely balance out on the average. So earth surface radiation can be fairly accurately measured.
I can see where the casual observer would think that the approximations would lead to a flaw, but there is a lot more to it than what appears. There are common techniques to handle that sort of physical scenario.
The problem is this: How to test the effect of a small perturbation (GH gas) on an approximate model. Suppose the numbers lead to a model that has 5% inaccuracy in modeling the earth. That would be worthless in evaluating a small effect. The way to a more accurate evaluation is to use perturbation theory.
(1) Develop a well thought out model that fits the approximate data.
(2) Assume for the moment the model is an exact representation of reality.
(3) Use perturbation theory to find the effect of a small forcing on that "exact" model.
The effect of the perturbation (adding x% GH gas) gives information on how the complex "exact" system will react to the perturbation.
(4) Don't trust that result.
(5) Do steps 1 through 4 again by assuming a new "exact" model by using new numbers that are also within the measurement errors of the data.
Iterate the procedure to span the error space.
Do a statistical analysis of all the all the tentative results from step 4 to find averages, standard deviation of errors, confidence levels, etc.
The published result would give a range including the minimum and maximum effects from the various error assumptions. That is how reported results projecting the future come up with a range from "it's not so bad" to "were all gonna die". The media will often report only the average projection. "Warmers" may focus on the maximum projection and "deniers" may focus on the minimum projection.
GenSeneca said:
You better believe that if there were an error in such a widely published diagram, every scientist would love to be the first one to point it out. The graphic (on page 4 Post 59) has no values in percentages. You will have to give me the energy numbers in order for me to understand what you are referring to. The diagram has no imbalance of energy.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Why must such an assumption be made? ...Because only a model that actually was an exact representation of reality could provide accurate results.
Neither of us have confidence in their accuracy, so what is their scientific value? I say zero. The assumption made about the model being an exact representation of reality is never dropped... But I have a feeling I'd be considered a "denier" for pointing out that truth to others.
Perhaps you believe they do have some scientific value, but as you clearly note, they're primarily used as political chum for the public.
I know it doesn't have percentages, but that's what stood out when I looked at the numbers... I'm weird like that. The way you and the diagram have explained it, GHG's acts as insulation for the earth, trapping 71% (350 of 492) of the earths outgoing energy. However, that very same insulating effect only traps 28% (67 of 235) of the incoming energy from the sun. That stood out. It seemed to me that molecules of gas are incapable of discriminating against energy based on its source. However, I am confident you have an explanation as to why the exact same gases trap incoming and outgoing energy at different rates.
The overall diagram may not, but the GH effect itself does show a discrepancy that is not explained.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Why is that an important question?
Assuming there is an imbalance, and we're both confident the amount claimed is within an acceptable margin of error...
What does it matter?
Lagboltz
Well-Known Member
It forms an analytic basis so step 3 can be computed. The inexactness is handled in step 5.
GenSeneca said:
There is always scientific value in analyzing important but difficult problems to see what the upper and lower bounds are, and ultimately to see if the solution does have scientific value.
GenSeneca said:
The spectra of the two sources are quite different. The incoming radiation from the sun is largely short wave radiation because the sun surface is thousands of degrees K. Gases do not readily absorb those wavelengths.
The earth surface is only about 300 degrees K. The wavelengths of emitted radiation from the earth are too long to be seen, but greenhouse gases are very efficient at absorbing those wavelengths.
GenSeneca said:
Computing an imbalance right now would tell us how much excess energy GHG are trapping. That is a lot more reliable than projecting temperature to the year 2050. It is more of a curiosity to me than a headline in a paper.
Werbung:
Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
Weather Channel Founder Debunks Global Warming Hoax
"Not ignorance, but ignorance of ignorance is the death of knowledge"
-Alfred North Whitehead
"Not ignorance, but ignorance of ignorance is the death of knowledge"
-Alfred North Whitehead
