Hell freezes over: Koch's scientists confirm that climate change is REAL!

[PLC1]

Phil Jones (East Anglia) and Michael Mann (Penn State/UVa not the film director). thought they were pretty well known science guys.

as alluded to in my post, their stance of refusing to disclose data needed to peer review their work is odd. when it went from "no" to "I cant find it" odder still.

yes, that is odd. Their work won't be taken seriously if they don't publish data for peer review.

 

[palerider]

yes, that is odd. Their work won't be taken seriously if they don't publish data for peer review.

The work has passed pal review and has been published for some time. It is the research that led to the infamous hockey stick.

You do realize, don't you, that the very data that mann is attempting to withold that led to the popular belief that the medieval warm period was a phenomenon limited to certain areas in the northern hemisphere in spite of literally dozens of peer reviewed papers from scientists all over the world confirming that the roman warm period and the medieval warm period were both global and warmer than the present?

 

[PLC1]

The work has passed pal review and has been published for some time. It is the research that led to the infamous hockey stick.

It passed peer review despite the data being withheld? That's even more surprising.

You do realize, don't you, that the very data that mann is attempting to withold that led to the popular belief that the medieval warm period was a phenomenon limited to certain areas in the northern hemisphere in spite of literally dozens of peer reviewed papers from scientists all over the world confirming that the roman warm period and the medieval warm period were both global and warmer than the present?

That one is a new one for me.

 

[palerider]

It passed peer review despite the data being withheld? That's even more surprising.

It passed pal review. When a FIOA request was made after "irregularities" were found in the peer reviewed paper, that is when the battle to keep the data upon which the peer reviewed paper was based began, and continues to this day.

 

[dogtowner]

yes, that is odd. Their work won't be taken seriously if they don't publish data for peer review.

well they are behind the so-called hockey stick graph that many claim to have been peer reviewed. then it was pointed out that the circle of peer reviewers was rather small and circular. moreover a large number of other science guys signed on sans review mainly due to 'well if HE said ts ok then thats good enough for me'. that or "peer reviewed" isn't necessarily a gold standard as elements necessary for a textbook definition peer review are not always present. (Seen mentions of this in some of the info I've read relative to this thread and unrelated to hockey stick.)

its a little like the IPCC making dire predictions of ice melts in the Himalayan based on the casuall observation of one guy. they got smacked over that pretty quickly but as Pale is pointing out, other items are being questioned and getting a second look. you also pointed out that the the parameters of the man-made aspect are up in the air.

 

[dogtowner]

It passed peer review despite the data being withheld? That's even more surprising.



That one is a new one for me.

dude... tell me you're pulling legs here... please !

 

[dogtowner]

It passed pal review. When a FIOA request was made after "irregularities" were found in the peer reviewed paper, that is when the battle to keep the data upon which the peer reviewed paper was based began, and continues to this day.

thats why the AG here in VA opened a second FOIA as the Commonwealth has a direct right to it being as UVA is a state school. and thats been fought hammer and tongs as well.

 

[PLC1]

well they are behind the so-called hockey stick graph that many claim to have been peer reviewed. then it was pointed out that the circle of peer reviewers was rather small and circular. moreover a large number of other science guys signed on sans review mainly due to 'well if HE said ts ok then thats good enough for me'. that or "peer reviewed" isn't necessarily a gold standard as elements necessary for a textbook definition peer review are not always present. (Seen mentions of this in some of the info I've read relative to this thread and unrelated to hockey stick.)

its a little like the IPCC making dire predictions of ice melts in the Himalayan based on the casuall observation of one guy. they got smacked over that pretty quickly but as Pale is pointing out, other items are being questioned and getting a second look. you also pointed out that the the parameters of the man-made aspect are up in the air.

Correct. There are a lot of findings that need to be held up to scrutiny, but many more that have stood up to review.

Still, the idea that the whole thing is a hoax based on pseudoscience is about as credible as the other side saying that the world will come to an end if we don't all drive hybrids.

The evidence still shows that the Earth is warming up, and that man made greenhouse gasses are at least a part of the reason.

 

[Gipper]

The evidence still shows that the Earth is warming up, and that man made greenhouse gasses are at least a part of the reason.

You just can make this sh*t up...but the warmers do.

Unbelievable.

 

[palerider]

Still, the idea that the whole thing is a hoax based on pseudoscience is about as credible as the other side saying that the world will come to an end if we don't all drive hybrids.

Tell me PLC, do you believe that a model that makes a flat plane of the earth with no night can really produce a result that is anything like reality? You accused me repeatedly of promolgating a conspiracy theory for no more than telling you the honest truth about the reality of the energy budget upon which the whole AGW scare is based. It is upon that budget, and its 333 watts per square meter of back radiation that the whole manmade climate change hoax is based. Without backradiation, there is no AGW alarmism.

Knowing that it depicts a flat earth with no night, are you still confident that the energy budget represents reality?

 

[palerider]

The evidence still shows that the Earth is warming up, and that man made greenhouse gasses are at least a part of the reason.

Back to one of my first questions. Can you show a single piece of hard, observable, repeatable evidence that proves that so called greenhouse gasses are part of the problem? I have looked, and unlike you, I examine issues from every side because I am interested in the truth, and I can find nothing that even comes close to hard evidence. The greenhouse hypothesis is simply accepted based on nothing that could possibly be construed as hard, observable, repeatable evidence. Not one single laboratory experiment proves that so called greenhouse gasses can cause a temperature increase in the open atmosphere.

 

[dogtowner]

Back to one of my first questions. Can you show a single piece of hard, observable, repeatable evidence that proves that so called greenhouse gasses are part of the problem? I have looked, and unlike you, I examine issues from every side because I am interested in the truth, and I can find nothing that even comes close to hard evidence. The greenhouse hypothesis is simply accepted based on nothing that could possibly be construed as hard, observable, repeatable evidence. Not one single laboratory experiment proves that so called greenhouse gasses can cause a temperature increase in the open atmosphere.

thats why the recent CERN work that did demonstrate (repeatably) that solar emanations could have this effect and jibes with actual observed and recorded solar activity of this nature over the time where warming is thought to have occurred (and not occurred).

 

[PLC1]

Tell me PLC, do you believe that a model that makes a flat plane of the earth with no night can really produce a result that is anything like reality? You accused me repeatedly of promolgating a conspiracy theory for no more than telling you the honest truth about the reality of the energy budget upon which the whole AGW scare is based. It is upon that budget, and its 333 watts per square meter of back radiation that the whole manmade climate change hoax is based. Without backradiation, there is no AGW alarmism.

Knowing that it depicts a flat earth with no night, are you still confident that the energy budget represents reality?

Knowing that you said that it depicts a flat Earth, despite the explanation of how the energy budget was arrived at, confirms my original conclusion. Now, as for back radiation, is it your contention that it is impossible for the upper atmosphere to reflect radiation back to the Earth?

Just a question, requiring a yes or no answer, no condescension or lengthy explanation of unrelated issues necessary, and yes, I do understand the laws of thermodynamics on which you've based this assumption.

I just don't think they apply the way you think that they do, but then, there is no point in going into that until you give your clear and unequivocal answer.

 

[GenSeneca]

Knowing that you said that it depicts a flat Earth, despite the explanation of how the energy budget was arrived at, confirms my original conclusion.

Attacking Pale as a Conspiracy Theorist amounts to nothing more than an ad hominem fallacy.

I do understand the laws of thermodynamics on which you've based this assumption. I just don't think they apply the way you think that they do....

This should be good...

 

[palerider]

Knowing that you said that it depicts a flat Earth, despite the explanation of how the energy budget was arrived at, confirms my original conclusion. Now, as for back radiation, is it your contention that it is impossible for the upper atmosphere to reflect radiation back to the Earth?

Till you can acknowledge that it depicts a flat earth, there is no point in continuing. The men who made the budget both acknowledged that /4 was a mathematical way to have the incoming solar flux reach the entire surface of the earth simultaneously. The only way to illuminate the entire surface of a sphere is to either have two sources of illumination or you skin it and lay its surface out flat. I don't know why you refuse to acknowledge that fact when the men responsible for the budget confirmed my statment.

Just a question, requiring a yes or no answer, no condescension or lengthy explanation of unrelated issues necessary, and yes, I do understand the laws of thermodynamics on which you've based this assumption.

The second law of thermodynamics states:

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

It expicitly states that energy will not flow from a cooler object (atmosphere) to a warmer object (surface of the earth) unless some work is done to accomplish the movement. Absorption and emission do not constitute work.

Here is the equation from the k-t energy budget that I provided.

Look to the right side of the equals sign. It is a corrupted derivative of the Stefan - Boltzman law which they used in an attempt to balance the incoming energy with the outgoing energy. As a side note, the reason that they used P/4 and laid the entire surface of the earth flat so that the entire surface of the earth could be irradiated simultaneously by the solar flux is that they used the Stefan -Boltzman (S-B) to balance the outgoing radiation with the incoming solar flux. The S-B law only deals with instantaneous solar fluxes so it became necessary to irradiate the entire surface of the earth at once in order to apply the S-B law.

This is the S-B law in its simplest form:

If the warmer object is radiating energy to a cooler background, the S-B law takes the form:

Now look back at the right side of the equation from the k-t energy budget. You can disregard the (1-f) because that is dealing with lost energy that isn't really part of the budget. Note that they apply the S-B law twice. The correct form of the equation that immediately preceeds this paragraph represents the S-B law which depicts energy flows in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. That is, it represents energy flowing from a warm radiator to a cooler background.

P = the net radiated power.
e = the emissivity of the radiator (surface of the earth)
A= the radiating area
T = the temperature of the radiator

= the temperature of the background

= the Stefan - Boltzman constant (

)

The equation is describing the net radiated power as the difference between the temperature of the radiator (T) and the background (

).

Now note the equation from the k - t energy budget. The S-B law is used twice and in effect shows energy radiating from the warmer radiator to the cooler background and then changes the cooler background to a radiator and has it radiating to the warmer radiator which it has changed to the cooler background.

What they have done is taken the S-B law

and changed it to

. If you have ever taken algebra, you may recognize that they simply applied the distributive law to the equation. If you have ever taken phisics at the 2000 level or higher, you may know that you can't simply go about applying algaebraic properties to equations dealing with physics problems unless you first explicitly define the reason for applying the property.

In a math class, you simply need an answer so you may apply algaebraic properties as you like because there is no risk. In physics, however, you are not only seeking an answer, you are defining a physical process. For example, you can apply the distributive property to the SB equation and you will get the same answer for P as you would if you did not apply the property; BUT, you have altered a physical process and in doing so have violated the second law of thermodynamics and corrupted the S-B law in order to achieve that violation. No such definition for the reason the distributve property was ever, nor has ever been given. The reason is obvious to anyone who understands the objective of the energy budget. They needed backradiation and corrupting the S-B law would allow them to do it. The problem is that they violated the second law of thermodynamics.

Now, if you can show an equation that allows backradiation without corrupting the S-B law, I would be very interested in seeing it.

I just don't think they apply the way you think that they do, but then, there is no point in going into that until you give your clear and unequivocal answer.

Perhaps you hope they don't apply the way they actually do, or you wish that they don't apply the way you wish they did, but there is no wiggle room in the second law for backradiation. It says that it is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a cooler body to a warmer body and that heat WILL NOT flow spontaneously from a cooler object to a warmer object. In order to have backradiation, you must alter the statement of the second law of thermodynamics.

Is that unequivocal enough for you?