|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 24, 2014 22:38:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 25, 2014 0:06:03 GMT
LOL! The Guardian Dana Nucitelli article on one of CATS researcher's papers on the 95% consensus is right at the top of their press release brag list. I think first of all people need to get out of their minds that modeling is science and that modeling modified by biases as recommended by this article is to. Here after decades of leaning on models now they want to modify them with biases to push policy. No doubt their last remaining avenue since the modeling nor the biases are supported by empirical observations. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 25, 2014 0:52:39 GMT
Icefisher:
The empirical observations must be wrong. Right?
|
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Jun 25, 2014 6:56:01 GMT
I could make a crude and politically incorrect comment, but that would dignify the abstract.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 25, 2014 7:05:50 GMT
Icefisher: The empirical observations must be wrong. Right? The abstract is saying that natural variability is robust enough to explain why the models have not tracked reality and that "intuition" arising from an understanding of the underlying physics should be utilized to lead the way through the morass. The problem here is as stated in my profile status line is that while we understand that CO2 traps heat. . . .that is not a unique property of matter in general, and therefore these guys will not have a clue about the underlying physics until they understand the natural variability well enough to rule that out as the source of the warming over the past century. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 25, 2014 12:05:08 GMT
You got it Icefifisher
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 27, 2014 14:12:32 GMT
Icefisher: The empirical observations must be wrong. Right? The abstract is saying that natural variability is robust enough to explain why the models have not tracked reality and that "intuition" arising from an understanding of the underlying physics should be utilized to lead the way through the morass. The problem here is as stated in my profile status line is that while we understand that CO2 traps heat. . . .that is not a unique property of matter in general, and therefore these guys will not have a clue about the underlying physics until they understand the natural variability well enough to rule that out as the source of the warming over the past century. CO2 is a 'radiative gas' - it radiates heat. An atmosphere of the non-radiative gases N2 and O2 does not radiate heat until much hotter, when CO2 is added the atmosphere can radiate heat at low temperatures. If there were no radiative gases in the atmosphere then the atmosphere would be hotter not colder. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 27, 2014 16:00:00 GMT
The abstract is saying that natural variability is robust enough to explain why the models have not tracked reality and that "intuition" arising from an understanding of the underlying physics should be utilized to lead the way through the morass. The problem here is as stated in my profile status line is that while we understand that CO2 traps heat. . . .that is not a unique property of matter in general, and therefore these guys will not have a clue about the underlying physics until they understand the natural variability well enough to rule that out as the source of the warming over the past century. CO2 is a 'radiative gas' - it radiates heat. An atmosphere of the non-radiative gases N2 and O2 does not radiate heat until much hotter, when CO2 is added the atmosphere can radiate heat at low temperatures. If there were no radiative gases in the atmosphere then the atmosphere would be hotter not colder. I think there is no question the atmosphere, on average, would be warmer with no radiative gases. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 27, 2014 16:01:19 GMT
warmer on the sun side, colder on the night side.
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 28, 2014 12:00:42 GMT
warmer on the sun side, colder on the night side. I think the atmosphere would steadily warm until despite its low emissivity it started to radiate some energy. The addition of water vapor adds a heat pump that picks up latent heat at the surface then releases it higher in the atmosphere as infrared when the water condenses then freezes so the hyrdologic cycle is a major cooling sub-system. The addition of CO2 is mixed it can absorb then almost immediately re-emit infrared and if there is a collision with another molecule the vibrational energy may be transferred to that other molecule rather than being re-emitted. I have not read of anyone running an experiment in a closed chamber with a standard atmosphere at say 30C with no CO2 then add CO2 to 400ppm to see if the gas mixture starts radiating infrared. Arrhenius used a cylinder of CO2 not a air with 200ppm CO2 so his experiments do not replicate the atmosphere. |
|
