|
Post by dmapel on Jun 20, 2009 17:49:44 GMT
magellan: "Here, a technical but easy to follow explanation of ocean heat content, or are you afraid you might understand it? wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/th....and-ocean-heat/" Me no understand. Not peer reviewed. Not settled science. Not taught in high school physics. Blah, blah, blah ... To sum up, it's just like Creationism.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 20, 2009 18:44:15 GMT
I don't care about garbage-in-gospel-out climate models. We've been lectured for years that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the troposphere in the tropics will warm per the climate models warmologists worship; simple high school physics we're told. You haven't been told that. It's not simple. For numbers and calculations the climate models are exactly what you want. The climate models represent our best calculations using physics related to climate and these calculations show enhanced greenhouse effect warms the ocean. The atmosphere was "warming as advertised" in 2005. The model physics is not "simple and straight forward", unless perhaps you are stephen hawkings then it might be "simple and straight forward". Hansen may or may not explain this, but other people have (eg www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/). Of course you will complain that there are "no numbers" in these explainations, but that isn't suprising - you get one or the other not both. There are numbers based on calculations using physics, which with current understanding of climate are highly involved and can be found in climate models which are one of the few places, perhaps only, where the full complexity of the calculations is actually run. Then there are the simple explainations that climatologists provide for laypeople. They explain a particular behavior in part of the model. See for example the realclimate article above. But what scientists can't do is explain how it works in simple terms with reference to complex calculations. That's a contradiction. You either simplify it for a lay audience or you leave it complex. You can't do both. Better-than-basic physics shows enhanced greenhouse effect causing rising ocean heat content.
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Jun 20, 2009 18:57:59 GMT
Better-than-basic physics shows enhanced greenhouse effect causing rising ocean heat content.
At 10^22 Joules / yr, every year since the beginning of 2003, not maskable.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 20, 2009 19:27:14 GMT
Better-than-basic physics shows enhanced greenhouse effect causing rising ocean heat content.
At 10^22 Joules / yr, every year since the beginning of 2003, not maskable. That is an average rate of rise. It doesn't mean there is no noise expected in the OHC record.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 20, 2009 21:56:40 GMT
But what scientists can't do is explain how it works in simple terms with reference to complex calculations. That's a contradiction. You either simplify it for a lay audience or you leave it complex. You can't do both. Thats the kind of statement you can expect when: 1) A theory is about to be falsified. 2) No experimental evidence exists to demonstrate the complex theory. 3) When a sycophant who doesn't understand how the computations work. 4) When explaining how really the sun revolves around the earth.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 20, 2009 22:40:07 GMT
But what scientists can't do is explain how it works in simple terms with reference to complex calculations. That's a contradiction. You either simplify it for a lay audience or you leave it complex. You can't do both. Thats the kind of statement you can expect when: 1) A theory is about to be falsified. 2) No experimental evidence exists to demonstrate the complex theory. 3) When a sycophant who doesn't understand how the computations work. 4) When explaining how really the sun revolves around the earth. Or 5) People are asking for calculations they wouldn't even understand. Why are they doing this? a) They overestimate their own abilities b) They underestimate the complexity of physics in climate models (thinking it's "high school level" for example) c) They just want to have a thrilling argument wherin they keep demanding calculations they don't plan to do anything with anyway.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 21, 2009 2:52:02 GMT
d) They just want to embarrass some fanatical warmista clown, who copy pastes formula and calculations ad nauseum, until he is stumped and can't find anything in the realclimate Anti-Denier Formulas and Calculations for Dummies file.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 21, 2009 4:11:54 GMT
Thats the kind of statement you can expect when: 1) A theory is about to be falsified. 2) No experimental evidence exists to demonstrate the complex theory. 3) When a sycophant who doesn't understand how the computations work. 4) When explaining how really the sun revolves around the earth. Or 5) People are asking for calculations they wouldn't even understand. Why are they doing this? a) They overestimate their own abilities b) They underestimate the complexity of physics in climate models (thinking it's "high school level" for example) c) They just want to have a thrilling argument wherin they keep demanding calculations they don't plan to do anything with anyway. 6. they still think that what people want is an explanation of how it was calculated when in fact what they want is experimental evidence that the calculations aren't simply James Kirk calculating a course to the next star sector in Inconvenient Truth IX
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jun 21, 2009 10:12:25 GMT
For numbers and calculations the climate models are exactly what you want. The climate models represent our best calculations using physics related to climate and these calculations show enhanced greenhouse effect warms the ocean. And there have been numerous examples in the past when "our best calculations" have proven to be completely inadequate and just plain wrong. The thing you don't seem to be able to get is that the models are in fact so complex that they are beyond the comprehension of any human. We can't even understand the subsystems within the model. We have to break everything down into disembodied guestimates and approximations. This parametrization within models can lead to modeled behavior that violates natural laws.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 21, 2009 11:09:55 GMT
When our best calculations show significant warming in the future from our emissions, sure some people may wish to ignore that and wishfully hope the calculations will turn out to be wrong.
But many people will not take the risk. In fact even if the calculations assigned a low chance of significant warming there would still be many people who wouldn't risk letting it happen.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 21, 2009 14:38:10 GMT
We can't take the risk. Someone has to awaken the public and the feckless politicians. Someone has to spend all his time on a little obscure blog flogging evil deniers. Where do we find a realclimate indoctrinated warmista with the time, the fervent obsessive belief in the catastrophic AGW theology, and the Scientologist credentials to carry the fight to the infidels?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 21, 2009 15:49:06 GMT
I said many people. I didn't specifically include me.
|
|
nasif
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by nasif on Jun 23, 2009 3:09:09 GMT
Don't be silly. Oh well to humor you. Heres one:
biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Emissivity.htmlOk - when I asked for a physicist (or scientist) I meant someone who hadn't cobbled together his own hypothesis without even a glance at the observations. This guy posts regularly on CA and while he's not an idiot he can be a bit "off the wall". His emissivity numbers when applied to the whole atmosphere are clearly wrong. Hi, I am the author of the paper. Sorry to tell you, but the emissivities, absorptivities and total emittancies for carbon dioxide in my article are correct. They were not deduced from models, but from observation-experimentation made by scientists, like Hottel, Potter, Pitts, Manrique, etc. Those are not "my" numbers, but real magnitudes taken from direct measurements. On the other hand, if we introduce the sensitivity given by Arrhenius (falsified by Schwartz et al in 2008), doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere won't warm up the Earth by more than 1 K: ÄT = 5.35 (W/m^2) [LN2] / 4 (ó) (T)^3 = 0.98 K Yes, I post at Climate Audit, and what's the problem? It's a scientific blog made for scientists, like this one and many others like WattsupWithThat.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 23, 2009 3:46:21 GMT
Sensativity?.....
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 23, 2009 18:34:57 GMT
Don't be silly. Oh well to humor you. Heres one:
biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Emissivity.htmlOk - when I asked for a physicist (or scientist) I meant someone who hadn't cobbled together his own hypothesis without even a glance at the observations. This guy posts regularly on CA and while he's not an idiot he can be a bit "off the wall". His emissivity numbers when applied to the whole atmosphere are clearly wrong. Hi, I am the author of the paper. Sorry to tell you, but the emissivities, absorptivities and total emittancies for carbon dioxide in my article are correct. That may be, it's more likely the underlying reasoning that is incorrect. One big clue I think is those bars for N2 and O2. N2 and O2 provide far less warming of the earth's atmosphere than co2, so something is wrong here. lmao seriously? A famous paper from over 100 years ago just happened to be falsified by a particular paper in 2008? What are the odds. Blog science is not science
|
|