|
Post by trbixler on Sept 5, 2009 3:26:04 GMT
It does make a difference if the proxy is used upside down. Probably peer reviewed as well. But hey it matches what was expected from these people, too bad it doesn't match reality.
|
|
|
Post by byz on Sept 5, 2009 5:15:21 GMT
Yes - but going from 315 ppm to 385 ppm should result in a bigger increase in temperature than 285 ppm to 315 ppm. In fact it should be about twice as much warming as it happens ln(385/315) = ~2 x ln(315/285) Mmm... Now let us see what this would mean... 1) The data is wrong. 2) The equation is wrong. 3) Or heaven forbid CO2 is not the primary cause of the climate warming and the equation is irrelevant! ;D
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 5, 2009 10:23:25 GMT
Yesterday at 3:50pm, glc wrote:Yes - but going from 315 ppm to 385 ppm should result in a bigger increase in temperature than 285 ppm to 315 ppm. In fact it should be about twice as much warming as it happens
ln(385/315) = ~2 x ln(315/285) Mmm...
Now let us see what this would mean...
1) The data is wrong. 2) The equation is wrong. 3) Or heaven forbid CO2 is not the primary cause of the climate warming and the equation is irrelevantI'm not exactly sure what your point is, but mine is that the ice core study does not necessarily support the view that CO2 caused (all of) the post-1900 warming. So I think I'm agreeing with you.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 5, 2009 11:03:51 GMT
I take it you mean the alpha (5.35) constant in the Myhre et al formula. Basically (very) it's derived by calculating CO2 forcings using radiative transfer equations and using regression to fit the log function. At least I think that's what was done but I haven't read the paper so there is an element of gueswork here, but the most likely procedure would be as I've described. At best this sounds like theory. At worst it is just bull and fantasy. Where are the experiments to support these guesses? And why do you tell us: 1. there is no proof of the little ice ageBut then say: 2. Let's accept the findings at face value and consider what they might mean.When the study shows the little ice age and the web page says: www.arcus.org/synthesis2k/the Little Ice Age, when most of the Arctic experienced the coldest temperatures of the last 8000 years.You have gone out of your way to disrupt conversations that mention the little ice age by claiming there is no evidence or there is no proof, or how do we know personally there was a little ice age. Obviously global warming fears are harder to promote if only 150 years ago it was the coldest period in 8000 years.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 5, 2009 11:31:56 GMT
At best this sounds like theory. At worst it is just bull and fantasy. Where are the experiments to support these guesses? Sheesh. I'm not going through all this lot again. Do you have a scientific background or not? Briefly the situation is as follows. We have observations, i.e. lab experiments and emission spectra. We also have radiative transfer equations which are based on the physics of Beer-Lambert and Planck. The observations support the radiative transfer equations. However, to obtain an accurate result from the radiative transfer equations, it is necessary to perform millions of separate calculations, i.e. all wavelengths at all grid points at all altitudes throughout the atmosphere. But, by using observations and equations a CO2/forcing plot can be produced. This plot follows the curve of a log function. At this point I indulge in some speculation. Myhre et al have used calcuated data and fitted a log function to it. The log function is a s follows: F = 5.35 x ln (C 1/C 0) where C 0=initial CO 2 concentration and C 1=final CO 2 concentration. For exampe, if CO 2 doubles then C 1/C 0=2 And why do you tell us:
1. there is no proof of the little ice ageI said you had no proof of the LIA. You do not accept modern day thermometer observations. You've already told us that. However you do accept proxy (paeleoclimatological) data. How does this work? Please explain how you are happy to accept that paleo data can estimate temperatures 400-500 years ago. But on the LIA in general. All we really know is that some places were colder at some times during a multi-century period. But, for example, there is evidence that Europe was quite warm during the 18th century. 2. Let's accept the findings at face value and consider what they might mean.
When the study shows the little ice age and the web page says:
www.arcus.org/synthesis2k/
the Little Ice Age, when most of the Arctic experienced the coldest temperatures of the last 8000 years.The Arctic is one region. However you still haven't told me why this study is valid, but the studies which validate the Armagh record aren't. You have gone out of your way to disrupt conversations that mention the little ice age by claiming there is no evidence or there is no proof, or how do we know personally there was a little ice age. Tell you what. You show me studies that prove that 75% or more of the earth's regions were colder than normal over the same period of time, then I'll concede that the LIA existed. However I'd be interested to know how you know it was colder then. Remember you don't accept thermometer observations. You believe the errors in the measurements dwarf the temperature changes.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 5, 2009 14:41:15 GMT
At best this sounds like theory. At worst it is just bull and fantasy. Where are the experiments to support these guesses? Sheesh. I'm not going through all this lot again. Do you have a scientific background or not? Briefly the situation is as follows. We have observations, i.e. lab experiments and emission spectra. We also have radiative transfer equations which are based on the physics of Beer-Lambert and Planck. The observations support the radiative transfer equations. However, to obtain an accurate result from the radiative transfer equations, it is necessary to perform millions of separate calculations, i.e. all wavelengths at all grid points at all altitudes throughout the atmosphere. But, by using observations and equations a CO2/forcing plot can be produced. This plot follows the curve of a log function. At this point I indulge in some speculation. Myhre et al have used calcuated data and fitted a log function to it. The log function is a s follows: F = 5.35 x ln (C 1/C 0) where C 0=initial CO 2 concentration and C 1=final CO 2 concentration. For exampe, if CO 2 doubles then C 1/C 0=2 And why do you tell us:
1. there is no proof of the little ice ageI said you had no proof of the LIA. You do not accept modern day thermometer observations. You've already told us that. However you do accept proxy (paeleoclimatological) data. How does this work? Please explain how you are happy to accept that paleo data can estimate temperatures 400-500 years ago. But on the LIA in general. All we really know is that some places were colder at some times during a multi-century period. But, for example, there is evidence that Europe was quite warm during the 18th century. 2. Let's accept the findings at face value and consider what they might mean.
When the study shows the little ice age and the web page says:
www.arcus.org/synthesis2k/
the Little Ice Age, when most of the Arctic experienced the coldest temperatures of the last 8000 years.The Arctic is one region. However you still haven't told me why this study is valid, but the studies which validate the Armagh record aren't. You have gone out of your way to disrupt conversations that mention the little ice age by claiming there is no evidence or there is no proof, or how do we know personally there was a little ice age. Tell you what. You show me studies that prove that 75% or more of the earth's regions were colder than normal over the same period of time, then I'll concede that the LIA existed. However I'd be interested to know how you know it was colder then. Remember you don't accept thermometer observations. You believe the errors in the measurements dwarf the temperature changes. Why are you refusing to answer a simple question? 1. I am asking for experimental information about C02 greenhouse warming using test atmospheres. Where is it? Does it exist or not? I am not interesting in theory. 2. Your chosen station to 'end the bullshit about urban heat island influences' where you said it was unchanged for 200 years is surrounded by steel and is newly located. What aspect of surrounded by steel and newly located do you not understand? You are telling me that in the last 100 years the earth has warmed 0.6 degrees and Armagh is your chosen station to end the bullshit. Where are these studies that show the original position of the thermometers 30 years ago which is now buried under stone work which show the same temperatures as the ones surrounded by steel? There are no such studies. Admit it. All you have is some opinions that are ignorant of the changes made to this station. Meanwhile if historical records are to be believed the Baltic sea was totally frozen over to the point traders were travelling from poland to scandanavia and staying at inns on the ice on the way. Why do i need a thermometer accurate to fractions of a degree to reason it was very cold? Armagh being surrounded in steel and being relocated was inconvenient but you were not man enuf to admit it. Instead you think you can score points by saying i dont understand statistics. And how about giving me a study that shows the green house abilities of C02 using test atmospheres. It is not rocket science or theoretical physics. We are talking about the air we breathe. Is there or is there not an experimental study using test atmospheres i can read? It is time to end the bullshit. Either put up or shut up. And cut out the crap about me not allowing thermometer readings. It is you who refuses to allow that thermometers have to be correctly used to be able to record small changes in temperature of 0.6 degrees in 100 years. According to you accuracy does not matter if you can capture the trend. And your example showed you have no idea of the complexities involved in keeping a 100 year temperature record. Instead you want to simplify everything to make it easier to model and theorise. But lets cut to the chase. Is there, or is there not a study on C02 warming using test atmospheres? After all you are the expert on climatology here. You must know of such a study surely??
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 5, 2009 15:24:00 GMT
wtf is a "test atmosphere"?
Do you mean another planet like the Earth in the solar system?
No there isn't.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 5, 2009 15:32:46 GMT
Now is someone dening the LIA?
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 5, 2009 16:06:24 GMT
wtf is a "test atmosphere"? Do you mean another planet like the Earth in the solar system? No there isn't. Here are some practical examples of what i mean by 'test atmosphere' which i found via google to help you see what i mean. cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=4572143Precision humidifier for dynamic test atmosphere generators Abstract A low-cost precision humidity generation technique capable of producing constant humidity atmospheres at variable flow-rates is described. The stability of the humidity generation was to within ±0.5% relative humidity at ambient temperature per hour over a continuously variable range of humidity, from 0 to 80% relative humidity at ambient temperaturebooks.google.co.nz/books?id=vgHXTId8rnYC&lpg=PA1440&ots=IVdhkugS17&dq=test%20atmosphere&pg=PA1440#v=onepage&q=test%20atmosphere&f=falsePrincipals and methods of toxicology Atmosphere analysis
In many cases analysis of the test atmospheres is the most challenging aspect of conducting inhalation studies. What i am asking for is if in for example a small natural desert valley some sensors have been set up to measure this atmosphere for various naturally changing conditions of humidity and C02 and other trace gases so that some experimental night time cooling data can be compiled to show the amount of heat retention that can be contributed to the relatively constant concentration of C02 as other gases alter and data is collected over time . For example the night time heat retaining influence of water on clear evenings is well known so the heat retaining influence of C02 should be measureable if it can significantly retain the earths heat. Then from that beginning point we can work with the data that is produced. That is more or less the scientific way of going about something like this. Ie we make guesses and then we test them out via experimentation and continue to do this as we refine our ideas.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 5, 2009 17:49:37 GMT
Modeling science meets real world observational science.
So we have from glc
"Briefly the situation is as follows. We have observations, i.e. lab experiments and emission spectra. We also have radiative transfer equations which are based on the physics of Beer-Lambert and Planck. The (lab) observations support the radiative transfer equations. "
and from Radiant
"for example a small natural desert valley some sensors have been set up to measure this atmosphere for various naturally changing conditions of humidity and C02 and other trace gases so that some experimental night time cooling data can be compiled to show the amount of heat retention that can be contributed to the relatively constant concentration of C02 as other gases alter and data is collected over time ."
This is the continual argument.
One side sees a laboratory test in a controlled environment with only known variables. Leading to a mathematical or computer model built based on basic known physics using a similar set of controlled variables with parameterization of all _known_ variables to _known_ limits.
The weakness of this approach is it is subject to the Kelvin fallacy* and therefore tends to produce the results expected.
The other side wants real world observational experiments to record and quantify what actually happens and verify/validate laboratory and model results. These are expensive and results may be confusing as they may include both known unknowns and unknown unknowns leading to poor assumptions of what is actually being observed. Real world experiments therefore are difficult to control and the results are often not mathematically satisfying as the variables are not all known and experiments are not totally repeatable - but they do show actual quantification of the real world.
The real problems come when the first 'laboratory and modeling' group forecasts apocalypse but the second 'real world' group finds that real world observational quantifications do not fit what is forecast by the models.
This is where we are now.
If this was a purely academic argument between faculties say between Newtonian Gravitation and MOND and why the Pioneer probes are slowing - it would be an interesting spectator sport. However, the proponents of apocalypse have found a ready audience for their forecasts in politicians who see a really good new area for taxation and control (and in some cases new business opportunities ) and who will provide generous research funding as long as the results support their policies.
This is riding a tiger that is going to be very difficult to dismount. It certainly explains the extreme defense of the AGW position
- - - - - - - -
* The Kelvin Fallacy A statement attributed to Lord Kelvin in 1900:
"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement"
From which we get the corollaries which we often see stated here:
"The physics of the climate system is so well understood and constrained that numerical models can predict future climate trends"
and
"Rejection of an observed phenomenon because of a lack of known mechanism"
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Sept 5, 2009 18:20:59 GMT
nautonnier. My understanding of the Kelvin Fallacy is different. When it became clear that the world was older than the Bible says, Lord Kelvin estimated the age of the earth as 10,000,000 years. He claimed he was right because he had taken into account "all known factors". It was Ernest Rutherford who proved he was wrong, because there were unknown factors which Kelvin could not take into account. This is one of the basese for my rejection of estimates on the radiative forcing for the doubling of CO2, as espoused by glc.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 5, 2009 18:35:33 GMT
Jim, There is quite a lot of discussion on what he actually said - and that is why I said 'attributed' to Kelvin. However, the underlying theme is still - all physics is known there is nothing new to discover. Perhaps he had a habit of saying such things as he really believed it? I think we could say that it is the 'redeeming defect' as his contribution to the body of human knowledge was immense. (for those that don't know see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thomson,_1st_Baron_Kelvin for a brief intro to the areas in which he worked)
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 5, 2009 18:50:34 GMT
Sheesh. I'm not going through all this lot again. Do you have a scientific background or not? Briefly the situation is as follows. We have observations, i.e. lab experiments and emission spectra. We also have radiative transfer equations which are based on the physics of Beer-Lambert and Planck. The observations support the radiative transfer equations. LOL! After of course adjusting it all with a factor. What is being discussed here is whether the 20th century warming only began in the 20th century. Only in that way can you attribute all the warming seen in the 20th century to this theory that the slope of which was adjusted by a factor taken from the warming itself. The reason the warmologists had to get rid of the MWP is only in that way can they take advantage of the fear of the unknown. Not a shred of science there, what they are trying to do is oppress and discount all historical science to elevate the fear they feel they can generate from their theory. The problem they have with that is history is full of observations of the LIA and the MWP; so its necessary to manufacture a proxy reconstruction by cherry picking proxies to make the positive claim there was no MWP. Of course all this is just to distract from the fact it hasn't been warming for the past 10 years. Tell you what. You show me studies that prove that 75% or more of the earth's regions were colder than normal over the same period of time, then I'll concede that the LIA existed. However I'd be interested to know how you know it was colder then. Remember you don't accept thermometer observations. You believe the errors in the measurements dwarf the temperature changes. We went through that. I gave you the link to the Akasofu study that has measurements from most of the continents. You claimed he cherry picked the data, but unlike Steve McIntyre and the his discreditization of the hockey stick where McIntyre demonstrated where and how the cherry picking resulted in the study outcome; you have not come up with exceptions beyond states bordering the NE Atlantic. . . .and Akasofu had that region (and the study you pointed to) in his study.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Sept 5, 2009 19:04:14 GMT
wtf is a "test atmosphere"? Do you mean another planet like the Earth in the solar system? No there isn't. Interestingly, James Hansen's Ph.D. was in astrophysics, specifically study of the solar system, in particular the atmospheres of Venus and Mars. The following statement is taken from the American Institute of Physics' website: "The greenhouse effect of the sulfates could be calculated, and by the late 1970s, NASA climate modeler James Hansen stated confidently that the sulfates together with CO2 "are responsible for the basic climatic state on Venus." Hansen had originally become interested in the greenhouse effect when, in response to Sagan's primitive calculations, he tried to derive a better explanation of why the planet's atmosphere was so hot. Now Hansen's findings about sulfate aerosols strengthened his belief that these particles could make a serious difference for the Earth's climate as well. Sulfates were emitted by volcanoes and, increasingly, by human industry, so Venus had things to tell us about climate change at home.(13*) (CO2 was by far the largest factor in warming Venus, and the effect of sulfates would be debated for decades. It turned out that the greenhouse effect of sulfate clouds reflecting heat back to the surface of Venus was outweighed by cooling due to their reflection of incoming sunlight.)" link here: www.aip.org/history/climate/Venus.htm
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 5, 2009 19:25:09 GMT
"It turned out that the greenhouse effect of sulfate clouds reflecting heat back to the surface of Venus was outweighed by cooling due to their reflection of incoming sunlight."So he didn't learn then?
|
|