|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 7, 2009 15:00:49 GMT
I think that we have finally established that glc is a troll with these non-responses.
Circular arguments, repeated arguments, non-answers, obfuscation -- the general detritus left behind in caves by trolls.
Don't feed the trolls. Now then - don't be silly, woodstove. There's no point in my trying to persuade radiant of the co2 greenhouse effect until I establish his/her level of understanding. You, radiant and several other posters on this blog reject aspects of AGW which are accepted by all mainstream sceptic scientists. I can't repeat this often enough. Richard Lindzen, Pat Michaels, Jack Barrett (who has actually taken on the IPCC in debate), Garth Paltridge and numerous others all recognise that doubling CO2 (at equilibrium and with other factors constant) will result in a temperature increase of ~1 deg C. Whenever I raise points that all of the above would agree with, then I'm either a "troll" or a "warmaholic" or similar. I realise that the idea that CO2 just might cause a change in climate is something you'd rather not think about but - get used to it - it is a fact. CO2 absorbs LW IR radiation. The earth emits LW IR radiation. The earth cools by emitting LW IR radiation. This is how the earth maintains a stable climate. More CO2 will reduce the flow of IR energy to space. The question is not whether or not climate will be affected, it is by how much. "You, radiant and several other posters on this blog reject aspects of AGW which are accepted by all mainstream sceptic scientists. I can't repeat this often enough. Richard Lindzen, Pat Michaels, Jack Barrett (who has actually taken on the IPCC in debate), Garth Paltridge and numerous others all recognise that doubling CO2 (at equilibrium and with other factors constant) will result in a temperature increase of ~1 deg C. "The important caveat here is "at equilibrium and with other factors constant". So what these quoted experts are agreeing with is that in a hypothetical world with the atmosphere held as an unresponsive slab and instantaneously raising the CO 2 level to double then the maths says that there would be an increase of ~1degC..... This is mathematics or a simplistic lab experiment but there is NO SUCH WORLD. In REALITY things are very different. But you repeatedly return to the fairytale world of a static slab atmosphere and instant doubling of CO 2 because you have a radiation formula that you can apply if you get rid of the annoying complexities of reality.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 7, 2009 17:34:19 GMT
There's no point in my trying to persuade radiant of the co2 greenhouse effect until I establish his/her level of understanding. The issue here is not my ignorance or my sexuality as defined by you but the amount of influence C02 has upon our climate.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 7, 2009 18:04:40 GMT
There's no point in my trying to persuade radiant of the co2 greenhouse effect until I establish his/her level of understanding. The issue here is not my ignorance or my sexuality as defined by you but the amount of influence C02 has upon our climate. Ok........let's cut to the chase here. 1. There are nooooo ignorant people on this blog. Got that? 2. Both sides of this must learn to accept that each side is approaching this with real interest in SCIENCE. 3. What the AGW side has going for it is models, etc. 4. What the Realist side has going for it is the usual question of models etc. Emperical evidence is blasting the models out of the water every day. But lets not give up on models. THIS is infant science......very infant science. That is what both sides must understand. Radiant has a very very valid point.......there have not been any real life experiments to demonstrate co2 one way or the other. Someone complained about cost of experiment or if it is feasible. Of course it is feaseible. And as far as cost, billions is being spent trying to sell the hypothosis of AGW. IT feeds on itself, each paper quotes an earlier paper.....even if the paper if false. Mr. Mann is a perfect example of this, and even Mr. Schmidt is blind with the slab/static idea. Real climate does not work like that which we all know. I would love to see Radiants idea of an experiment carried out. And when push comes to shove, the AGW people are not going to get anything passed in the US, which is a veryyyyyyy good thing. You can't make policy supposedly based on science when the science is not there. Remember Eisnstien......prove me once is all you have to do. Well, AGW is being proven wrong.....AS PRESENTED......every day.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 7, 2009 18:06:28 GMT
Einstien........prove me wrong once is all you have to do.......add the wrong.... Gosh durn it.....even I make mistakes!
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 7, 2009 19:05:43 GMT
Call it intuition, common sense, whatever but when a question that boils down to "have scientists ever tried shining IR light through a tube filled with only nitrogen and oxygen at varying concentrations?" comes along I think it's more than a safe bet that they have even if I don't know the whos and whens of specific studies that did it. Well besides picking the one study of at least 3 that would most likely have been done; common sense does not serve here. As common sense would say its not been done as most stuff has not been done. It is very important to look at the repercussions of speculative arguments - repercussions that would exist if the arguments were true. An argument might only be one sentence long, but by virtue of it's repercussions it might expand out into 10 sentences. And the argument and repercussions are parceled together. If a repercussion is very unlikely then so is the argument itself. Therefore it's possible to reduce a likely sounding argument down to an unlikely one just by looking at it's repercussions. If you just stare at the argument without generating it's repercussions then you will miss a lot of information. Example exercise: An argument is made (example): "A 1 meter tube of nitrogen might absorb more IR than a 1 meter column of co2" I am sure this is false, but I know of no specific experiment to the contrary. So how can I be so sure it's false? Is it faith? No, it's because I have looked at the repercussions of that argument being true. This is a necessary part of analyzing an argument to judge it's strength. That argument reduces to the following one due to its repercussions: "Scientists haven't measured the IR absorption properties of nitrogen gas." A far weaker argument. So weak in fact that I am very sure (if you want a numeric estimate for how sure then over 99.99%) that this statement cannot be true. And so I am sure the original argument cannot be true either.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 7, 2009 20:36:58 GMT
It is very important to look at the repercussions of speculative arguments - repercussions that would exist if the arguments were true. An argument might only be one sentence long, but by virtue of it's repercussions it might expand out into 10 sentences. And the argument and repercussions are parceled together. If a repercussion is very unlikely then so is the argument itself. Therefore it's possible to reduce a likely sounding argument down to an unlikely one just by looking at it's repercussions. If you just stare at the argument without generating it's repercussions then you will miss a lot of information. Example exercise: An argument is made (example): "A 1 meter tube of nitrogen might absorb more IR than a 1 meter column of co2" I am sure this is false, but I know of no specific experiment to the contrary. So how can I be so sure it's false? Is it faith? No, it's because I have looked at the repercussions of that argument being true. This is a necessary part of analyzing an argument to judge it's strength. That argument reduces to the following one due to its repercussions: "Scientists haven't measured the IR absorption properties of nitrogen gas." A far weaker argument. So weak in fact that I am very sure (if you want a numeric estimate for how sure then over 99.99%) that this statement cannot be true. And so I am sure the original argument cannot be true either. When you build such a strawman you can reasonably conclude somebody has measured the LW IR absorption rate of N. But thats a strawman, one you probably subconsciously constructed to defend your position. Its amazing how common such a practice of even professionals constructing such strawmen. Thats because the issue isn't really whether the Nitrogen absorption rate of LW IR has been measured, the issue is to what degree of accuracy it has been measured. . . .keeping in mind of course that it does absorb some IR. That brings us to what the definition of a GHG is. Is it a gas that absorbs 100% LW IR? Obviously not as no GHG absorbs that much. Is it one that absorbs 10% LW IR? Well since CO2 absorbs about 8%, I guess it must be at least this low. How about if it absorbs. .001% IR? Golly does anybody know of any gas that fits within a couple of factors of magnitude of this level? And do we consider it a GHG? To get to a level of .001% IR absorption our testing equipment will need to have an accuracy range in the area of 99.9995%. . . .hmmmm sounds awfully accurate for measuring much of anything and at that level we would not even have a real high confidence you were within 50% of the number. If somebody had conducted tests to such accuracies it probably would be well known as it would be a very expensive test, requiring a very large tube of N. Using equal sized tubes for measuring N and CO2 would result in the CO2 for the purpose of atmospheric testing being 2,500 times more accurate. A 10% error in the CO2 measurement would be of concern but would not completely eliminate the utility of modeling CO2 based upon 90% accuracies of measurements. But applying the same testing to the Nitrogen could mean you missed the correct answer for our atmosphere by a factor of 250. If nitrogen absorbed only .001% of the IR spectrum as opposed to CO2's 8%. It would be responsible for about 30% as much IR interception as CO2. So the question really isn't if somebody tested nitrogen or not. Thats just the suckers take on the matter. Oh Yeah! Madoff told me the investments have appraisals! And here you are Socold, you haven't even finished addressing one of the three issues I raised and your common sense is telling you everything is hunky dory! LOL!
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 7, 2009 21:02:58 GMT
It is very important to look at the repercussions of speculative arguments - repercussions that would exist if the arguments were true. An argument might only be one sentence long, but by virtue of it's repercussions it might expand out into 10 sentences. And the argument and repercussions are parceled together. If a repercussion is very unlikely then so is the argument itself. Therefore it's possible to reduce a likely sounding argument down to an unlikely one just by looking at it's repercussions. If you just stare at the argument without generating it's repercussions then you will miss a lot of information. Example exercise: An argument is made (example): "A 1 meter tube of nitrogen might absorb more IR than a 1 meter column of co2" I am sure this is false, but I know of no specific experiment to the contrary. So how can I be so sure it's false? Is it faith? No, it's because I have looked at the repercussions of that argument being true. This is a necessary part of analyzing an argument to judge it's strength. That argument reduces to the following one due to its repercussions: "Scientists haven't measured the IR absorption properties of nitrogen gas." A far weaker argument. So weak in fact that I am very sure (if you want a numeric estimate for how sure then over 99.99%) that this statement cannot be true. And so I am sure the original argument cannot be true either. When you build such a strawman you can reasonably conclude somebody has measured the LW IR absorption rate of N. But thats a strawman, one you probably subconsciously constructed to defend your position. Its amazing how common such a practice of even professionals constructing such strawmen. Thats because the issue isn't really whether the Nitrogen absorption rate of LW IR has been measured, the issue is to what degree of accuracy it has been measured. . . .keeping in mind of course that it does absorb some IR. That brings us to what the definition of a GHG is. Is it a gas that absorbs 100% LW IR? Obviously not as no GHG absorbs that much. Is it one that absorbs 10% LW IR? Well since CO2 absorbs about 8%, I guess it must be at least this low. How about if it absorbs. .001% IR? Golly does anybody know of any gas that fits within a couple of factors of magnitude of this level? And do we consider it a GHG? To get to a level of .001% IR absorption our testing equipment will need to have an accuracy range in the area of 99.9995%. . . .hmmmm sounds awfully accurate for measuring much of anything and at that level we would not even have a real high confidence you were within 50% of the number. If somebody had conducted tests to such accuracies it probably would be well known as it would be a very expensive test, requiring a very large tube of N. Using equal sized tubes for measuring N and CO2 would result in the CO2 for the purpose of atmospheric testing being 2,500 times more accurate. A 10% error in the CO2 measurement would be of concern but would not completely eliminate the utility of modeling CO2 based upon 90% accuracies of measurements. But applying the same testing to the Nitrogen could mean you missed the correct answer for our atmosphere by a factor of 250. If nitrogen absorbed only .001% of the IR spectrum as opposed to CO2's 8%. It would be responsible for about 30% as much IR interception as CO2. So the question really isn't if somebody tested nitrogen or not. Thats just the suckers take on the matter. Oh Yeah! Madoff told me the investments have appraisals! And here you are Socold, you haven't even finished addressing one of the three issues I raised and your common sense is telling you everything is hunky dory! LOL! Interesting. Now i am looking at N2 as a greenhouse gas. www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a751032870 Far-infrared absorption in nitrogen gas A theoretical study Published in: Molecular Physics, Volume 53, Issue 1 September 1984 , pages 203 - 223 Abstract We present a simple theory of the far-infrared collision-induced absorption spectrum of nitrogen gas............ Our results are in excellent agreement with experimental observations of the FIR spectrum of N2 over a wide range of temperatures.
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Sept 7, 2009 21:55:17 GMT
A while back, we were talking about tera forming and the methods for making an atmosphere more to our liking. Mars was the obivious target. I forgot what the atmosphere of Mars is comprised of. Umm, I don't think it was oxygen. Oh, I remember it is 95.3% co2 and 2.7% nitrogen. I wonder why Mars isn't warmer? With that kind of forcing, even at that distance it should be a lot warmer. I guess we could calculate that couldn't we, or maybe it has already been done. I guess no one was monitoring the temp on Mars lately. I wonder if the polar caps on Mars were lock stepping with decline of polar ice on earth. The co2 global warmers will know for sure. Maybe they'll tell us. Oh, we'll just disregard it. Did anybody find out how much co2 is given off by that forest fire in California? I do. I wonder what kind of explanation they'll have for that. Maybe it's a constant, the same amount of forest burn up each year.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 28, 2009 16:14:53 GMT
The fraud exposed.....again. wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/27/quote-of-the-week-20-ding-dong-the-stick-is-dead/#comments1- In 1998 a paper is published by Dr. Michael Mann. Then at the University of Virginia, now a Penn State climatologist, and co-authors Bradley and Hughes. The paper is named: Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations. The paper becomes known as MBH98.
The conclusion of tree ring reconstruction of climate for the past 1000 years is that we are now in the hottest period in modern history, ever.
See the graph www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/image/mann/manna_99.gif
Steve McIntyre, a Canadian mathematician in Toronto, suspects tree rings aren’t telling a valid story with that giant uptick at the right side of the graph, implicating the 20th century as the “hottest period in 1000 years”, which alarmists latch onto as proof of AGW. The graph is dubbed as the “Hockey Stick” and becomes famous worldwide. Al Gore uses it in his movie An Inconvenient Truth in the famous “elevator scene”.
2- Steve attempts to replicate Michael Mann’s tree ring work in the paper MBH98, but is stymied by lack of data archiving. He sends dozens of letters over the years trying to get access to data but access is denied. McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, of the University of Guelph publish a paper in 2004 criticizing the work. A new website is formed in 2004 called Real Climate, by the people who put together the tree ring data and they denounce the scientific criticism:
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/false-claims-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick-regarding-the-mann-et-al-1998reconstruction/
3- Years go by. McIntyre is still stymied trying to get access to the original source data so that he can replicate the Mann 1998 conclusion. In 2008 Mann publishes another paper in bolstering his tree ring claim due to all of the controversy surrounding it. A Mann co-author and source of tree ring data (Professor Keith Briffa of the Hadley UK Climate Research Unit) used one of the tree ring data series (Yamal in Russia) in a paper published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 2008, which has a strict data archiving policy. Thanks to that policy, Steve McIntyre fought and won access to that data just last week.
4- Having the Yamal data in complete form, McIntyre replicates it, and discovers that one of Mann’s co-authors, Briffa, had cherry picked 10 trees data sets out of a much larger set of trees sampled in Yamal.
5- When all of the tree ring data from Yamal is plotted, the famous hockey stick disappears. Not only does it disappear, but goes negative. The conclusion is inescapable. The tree ring data was hand picked to get the desired result.
These are the relevant graphs from McIntyre showing what the newly available data demonstrates.
www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/rcs_chronologies1.gif
www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/rcs_merged.gif Ok Warmology True Believers, let's hear the excuses...
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Sept 28, 2009 16:48:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thingychambers69 on Sept 28, 2009 22:56:47 GMT
I am new to this skeptic stance. For many years I have been a true believer, shouting down anyone who didn't agree with me. Then, one day, I realized I was nuts. I found this absorption graph at this website below brneurosci.org/co2.htmlThe site seemed a bit crappy, but like any good sponge, I absorb allot of crap. He does have allot of references (I hope he hasn't used wiki). Please let me know if I have found something of interest or I might as well be surfing for porn. Can anyone else find absorption graphs of this kind? I'm still looking for what Nitrogen can absorb. "Always question consensus". Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by thingychambers69 on Sept 28, 2009 23:01:10 GMT
Reference for the absorption graph
Peixoto, J.P. and Oort, A.H., Physics of Climate Springer, 1992, p.93 Howare, J.N., Burch, D.L., Williams, D (1955). Near-infrared transmission through synthetic atmospheres. Geophys. Res. Papers No. 40, Geophys, Res. Dir., Air Force Cambridge Research Center, 244 pp Goody, R.M. (1964). Atmospheric Radiation: I. Theoretical Basis. Clarendon, Oxford, 436 pp
I don't want to get in shit or anything.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 29, 2009 13:07:16 GMT
Jim, Many of the Warmologist hockey stick graphs they regurgitate is derived from Briffa. Read the entire post from the link below; it is quite revealing. It is just another example of why parading out "peer review" as the gold standard in science is a joke. It is mostly a good ole boy network favoring the popular cult culture controlled by the boards of these so called "science" journals resulting in "pal review" articles pushing an agenda rather than rigorously reviewing the science for correctness and data integrity. PNAS, Nature, Science and others have evolved into little more than gray papers not unlike the tabloid garbage at grocery stores. AGW has become a huge industry where the reward is getting more grant money for promoting the wishes of the purse string holders rather than digging for truth. There is no real "peer review" when it comes to publishing climate science articles if it supports the journal's agenda; it's like crap through a goose. I would invite everyone to read the following from Steve McIntyre, noting the first sentence and last paragraph [orange mine]. www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168The second image below is, in my opinion, one of the most disquieting images ever presented at Climate Audit. If the non-robustness observed here prove out (and I've provided a generating script), this will have an important impact on many multiproxy studies that have relied on this study. Studies illustrated in the IPCC AR4 spaghetti graph, Wikipedia spaghetti graph or NAS Panel spaghetti graph (consult them for bibliographic refs) that use the Yamal proxy include: Briffa 2000; Mann and Jones 2003; Jones and Mann 2004; Moberg et al 2005; D'Arrigo et al 2006; Osborn and Briffa 2006; Hegerl et al 2007, plus more recently Briffa et al 2008, Kaufman et al 2009. (Note that spaghetti graph studies not included in the above list all employ strip bark bristlecone pines - some use both.) How many times have we been told how many supporting research there was for the hockey stick? It was all based on junk science at best, academic fraud at worst. Go right down the list, there is a common denominator to AGW "science". It is easy to spot for those willing to open their eyes. And people wonder why there are skeptics of AGW?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 29, 2009 13:23:47 GMT
The temps of the MWP, hence no hockey stick, have never been in question to those who use historical evidence with no cherry picking for their thought process. Anyone who tries to support the hockey stick graph is plainly ignoring history and trying to promote an agenda.
The very sad thing in this is that scientific study has lost credibility when it concerns climate. Much better to admit an error and keep on studying climate with open eyes rather than preconceived results.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Sept 29, 2009 15:15:41 GMT
magellan writes "And people wonder why there are skeptics of AGW?" I agree with everything you say. You started with a provocative post which was a challenge to the warmaholics who inhabit www.solarcycle24.com. I put up a second challenge which occurred at almost the same time. What has happened reminds me of Simon and Garfunkel, and The Sounds of Silence. Let me try and be even more provocative. My knowledge of many aspects of climate science is not very good, but what I do understand are numbers. Most of the numbers quoted by the warmaholics fall into one of three categories. 1. They are fraudulent. This is the point you are making with the Briffa numbers. 2. They are based on "science" that is just plain wrong. This is what I am pointing out with the "Hanno" data quoted in the latest propaganda (disguised as "science") from the IPCC. 3. They are simply unproven. This is what I try and point out all the time. There is practically no hard experimental data. What most of the numbers consist of, are the output of non-validated computer programs. Such numbers are the radiative forcing for a doubling of CO2; how much world temperatures rise by the effect of CO2 alone; the climate sensitivity, i.e. how much positive feedbacks amplify the claimed initial temperature rise due to an increase in CO2. When we get actual hard numbers, such as world temperature data , this data shows that world temperatures are simply not rising, as was predicted by the IPCC (temperatures may even be falling), and the warmaholics are scrambling to find excuses as to why not. And other examples. Are any of the warmaholics who use this board, who are capable of giving some sort of reply to the challenges you and I have put out?
|
|