|
Post by Ratty on Nov 27, 2018 11:56:54 GMT
A PARODY OF CLIMATE SENSITIVITY ........... This state of affairs in climate sensitivity research is likely the result of insufficient statistical rigor in the research methodologies applied. This work demonstrates spurious proportionalities in time series data that can yield specious climate sensitivities that have no interpretation. A parody of the Charney sensitivity with data for homicides in England and Wales 1898-2003 is used for the demonstration. The homicide parody is compared with a parallel analysis of global mean temperature reconstructions for the same period. ...........
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 27, 2018 13:05:07 GMT
Two simple experiments that should be done to assess whether CO2 can affect global temperatures.
The base AGW theory is that CO2 in the atmosphere 'traps' outgoing long wave radiation - infrared - and either gives up the energy as kinetic energy to N2 and O2 molecules - leading to a rise in temperature of the atmosphere which warms the surface (reduces loss of heat by conduction) or - reradiates the infrared some of which reaches the surface where it becomes heat and warms the surface.
75% of the surface of the Earth, more if you include transpiring plants, is water. Yet the diagram always trotted out showing radiation budget never shows water it shows land. If water does not have its temperature increased or cooling slowed by having a warm atmosphere above it and does not increase in temperature when it is radiated by infrared, then the entire AGW/Climate Change hypothesis is falsified.
So two experiments.
First 1. Water at a set temperature in two large insulated tank set well apart in a very large room held at a steady temperature 2. Thermocouples in the water of both tanks continually recording the water temperature 3. Over one tank a fan heater blows warm air across the water surface over the other a similar heater blows ambient air 4. a. Null hypothesis - the water in the tank with warm air being blown over it will get warmer while the tank with ambient air will remain at the same temperature. b. Expected result both tanks will cool and the one with warm air blown over it will cool the most.
Second 1. Water at a set temperature in two large insulated tank set well apart in a very large room held at a steady temperature 2. Thermocouples in the water of both tanks continually recording the water temperature 3. Over one tank an infrared source at CO2 emittance frequency and 3 watts/square meter is aimed at the water surface over the other a similar infrared source is positioned but powered off. 4. a. Null hypothesis - the water in the tank being irradiated with infrared will get warmer while the tank with a powered off infrared source will remain at the same temperature. b. Expected result both tanks will cool and the one with infrared irradiance will cool the most.
This is such a simple set of experiments one wonders why it has not been done.
Any comments from the brains trust here?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 27, 2018 13:45:25 GMT
Not yet.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Nov 27, 2018 14:12:28 GMT
Granted. But on hold till Hell freezes over.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 27, 2018 14:27:27 GMT
Two simple experiments that should be done to assess whether CO2 can affect global temperatures. The base AGW theory is that CO2 in the atmosphere 'traps' outgoing long wave radiation - infrared - and either gives up the energy as kinetic energy to N2 and O2 molecules - leading to a rise in temperature of the atmosphere which warms the surface (reduces loss of heat by conduction) or - reradiates the infrared some of which reaches the surface where it becomes heat and warms the surface. 75% of the surface of the Earth, more if you include transpiring plants, is water. Yet the diagram always trotted out showing radiation budget never shows water it shows land. If water does not have its temperature increased or cooling slowed by having a warm atmosphere above it and does not increase in temperature when it is radiated by infrared, then the entire AGW/Climate Change hypothesis is falsified. So two experiments. First 1. Water at a set temperature in two large insulated tank set well apart in a very large room held at a steady temperature 2. Thermocouples in the water of both tanks continually recording the water temperature 3. Over one tank a fan heater blows warm air across the water surface over the other a similar heater blows ambient air 4. a. Null hypothesis - the water in the tank with warm air being blown over it will get warmer while the tank with ambient air will remain at the same temperature. b. Expected result both tanks will cool and the one with warm air blown over it will cool the most. Second 1. Water at a set temperature in two large insulated tank set well apart in a very large room held at a steady temperature 2. Thermocouples in the water of both tanks continually recording the water temperature 3. Over one tank an infrared source at CO2 emittance frequency and 3 watts/square meter is aimed at the water surface over the other a similar infrared source is positioned but powered off. 4. a. Null hypothesis - the water in the tank being irradiated with infrared will get warmer while the tank with a powered off infrared source will remain at the same temperature. b. Expected result both tanks will cool and the one with infrared irradiance will cool the most. This is such a simple set of experiments one wonders why it has not been done. Any comments from the brains trust here? The parameters presented are not distinct enough to form a valid thought process.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 29, 2018 20:44:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Nov 29, 2018 22:40:49 GMT
so true the only thing wrong is humans input the code.. and we always think we are right
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 30, 2018 0:09:21 GMT
advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/11/eaat4556Past changes in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (PCO2) have had a major impact on earth system dynamics; yet, reconstructing secular trends of past PCO2 remains a prevalent challenge in paleoclimate studies. The current long-term PCO2 reconstructions rely largely on the compilation of many different proxies, often with discrepancies among proxies, particularly for periods older than 100 million years (Ma). Here, we reconstructed Phanerozoic PCO2 from a single proxy: the stable carbon isotopic fractionation associated with photosynthesis (Ɛp) that increases as PCO2 increases. This concept has been widely applied to alkenones, but here, we expand this concept both spatially and temporally by applying it to all marine phytoplankton via a diagenetic product of chlorophyll, phytane. We obtained data from 306 marine sediments and oils, which showed that Ɛp ranges from 11 to 24‰, agreeing with the observed range of maximum fractionation of Rubisco (i.e., 25 to 28‰). The observed secular PCO2 trend derived from phytane-based Ɛp mirrors the available compilations of PCO2 over the past 420 Ma, except for two periods in which our higher estimates agree with the warm climate during those time periods. Our record currently provides the longest secular trend in PCO2 based on a single marine proxy, covering the past 500 Ma of Earth history. INTRODUCTION
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 30, 2018 3:40:31 GMT
advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/11/eaat4556Past changes in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (PCO2) have had a major impact on earth system dynamics; yet, reconstructing secular trends of past PCO2 remains a prevalent challenge in paleoclimate studies. The current long-term PCO2 reconstructions rely largely on the compilation of many different proxies, often with discrepancies among proxies, particularly for periods older than 100 million years (Ma). Here, we reconstructed Phanerozoic PCO2 from a single proxy: the stable carbon isotopic fractionation associated with photosynthesis (Ɛp) that increases as PCO2 increases. This concept has been widely applied to alkenones, but here, we expand this concept both spatially and temporally by applying it to all marine phytoplankton via a diagenetic product of chlorophyll, phytane. We obtained data from 306 marine sediments and oils, which showed that Ɛp ranges from 11 to 24‰, agreeing with the observed range of maximum fractionation of Rubisco (i.e., 25 to 28‰). The observed secular PCO2 trend derived from phytane-based Ɛp mirrors the available compilations of PCO2 over the past 420 Ma, except for two periods in which our higher estimates agree with the warm climate during those time periods. Our record currently provides the longest secular trend in PCO2 based on a single marine proxy, covering the past 500 Ma of Earth history. INTRODUCTION Could I get a translation ... please?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 30, 2018 12:51:32 GMT
advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/11/eaat4556Past changes in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (PCO2) have had a major impact on earth system dynamics; yet, reconstructing secular trends of past PCO2 remains a prevalent challenge in paleoclimate studies. The current long-term PCO2 reconstructions rely largely on the compilation of many different proxies, often with discrepancies among proxies, particularly for periods older than 100 million years (Ma). Here, we reconstructed Phanerozoic PCO2 from a single proxy: the stable carbon isotopic fractionation associated with photosynthesis (Ɛp) that increases as PCO2 increases. This concept has been widely applied to alkenones, but here, we expand this concept both spatially and temporally by applying it to all marine phytoplankton via a diagenetic product of chlorophyll, phytane. We obtained data from 306 marine sediments and oils, which showed that Ɛp ranges from 11 to 24‰, agreeing with the observed range of maximum fractionation of Rubisco (i.e., 25 to 28‰). The observed secular PCO2 trend derived from phytane-based Ɛp mirrors the available compilations of PCO2 over the past 420 Ma, except for two periods in which our higher estimates agree with the warm climate during those time periods. Our record currently provides the longest secular trend in PCO2 based on a single marine proxy, covering the past 500 Ma of Earth history. INTRODUCTION Could I get a translation ... please? The base assumption that: "atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (PCO2) have had a major impact on earth system dynamics;" is incorrect. But it is only used as justification for the grant to do the research. They are saying that they could assess the decayed diatoms in marine sediments and look for particular compounds that are associated with chlorophyll and therefore (weak assumption) with photosynthesis and therefore (another weak assumption) with percentage of free CO2 in the ocean. But using this assay and no doubt tweaking a few parameters they claim it matches the figures already produced by other attempts to quantify the free CO2 in the ocean in prehistory.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 30, 2018 13:05:51 GMT
The base assumption that: "atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (PCO2) have had a major impact on earth system dynamics;" is incorrect. But it is only used as justification for the grant to do the research. They are saying that they could assess the decayed diatoms in marine sediments and look for particular compounds that are associated with chlorophyll and therefore (weak assumption) with photosynthesis and therefore (another weak assumption) with percentage of free CO2 in the ocean. But using this assay and no doubt tweaking a few parameters they claim it matches the figures already produced by other attempts to quantify the free CO2 in the ocean in prehistory. Does that mean that I couldn't follow what they were getting at because they didn't know either? I'm beginning to feel like a real climate scientist, at last.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 30, 2018 13:09:35 GMT
The base assumption that: "atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (PCO2) have had a major impact on earth system dynamics;" is incorrect. But it is only used as justification for the grant to do the research. They are saying that they could assess the decayed diatoms in marine sediments and look for particular compounds that are associated with chlorophyll and therefore (weak assumption) with photosynthesis and therefore (another weak assumption) with percentage of free CO2 in the ocean. But using this assay and no doubt tweaking a few parameters they claim it matches the figures already produced by other attempts to quantify the free CO2 in the ocean in prehistory. Does that mean that I couldn't follow what they were getting at because they didn't know either? I'm beginning to feel like a real climate scientist, at last. The prime purpose of scientific research has become to get funds for scientific research. Any new facts found out about the real world are purely incidental and if they are contrary to the prime purpose they will be adjusted or disregarded.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 30, 2018 13:37:31 GMT
[ Snip ] The prime purpose of scientific research has become to get funds for scientific research. Any new facts found out about the real world are purely incidental and if they are contrary to the prime purpose they will be adjusted or disregarded. Yep. Pick a paper, any paper and the final sentence of the abstract ** is a recommendation that more work is required. It's probably a reasonable request in many cases? ** or the conclusion but mainly the abstract
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 30, 2018 18:30:06 GMT
[ Snip ] The prime purpose of scientific research has become to get funds for scientific research. Any new facts found out about the real world are purely incidental and if they are contrary to the prime purpose they will be adjusted or disregarded. Yep. Pick a paper, any paper and the final sentence of the abstract ** is a recommendation that more work is required. It's probably a reasonable request in many cases? ** or the conclusion but mainly the abstract It is my unfortunate experience that anything longer than an abstract and the 'customer' lips get tired. It is rare that anyone will say hey this abstract doesn't match the content. The entire purpose of research is to fund further research. To quote the director of a German research establishment that I worked with "Research is a never ending story".
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 1, 2018 20:15:26 GMT
|
|