|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 14, 2010 22:36:55 GMT
Like any other molecule, CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, gets an energy bump, reradiates that energy at other wavelengths. Or passes that energy on to other molecules through Brownian motion. But the nature of atmospheric composition, most of the pass on will be to molecules that radiate IR quite well. The major energy vector is UP. And the fact that the upper atmosphere is so cold is a powerful clue that the process is very efficient. Stranger If you have a problem with this could you try explaining how the average temperature at the earth's surface is ~14 deg C when the energy from the sun implies a surface temperature of -18 deg C. I would think that the majority of that warming is due to the effect of water vapor which is far more effective than CO 2 at absorption of infrared and there is far more water vapor in the atmosphere. The Earth does not need CO 2 to have a 'green house' effect.
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Feb 15, 2010 0:50:24 GMT
glc said,"It's possible you have trouble with the concept of a cold atmosphere heating a warm surface. If so think of it as a warmed atmosphere slowing down the rate of cooling from the surface. A cold body will radiate energy towards a warmer body. The cold body does not check the temperature of adjacent bodies before it radiates."
That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever come across. Anybody that thinks a cold body radiates heat to a warmer body needs to go back to the 5 th grade.A cold body in relation to a warmer body will siphon heat away from the warmer object. For instance, the computer chips in these computers get very hot. In some cases cold water is cycled thru the unit to lower the temp of the chip to keep it from melting. For most computers, air is blown on the chip to keep it relative cool. The air picks up the heat, The chip does not pick up additional heat from the air, unless of course the air is hotter than the chip. That's the way the real world works. Most people who design and engineer things understand these simple concepts...... That statement is really out there. I have to ask myself, why am I having a conversation like this. If this is the logic for how AGW has got the attention of other scientists and politicians, this world is in serious trouble.
Glc, what you are saying is that in the winter time I should open the windows in my house so that the cold air will warm the inside of my house?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 15, 2010 0:51:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 15, 2010 1:26:44 GMT
Glc, what you are saying is that in the winter time I should open the windows in my house so that the cold air will warm the inside of my house?
You really don't get it do you?
The greenhouse gases in the atmosphere keep the surface of the earth warmer than it would be without them. This does not mean that the upper atmosphere is warmer than the surface.
You need to think about the loss of heat from the surface rather than the surface being heated. Imagine it's a cold winter's day and you've just heated a bowl of soup. If you take it outside the soup will cool pretty quickly. If you leave it inside the house it will cool but at a much slower rate. That doesn't mean the heat in the house is warming the soup - it means it's slowing the rate of cooling. It's not a great analogy but it's a bit like the ghgs in the atmosphere. The difference being that you don't put the soup back on the stove - but the surface does continue to be heated by the sun.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 15, 2010 1:45:01 GMT
Phil Jones being one of the amateurs I was talking about. Let me explain the statistics to you. It's been said that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 (UAH record) or 1997 (GISS/CRU record) etc. What does this actually mean? It means that if we just look at the data since 1995 (or 1997) we cannot rule out the possibility that the trend is 'flat' (i.e. no warming). However - neither can we rule out the possibility that there is a trend of +0.2 deg per decade. This, though, is simply an artifact of the length of the period in question. The confidence interval associated with such a short period is so wide that it includes many possibilities. However the most likely outcome is that there has been warming but, to be statistically significant, by convention we look for a confidence interval of 95%. This is the very reason why periods of 20 to 30 years are stipulated.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 15, 2010 2:54:29 GMT
Phil Jones being one of the amateurs I was talking about. Let me explain the statistics to you. It's been said that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 (UAH record) or 1997 (GISS/CRU record) etc. What does this actually mean? It means that if we just look at the data since 1995 (or 1997) we cannot rule out the possibility that the trend is 'flat' (i.e. no warming). However - neither can we rule out the possibility that there is a trend of +0.2 deg per decade. This, though, is simply an artifact of the length of the period in question. The confidence interval associated with such a short period is so wide that it includes many possibilities. However the most likely outcome is that there has been warming but, to be statistically significant, by convention we look for a confidence interval of 95%. This is the very reason why periods of 20 to 30 years are stipulated. And from a stats point of view, 20 or 30 years of the Halocene have such wide error bars that an increase or decrease of 2.0C would be meaningless. One HAS to at least have a record of 150 years min to even get close to a 10% error. The 20 and 30 year periods are so short that they make any arguement totally laughable and without merit.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 15, 2010 3:43:51 GMT
Phil Jones being one of the amateurs I was talking about. Let me explain the statistics to you. It's been said that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 (UAH record) or 1997 (GISS/CRU record) etc. What does this actually mean? It means that if we just look at the data since 1995 (or 1997) we cannot rule out the possibility that the trend is 'flat' (i.e. no warming). However - neither can we rule out the possibility that there is a trend of +0.2 deg per decade. This, though, is simply an artifact of the length of the period in question. The confidence interval associated with such a short period is so wide that it includes many possibilities. However the most likely outcome is that there has been warming but, to be statistically significant, by convention we look for a confidence interval of 95%. This is the very reason why periods of 20 to 30 years are stipulated. Let me explain the statistics to you...... by convention we look for a confidence interval of 95%. I know what CI is, so please refrain from attempting to appear as if you are some sort of statistics professor and inferences of having a monopoly of knowledge on these discussions. This is the very reason why periods of 20 to 30 years are stipulated.
It's an arbitrary number. If you can't demonstrate a mathematical reason, then your argument is meaningless. It can be tested. Maybe you missed it from [url=http://icecap.us/images/uploads/05-loehleNEW.pdf[/url]Loehle's paper[/url] (my bold). RESULTS
As expected, as series length increases the confidence intervals narrow. For series ending in 2009, the shortest (60 months) show a strongly negative trend of -0.33ºC per decade for UAH and -0.38ºC per decade for RSS (Fig. 2). The trend does not stay positive until the period length is longer than 146 months (12.2 yr) for UAH or 149 months (12.4 yr) for RSS. There is a slightly more negative slope (faster cooling) at 130 months as the 1998 el Niño is included in the record. The lower confidence limit includes 0 until 196 months (16.3 yr) for UAH and 195 months (16.3 yr) for RSS. Thus for the past 16 years it is not possible to detect a warming trend with this data (lower confidence intervals include zero) and for the past 12+ years the data actually show a cooling trend.
As the data length increases beyond month 200, the slope curve becomes stable (constant) and confidence intervals become narrow because a longer sequence is being analyzed and the addition of more months has little effect on the trend.
DISCUSSION
The data clearly show a cooling phase over the past 12 to 13 years, with lower confidence intervals including negative trend over the past 16 to nearly 23 years, depending on dataset. The recent cooling trend is also evident in the Hadley and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) data, though with some lag, and in ocean heat content data (Loehle, 2009)
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 15, 2010 8:58:34 GMT
Phil Jones being one of the amateurs I was talking about. Let me explain the statistics to you. It's been said that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 (UAH record) or 1997 (GISS/CRU record) etc. What does this actually mean? It means that if we just look at the data since 1995 (or 1997) we cannot rule out the possibility that the trend is 'flat' (i.e. no warming). However - neither can we rule out the possibility that there is a trend of +0.2 deg per decade. This, though, is simply an artifact of the length of the period in question. The confidence interval associated with such a short period is so wide that it includes many possibilities. However the most likely outcome is that there has been warming but, to be statistically significant, by convention we look for a confidence interval of 95%. This is the very reason why periods of 20 to 30 years are stipulated. Let me explain the statistics to you...... by convention we look for a confidence interval of 95%. I know what CI is, so please refrain from attempting to appear as if you are some sort of statistics professor and inferences of having a monopoly of knowledge on these discussions. This is the very reason why periods of 20 to 30 years are stipulated.
It's an arbitrary number. If you can't demonstrate a mathematical reason, then your argument is meaningless. It can be tested. Maybe you missed it from [url=http://icecap.us/images/uploads/05-loehleNEW.pdf [/url]Loehle's paper[/url] (my bold). RESULTS
As expected, as series length increases the confidence intervals narrow. For series ending in 2009, the shortest (60 months) show a strongly negative trend of -0.33ºC per decade for UAH and -0.38ºC per decade for RSS (Fig. 2). The trend does not stay positive until the period length is longer than 146 months (12.2 yr) for UAH or 149 months (12.4 yr) for RSS. There is a slightly more negative slope (faster cooling) at 130 months as the 1998 el Niño is included in the record. The lower confidence limit includes 0 until 196 months (16.3 yr) for UAH and 195 months (16.3 yr) for RSS. Thus for the past 16 years it is not possible to detect a warming trend with this data (lower confidence intervals include zero) and for the past 12+ years the data actually show a cooling trend.
As the data length increases beyond month 200, the slope curve becomes stable (constant) and confidence intervals become narrow because a longer sequence is being analyzed and the addition of more months has little effect on the trend.
DISCUSSION
The data clearly show a cooling phase over the past 12 to 13 years, with lower confidence intervals including negative trend over the past 16 to nearly 23 years, depending on dataset. The recent cooling trend is also evident in the Hadley and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) data, though with some lag, and in ocean heat content data (Loehle, 2009) [/quote] Loehle is saying more or less what I said. Significance is related to the width of the CI which is dependant on the length of the period being analysed. Loehle has overstated his case somewhat and it might be worth pointing out that some of the periods he cites which included a negative trend now show a positive trend. It's an arbitrary number. If you can't demonstrate a mathematical reason, then your argument is meaningless. It can be tested.It's not arbitrary but it is specific to the data. It's related to the "noise" in the temperature data.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 15, 2010 14:00:09 GMT
"It's an arbitrary number. If you can't demonstrate a mathematical reason, then your argument is meaningless. It can be tested.
It's not arbitrary but it is specific to the data. It's related to the "noise" in the temperature data."
This is the reason that I proposed using the entire Holocene as the period we should use for 'normal' attributes. After all the claim is/was that the changes in GHG and temperatures were exceptional - so they should easily show as exceptional against the Holocene normal.
If the Holocene normal cannot be determined then the claim for exceptional GHG and temperatures cannot be supported either.
It does appear in comparison with the Holocene averages that there is nothing exceptional about the last 30 years or even century. Indeed if anything the CO2 levels are extremely low and the temperature is also below the average. I presume this is the reason for the hunt for proxies to support hypotheses and the 'tricks' used to conceal their failures in validation.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 16, 2010 1:00:00 GMT
Let me explain the statistics to you...... by convention we look for a confidence interval of 95%. I know what CI is, so please refrain from attempting to appear as if you are some sort of statistics professor and inferences of having a monopoly of knowledge on these discussions. This is the very reason why periods of 20 to 30 years are stipulated.
It's an arbitrary number. If you can't demonstrate a mathematical reason, then your argument is meaningless. It can be tested. Maybe you missed it from [url=http://icecap.us/images/uploads/05-loehleNEW.pdf [/url]Loehle's paper[/url] (my bold). RESULTS
As expected, as series length increases the confidence intervals narrow. For series ending in 2009, the shortest (60 months) show a strongly negative trend of -0.33ºC per decade for UAH and -0.38ºC per decade for RSS (Fig. 2). The trend does not stay positive until the period length is longer than 146 months (12.2 yr) for UAH or 149 months (12.4 yr) for RSS. There is a slightly more negative slope (faster cooling) at 130 months as the 1998 el Niño is included in the record. The lower confidence limit includes 0 until 196 months (16.3 yr) for UAH and 195 months (16.3 yr) for RSS. Thus for the past 16 years it is not possible to detect a warming trend with this data (lower confidence intervals include zero) and for the past 12+ years the data actually show a cooling trend.
As the data length increases beyond month 200, the slope curve becomes stable (constant) and confidence intervals become narrow because a longer sequence is being analyzed and the addition of more months has little effect on the trend.
DISCUSSION
The data clearly show a cooling phase over the past 12 to 13 years, with lower confidence intervals including negative trend over the past 16 to nearly 23 years, depending on dataset. The recent cooling trend is also evident in the Hadley and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) data, though with some lag, and in ocean heat content data (Loehle, 2009) [/quote] Loehle is saying more or less what I said. Significance is related to the width of the CI which is dependant on the length of the period being analysed. Loehle has overstated his case somewhat and it might be worth pointing out that some of the periods he cites which included a negative trend now show a positive trend. It's an arbitrary number. If you can't demonstrate a mathematical reason, then your argument is meaningless. It can be tested.It's not arbitrary but it is specific to the data. It's related to the "noise" in the temperature data. [/quote] It's not arbitrary but it is specific to the data. It's related to the "noise" in the temperature data.
The noise is nevertheless the signal. From the amateurs who have no comprehension of the statisitics involved: Linear trends also have the advantage that confidence intervals are well defined, which aids in interpretation. Calculating such linear trends overcomes issues due to subjective interpretation of noisy data and the arbitrariness of various methods of smoothing the data, especially at the end points (see Soon et al., 2004).
Each time the hole gets deeper. BTW, you didn't respond to the Arctic temperature issue.....
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Feb 16, 2010 13:56:35 GMT
Glc, Aside from this diversion into the CO2 issue, you haven't answered the real question as to how the arctic became ice free???
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Feb 27, 2010 2:04:52 GMT
If you can't answer how previous warming and cooling cycles occured, then what? Is it science when when you repeat something often enough. Science has to be repeatable. A certain size wire made of copper will have so much resistance. It was, is and always will be. A cubic centimeter of water at stp will aways weigh the same. It is repeatable. If you don't have an answer for the recent cooling and warming (LIA and MWP), then you don't have an answer at all. If you claim that there was no LIA or MWP, then we go to something so physically evident that you cannot deny that it happened. Beaches formed on Greenland, which meant that the artic was ice free. Explain that.
|
|
|
Post by dusty09 on Mar 9, 2010 22:16:41 GMT
There is a You tube presentation at the end of this link. At around 2 minutes in Piers implies that they predicted the M class flares from January and their subsequent effects on weather patterns. Does anyone know if it is feasible to predict this type of solar event and where would you start. The forecast details they issued appeared accurate when compared to the MET offices for the similar level of detail. They specifically were spot on for the storm that trashed France. www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=158&c=5
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Mar 9, 2010 23:53:14 GMT
There is a You tube presentation at the end of this link. At around 2 minutes in Piers implies that they predicted the M class flares from January and their subsequent effects on weather patterns. Does anyone know if it is feasible to predict this type of solar event and where would you start. The forecast details they issued appeared accurate when compared to the MET offices for the similar level of detail. They specifically were spot on for the storm that trashed France. www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=158&c=5If you watch the video again you'll notice that Corbyn does not claim to have predicted the M-class flares but only the effect of the flares, once they had happened, on Earth's weather.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Mar 10, 2010 1:43:58 GMT
There is a You tube presentation at the end of this link. At around 2 minutes in Piers implies that they predicted the M class flares from January and their subsequent effects on weather patterns. Does anyone know if it is feasible to predict this type of solar event and where would you start. The forecast details they issued appeared accurate when compared to the MET offices for the similar level of detail. They specifically were spot on for the storm that trashed France. www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=158&c=5If you watch the video again you'll notice that Corbyn does not claim to have predicted the M-class flares but only the effect of the flares, once they had happened, on Earth's weather. Which is in keeping with what I know of Piers' methods.
|
|