|
Post by steve on Mar 17, 2009 9:59:05 GMT
The Pielke paper isn't relevant to the point I'm making about the G+T tosh. Read the G+T tosh first. It's quite hard work because they deliberately over complicate it, but as long as you can remember your basic graduate differentiation in spherical coords you should be OK. This is what you said: 2. Arguments about whether the "average temperature" makes sense are a misdirection. What is measured is the temperature *anomaly* - ie. how much the temperature has changed. When you measure the temperature *anomaly* it doesn't matter very much whether you use T^4 or T. The *relative* change will be the same unless there is a very large difference in the way energy is proportioned across the earth. You can try it yourself by creating your own temperature distribution, calculating metrics from it in different ways and seeing what happens when you change the temperature distribution. And it is pure Hansen/Schmidt psychobabble. It's not psychobabble. It's a straightforward statement that includes a simple way for you to go and test it. Unlike... Once again you are losing the argument by moving onto poorly explained point about something completely different with no references to explain what you mean by "IR is increasing in the atmosphere". Put it in a separate thread and I'll go and take a look.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 17, 2009 10:03:12 GMT
Steve You miss the point: Heat transfer includes radiation. The fact that heat travels BOTH ways isn't a contradiction of the laws of thermodynamics. But what you miss is this: Earth sends vastly more heat energy toward Pluto than ever Pluto send toward earth. Did I miss this point when I said, in the bit that you failed to quote: "Though statistically, the net flow is always likely to be from warm to cold. This means that the radiation from the cooler region reduces the rate of cooling of the warmer region." Given that you misread my post I suggest you withdraw that comment. I won't hold my breath.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 17, 2009 10:34:42 GMT
1. The perpetuum mobile stuff is claiming that the greenhouse effect must be wrong because it requires heat to go from cold to warm objects. This is a misunderstanding: - the "greenhouse effect" (in quotes because it's not the same as a greenhouse) is related to the fact that it reduces the ability of the earth to *cool*. If you put on a coat on a cold day, you do not say that heat is going from the cold coat to warm your body do you. - the theory involves *radiation* not heat going from cooler to warmer bodies, and there is no physical law that says a molecule deliberately directs any photon it radiates towards cooler rather than warmer regions. Though statistically, the net flow is always likely to be from warm to cold. This means that the radiation from the cooler region reduces the rate of cooling of the warmer region. Putting it in an extreme way, the temperature of space is 3 Kelvin. The temperature of Pluto is about 70 Kelvin. Earth's temperature is about 250 Kelvin. We are nevertheless receiving slightly more energy from Pluto than we would receive from the area of space that Pluto covers (in fact Pluto sends about 300000 times more energy than the equivalent area of space - but 30000 times not very much is... not very much). Therefore the existence of Pluto keeps us ever so slightly warmer than we would be otherwise. 2. Arguments about whether the "average temperature" makes sense are a misdirection. What is measured is the temperature *anomaly* - ie. how much the temperature has changed. When you measure the temperature *anomaly* it doesn't matter very much whether you use T^4 or T. [wrong!] [How do you know! I've done it so I know I am right!]The *relative* change will be the same unless there is a very large difference in the way energy is proportioned across the earth. You can try it yourself by creating your own temperature distribution, calculating metrics from it in different ways and seeing what happens when you change the temperature distribution. This is a pet theory of Ross McKitrick. Unfortunately (or deliberately) in his papers he has committed a large number of embarrassing statistical and arithmetical errors such as assuming a temperature of zero if a measurement is missing. That last paragraph is pure argument ad hominem, Steve. Argument ad hominem is still a fallacy, and your conclusion is therefore more damaging than supporting of your case. At least Ross is putting his calculations out there where they can be seen, instead of hiding behind a smokescreen of "proprietary" models and unpublished code. Ad hom attacks are standard AGW tripe. Can't you think up anything more original than that? At least try to come up with something better than that lame "Pluto-is-hot-stuff, relatively speaking," red herring. I've given you the explanation for how you can prove Ross wrong. Go and do it. Create a dataset of temperatures in Kelvin (ie between 260 and 300 or so, or get a real one) Create another dataset the same as the first but mangled in some way - eg. add some noise (eg. a random number between +1 and -1) or a few aircon units (eg. add 1. to every tenth value). Calculate the average of values Calculate the fourth root of the average of the 4th power of values. Use your own method. Then add a temperature rise to each dataset - eg add a random number between 0 and 1. Then recalculate all the metrics. You should find that whatever method you use, the rise in each will be about 0.5 degrees showing that the method doesn't affect the result significantly. Or you can pray to your Lord McKitrick that he smite me with His broken Hockey Stick for blaspheming against the sceptic creed.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 17, 2009 10:40:34 GMT
Steve: "the theory involves *radiation* not heat going from cooler to warmer bodies"
is enough to show your total ignorance of thermodynamics.
Radiation is the transfer of heat. Heat is radiated. Your statement is scientific nonsense.
It is impossible to debate with ignorance. I suggest you read a suitable book to get concepts clear before trying to debate any further.
cheers
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 17, 2009 10:45:03 GMT
Steve, your comments are just scientific nonsense. Go read a book. The rate of cooling is totally dependent on the temperature difference. Go study up on heat transfer equations. You are obviously misreading what I'm saying. Is it deliberate? The surface is warm because it is warmed by the sun. The warm surface tends to cools because the atmosphere above is cool. The atmosphere above tends to cool because it radiates to space, which is very cold. If you restrict the amount it radiates to space, it will cool less. As it is initially receiving the same energy from below it will therefore start to warm. This means the amount of radiation it is sending to the surface increases slightly though the net transfer is still from warm to cold. ARE YOU LISTENING KIWI!!! This means the surface will get slightly warmer than it was. As the surface and atmosphere warm, the amount of radiation they give off ramps up considerably (proportional to T to the fourth power). Eventually things are warm enough to overcome whatever was stopping the atmosphere losing heat to space, and the atmosphere and surface stop warming.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 17, 2009 10:52:53 GMT
Steve: "the theory involves *radiation* not heat going from cooler to warmer bodies" is enough to show your total ignorance of thermodynamics. Radiation is the transfer of heat. Heat is radiated. Your statement is scientific nonsense. It is impossible to debate with ignorance. I suggest you read a suitable book to get concepts clear before trying to debate any further. cheers Kiwistonewall, If you have a hot object and a cold object then they are both radiating energy. I would say radiation moves from hot to cold and from cold to hot. More radiation is moving from hot to cold which means the hot object loses heat and the cold object gains heat. You are either trying to say that because radiation moves from cold to hot that heat is moving from cold to hot. Or you are saying that no radiation moves from cold to hot. Which is it!?
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 17, 2009 11:52:17 GMT
You are confused when you say "radiation not heat"
Radiation is heat. (or strictly the movement of heat) That was my point. Radiation is heat moving. There is no heat transfer from cold to hot without an outside energy source (heat pump) I'll debate when you go learn some science.
Go stand in front of a glowing fire and chant: "I am heating the fire by radiation" and you'll see how silly you sound.
Sure, at the photon level, there may be photons moving from you to the fire, but that is vastly outnumbered by the photons that come the other way. NO HEAT equations worry about what is happening at that level.
Radiation and conductance of heat energy is from hot to cold. Full Stop.
cheers
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 17, 2009 12:28:44 GMT
You are confused when you say "radiation not heat" Radiation is heat. That was my point. I'll debate when you go learn some science. cheers You're missing the context of the discussion, and possibly being a bit dogmatic when you say that "radiation is heat". I said: "the theory involves *radiation* not heat going from cooler to warmer bodies" So I am talking about heat *transfer*, not heat per se. Heat is a very difficult concept to define, as you should know if you are knowledgable about thermodynamics. Two identical stars orbiting each other are transferring a lot of radiation between them. But the transfer of heat could be zero. Heat cannot be transferred from a cooler to a warmer body without work being done. The heat being transferred between two bodies can be measured by the *net* radiation (plus other methods of heat transfer of course). The "greenhouse theory" involves radiation being transferred from cold atmosphere to warm surface. But *net* radiation (heat transfer) is towards the cold atmosphere. G+T are deliberately confusing these two points.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 17, 2009 12:38:34 GMT
This is what you said: 2. Arguments about whether the "average temperature" makes sense are a misdirection. What is measured is the temperature *anomaly* - ie. how much the temperature has changed. When you measure the temperature *anomaly* it doesn't matter very much whether you use T^4 or T. The *relative* change will be the same unless there is a very large difference in the way energy is proportioned across the earth. You can try it yourself by creating your own temperature distribution, calculating metrics from it in different ways and seeing what happens when you change the temperature distribution. And it is pure Hansen/Schmidt psychobabble. It's not psychobabble. It's a straightforward statement that includes a simple way for you to go and test it. Unlike... Once again you are losing the argument by moving onto poorly explained point about something completely different with no references to explain what you mean by "IR is increasing in the atmosphere". Put it in a separate thread and I'll go and take a look. The Pielke paper isn't relevant to the point I'm making about the G+T tosh. Read the G+T tosh first. It's quite hard work because they deliberately over complicate it, but as long as you can remember your basic graduate differentiation in spherical coords you should be OK. I will wager that is a cut-and-paste job from either Tamino or Schmidt. Nothing is more detestable in a forum discussion than sock puppets and plagiarism, especially when it is babbling. The Pielke paper is relevant, and it is based on Hansen's own admitted problems with determining SAT. This is discussed in detail below, including the vaunted "anomaly" dance. climatesci.org/2008/12/10/comments-on-the-nasa-giss-website-qa-giss-surface-temperature-analysis-the-elusive-absolute-surface-air-temperature-sat/Where, the last part of Hansen's Q&A concerning anomalies states thus: A. In 99.9% of the cases you'll find that anomalies are exactly what you need, not absolute temperatures. In the remaining cases, you have to pick one of the available climatologies and add the anomalies (with respect to the proper base period) to it. For the global mean, the most trusted models produce a value of roughly 14 Celsius, i.e. 57.2 F, but it may easily be anywhere between 56 and 58 F and regionally, let alone locally, the situation is even worse.
For which Pielke's answer, based on published research, is : The GISS authors make a fundamental error. You cannot diagnose accurate values of the anomalies unless the reason for the observed values of the absolute surface air temperature are understood. Quantitatively accurate spatial maps of temperature anomalies, therefore, cannot be generated. The documentation of the fundamental problems with the use of SAT anomalies is reported, for example, in our multi-authored paper
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 17, 2009 13:29:01 GMT
No it's me, not Tamino or Schmidt. I've told you the method. I've just done it myself and get the following results where T1 and T2 are noisy versions of each other, and T3 is a noisy half degree warmer.
steve: ./mckitrickTest T2 should be similar to T1. T3 should be about 0.5K warmer Straight average: T1 291.8 T2 291.9 T3 292.3 T to power 4 average: T1 292.1 T2 292.1 T3 292.6
As you can see, the two metrics give different answers, but are self-consistent.
If you want to suggest another algorithm for creating a poor quality dataset, I'm willing to give it a go.
The Pielke post is a bit silly really. Do you really expect someone in London to see a temperature reading of 30 Celsius at Heathrow and then take a warm coat into the centre of London because the Heathrow reading was only representative of that point in Heathrow at that time.
On the other hand, if you saw a report for a light ground frost in Dartmoor you might not be too bothered about the sensitive plants you have in your Torquay garden which is a few hundred feet lower, and more sheltered. So this is where the anomaly is useful but where the absolute temperature is not.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Mar 17, 2009 16:58:37 GMT
Is nil according to Gerlich, Gerhard, and Ralf D. Tscheuschner. “ Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (V4.0).” International Journal of Modern Physics B 23, no. 3 (2009) (January 6, 2009): 275{364. doi:10.1142/S021797920904984X, arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf. Abstract: "The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 ( deg) C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified."
Thanks to Steven Milloy for identifying this.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 17, 2009 17:50:30 GMT
Pooh, That's the article being discussed in this thread. See the short hand reference "G+T" in the posts.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Mar 18, 2009 5:00:20 GMT
Yeah, everyone ignore the fact that water's phase changes show the only significant "greenhouse" capability. The best CO2 seems to be able to do is create a gradient based on a delay of seconds on radiant energy's trip back off the earth.
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Mar 18, 2009 7:02:57 GMT
Steve says: "You should find that whatever method you use, the rise in each will be about 0.5 degrees showing that the method doesn't affect the result significantly."
Steve. Steve. I already did that calculation some time ago. AGW nutters have been going ape-shit over a tenth of a degree per decade. A full half a degree is, therefore, a significant result from their POV. [photo of Statue of Liberty up to its neck in seawater goes HERE]
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Mar 18, 2009 7:14:39 GMT
Pooh, That's the article being discussed in this thread. See the short hand reference "G+T" in the posts. Thanks, Steve. I missed the G+T code. None of the links in this thread had the same document ID as the one I posted; I should have chased all of the links before I posted mine. I guess that's why I try to post a full cite and a chunk of the abstract. All the best, Pooh
|
|