|
Post by poitsplace on Apr 8, 2009 15:00:37 GMT
You would say that wouldn't you. Unfortunately scientists have to review their results without fear or favour. If one end of their prediction is catastrophic, they would be wrong to alter it to fit with political sensitivities. Yeah, the person that didn't have the need to use an appeal to authority would say that. That's ANOTHER albatross around your necks, BTW. Now go get me real evidence...not some fantasy computer model. That's what REAL science requires...PROOF! Untested computer models of systems that are not understood ARE NOT PROOF. A real scientist knows that.
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Apr 8, 2009 15:06:06 GMT
I saw an earlier statement:
The blackbody temp should be the same as the incoming energy.
That would be true if it were not for evaporation of water and the melting of ice. Latent heat is the energy absorbed to change phase but doesn't change the temperature.
So not all the energy received raises the blackbody temp.
Photosynthesis may also be a contributor to this effect, but I'm not familiar enough with the process to indicate whether it raises the temp of the plant or not.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 8, 2009 16:35:20 GMT
You would say that wouldn't you. Unfortunately scientists have to review their results without fear or favour. If one end of their prediction is catastrophic, they would be wrong to alter it to fit with political sensitivities. Statistically there is a similarity here that cannot go unaddressed. The most outlandish financial models are usually espoused from the top of a soap box in the middle of the town square and you can tell by the dress that the advocate really has no real interest in the outcome. That changes dramatically as someone gains an interest in the outcome and the first job of auditing such models is to identify what that interest might be, because once identified you can usually narrow your scope of work, deliver a good product at a reasonable price. I am truly admiring the work of Steve McIntyre, I just wish I was up to his level in statistics. The nation got sick of hucksters and created a profession to deal with it. Now that we are beginning on a path towards policy arising out of science that can fundamentally affect the well-being of entire nations it might be a good idea to figure out how to ensure accountability for using science as a cover for politics. It could prove beneficial to us all and especially to the scientific modelers who just might find themselves dangling from the end of a rope by the neck if the outcomes get nasty enough. . . .certainly would not be the first time anyway.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 8, 2009 16:42:15 GMT
You would say that wouldn't you. Unfortunately scientists have to review their results without fear or favour. If one end of their prediction is catastrophic, they would be wrong to alter it to fit with political sensitivities. Yeah, the person that didn't have the need to use an appeal to authority would say that. That's ANOTHER albatross around your necks, BTW. Now go get me real evidence...not some fantasy computer model. That's what REAL science requires...PROOF! Untested computer models of systems that are not understood ARE NOT PROOF. A real scientist knows that. Models *are* real evidence. But your above statement indicates you have also ignored all the evidence that is *not* based on models, so we're not getting very far.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 8, 2009 16:45:58 GMT
I saw an earlier statement: The blackbody temp should be the same as the incoming energy. That would be true if it were not for evaporation of water and the melting of ice. Latent heat is the energy absorbed to change phase but doesn't change the temperature. So not all the energy received raises the blackbody temp. Photosynthesis may also be a contributor to this effect, but I'm not familiar enough with the process to indicate whether it raises the temp of the plant or not. All true, but roughly speaking, the chemical energy and latent heat changes are (I would bet) small compared with the net energy balance changes required to warm the globe (a few watts per metre squared). It should be easy enough to calculate, say, the latent heat in 5% of the earth's ice and plants so as to sanity check this.
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Apr 8, 2009 16:51:13 GMT
A few watts per meter squared.
Now isn't that the expected effect of the increase in CO2?
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Apr 8, 2009 16:56:55 GMT
Models *are* real evidence.
Oh really?
So if the model fails, what then? Is the evidence validated?
If the models understand the physical processes, then they should match the physical observations.
If they don't then there will be a divergence.
You keep dusting under the rug that there are ASSUMPTIONS for processes that we don't completely understand.
If the assumptions are valid for a narrow range of variability, then the model will output an answer that is close to the actual observations. If the variability exceeds the zone for which the assumptions are valid, the model will fail.
This means the model is not valid. Not partially valid, or valid so long as X doesn't exceed Y, it is not valid for predicting future events. And the science is not completely understood.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 8, 2009 17:01:45 GMT
You would say that wouldn't you. Unfortunately scientists have to review their results without fear or favour. If one end of their prediction is catastrophic, they would be wrong to alter it to fit with political sensitivities. Statistically there is a similarity here that cannot go unaddressed. The most outlandish financial models are usually espoused from the top of a soap box in the middle of the town square and you can tell by the dress that the advocate really has no real interest in the outcome. That changes dramatically as someone gains an interest in the outcome and the first job of auditing such models is to identify what that interest might be, because once identified you can usually narrow your scope of work, deliver a good product at a reasonable price. I am truly admiring the work of Steve McIntyre, I just wish I was up to his level in statistics. The nation got sick of hucksters and created a profession to deal with it. Now that we are beginning on a path towards policy arising out of science that can fundamentally affect the well-being of entire nations it might be a good idea to figure out how to ensure accountability for using science as a cover for politics. It could prove beneficial to us all and especially to the scientific modelers who just might find themselves dangling from the end of a rope by the neck if the outcomes get nasty enough. . . .certainly would not be the first time anyway. While McIntyre does a decent job in identifying issues with papers, there are many scientists who are already doing the same to good effect. The idea that auditing will solve all the problems seems to forget that Enron was audited, Madoff was audited, Stanford was audited, AIG was audited, Leh,an...etc. etc. As I've pointed out before, many of the models are much the same models as used in weather forecasting - so their results are publicly available, and the forecast organisations are hugely competitive such that they are all working hard to produce the best model they can. Secondly, many of these model are, even if not open source or freely available for use, widely available for research use by academia. So these models are well audited by a broad scientific community.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 8, 2009 17:20:27 GMT
Models *are* real evidence. Oh really? I'm happy to continue this discussion without the sarcasm. I will do my best to be the advocate of the models, but I am fully aware that they have many shortcomings. Models are not perfect. They are continually tested with the aim of improving them. Models are tools which help understand the observed phenomena. Models helped, for example, to spot the faulty analyses of mid-tropospheric temperatures and ocean heat content figures. They have also done reasonable jobs of predicting post-Pinatubo cooling and 20 years of warming temperatures. First, models are not perfect. Second, even a perfect model needs a good set of observations to kick it off, and we don't have a good set of observations - not even 3000 ARGO buoys will give you a good picture of the ocean. Third, even with a perfect set of observations you have chaos to deal with. But failure to match the physical observations is one thing. Failure to match climatology is a separate thing, and it is the latter that modellers aim to achieve. I'm quite open about the shortcomings of models, and I try to explain why models are not what people think they are (ie. assumed-to-be-perfect representations of the earth system), and are rather tools to help understand and sanity check observations, and which can be used to run perturbation experiments. But any decent model derived from a global forecast model has been used in a wide domain - eg. arctic temperatures to cold desert, to hot desert, to tropical ocean, to tropical forest. Even the extreme projections (6C this century) will only rarely push a model to its limit in terms of the domain of its physical schemes. What it won't predict though are tipping points, such as mass releases of methane.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 8, 2009 17:24:51 GMT
A few watts per meter squared. Now isn't that the expected effect of the increase in CO2? It seems to be my day for the wrong interpretation to be taken of what I say. Clarified as follows: "All true, but roughly speaking, the chemical energy and latent heat changes are (I would bet) small compared with the net energy balance changes required to warm the globe ( [the latter figure being] a few watts per metre squared). It should be easy enough to calculate, say, the latent heat in 5% of the earth's ice and plants so as to sanity check this." Can you do the calculation?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 8, 2009 17:51:31 GMT
While McIntyre does a decent job in identifying issues with papers, there are many scientists who are already doing the same to good effect. The idea that auditing will solve all the problems seems to forget that Enron was audited, Madoff was audited, Stanford was audited, AIG was audited, Leh,an...etc. etc. You are like a Soviet looking for perfection. Life goes on after Enron and it becomes an ever important fact of life that when the government gets a hold of it we all end up like Enron. Secondly, many of these model are, even if not open source or freely available for use, widely available for research use by academia. So these models are well audited by a broad scientific community. Yeah like Esper the non-archiver! In the financial world you don't get published when you do that. Bottom line is some models are available but these models are built on assumption built on a lot of stuff that simply is not available. Steve is working on it exposing it, which is all he can do. The difference is Esper would not be published in the world of public finance, not because he is wrong, but because he cannot provide his auditor the details. Now granted there is a peer review process but it operates without "enforceable" standards. Bottom line here is any climate model that does not have variables that could create the MWP either has to clearly establish there was not a MWP or admit the model is incomplete as far as being a climate model is. Hence the fraud. I worked on the S&L crisis and there was fraud, there also was a lot more stuff that looked like fraud you couldn't put your finger on as to who was actually responsible or whether it was simply a case of mass hysteria. Now no one individual may be guilty. But the fact is for the case to be strong you have to say with certainty that either no MWP existed or include its mechanism in your climate model. And in my mind, you can't do a decent climate model unless you have the mechanisms in place that deal with the last 4 or 5 iceages either since they seem so periodic and we are nearing another boundary. Bottom line is we are dealing with new theory here. Appears to me the theory is either wrong or they left key stuff out. If they only left key stuff out then their model is out of balance and it needs to be revised to reachieve balance. . . .hopefully not like the Ptolemiac theory went through for 1,500 years burning a few folk at the stake.
|
|
wylie
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 129
|
Post by wylie on Apr 8, 2009 20:08:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Apr 8, 2009 20:11:53 GMT
Steve:
Latent heat of fusion (water) ~80cal/g vaporization: 540 cal/g. Specific heat: 1 cal/g-Deg C
Considerably more energy goes into evaporating water or melting ice than it does to raise its temp 1C.
I would think this is non-negligible.
I completely agree that creating models is important in furthering our knowledge. That adjustment or correction of coefficients is important.
I'm not convinced that the models are at the point that they can predict changes in weather (and all it includes) 10 years, 50 years or 100 years into the future.
And since we are predicting temperature rises with associated ice melting and storm production etc, we are indeed talking about the changes in average weather, which is climate.
I do appreciate your persistance by the way!
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Apr 8, 2009 21:03:48 GMT
Wylie,
essentially yes, but Earth's high oxygen content is an important heating process, as are the oceans. O2 is converted to O3 (Ozone) by High energy UV, and Ozone is a strong absorbed of incoming solar radiation. Oceans absorb energy directly and by evapouration (latent heat) This makes the Earth's atmosphere somewhat unusual when compared to Mars or Venus.
So Earth with a pure CO2 atmosphere would be cooler (no water or oxygen). It would have higher diurnal temperature - warmer during day & radiate superfast at night.
These are facts:
1. Planets with thick atmospheres are warmer than planets with thin atmospheres, regardless of the composition. (Taking into account distance from the Sun) 2. Emissivity and absorptivity are equal. i.e a greenhouse gas is as good a radiator as it is an absorber.
So putting more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere increases the rate of outward radiation as much as (EQUALLY) it increases the absorption of radiation from the Earth. If there were major changes in the amount of greenhouse gases, this could provide some diurnal variation, with increases in the rate of the radiative processes, but this is unlikely to be seen by a minor change in CO2.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 8, 2009 21:15:42 GMT
I do have a question for you however. In the face of repeated and eloquent and usually very carefully thought-out opposition to AGW on the behalf of the many who disagree with you here, do you find yourself admitting the possibility (ever so slightly) that they may be correct? I.e. the possibility AGW as caused by CO2 is not a correct theory? I don't find it plausible that doubling co2 causes less than 0.1C warming, but I think there is a reasonable chance that Lindzen and Roy Spencer are right and that doubling co2 causes a few tenths of a degree warming. On the opposite side of the scale I think mega warming of more than 5C per doubling harder to believe than the lower end presented by Lindzen and Spencer. I currently think something between 2C and 3C is most likely. My view of how much warming a doubling of co2 causes would steadily fall to the low end if temperature stayed flat. Before 20 years is up I would be thinking the low end amount of warming per doubling. I would expect the scientific community would have swung that way too by then if that happened. Ironically if something dramatic like a solar minimum occured it might just throw a spanner in the works. If for example a very deep solar minimum occured and temperatures droped 0.6C, it would be harder to then determine a high end for how much warming co2 could have caused. Ie without the co2 rise the temp drop could have been 1C rather than 0.6C.
|
|