|
Post by steve on Apr 28, 2009 14:53:59 GMT
steve writes "There is experimental measurement of the electromagnetic spectra of the earth that can be compared with the model. There are measurements taken a number of years apart that can confirm the effects of increasing CO2." steve, you are avoiding my questions. I am specifically talking about Myhre et al, which you started. This deals with the estimation of the radiative forcing (RF) of CO2. That is all I am talking about. First, do you agree that there is no experimental data that measures the RF of CO2 directly? Second, where is the reference, or the exact formula, from which the RF of CO2 can be calculated exactly? Third, where is the discussion that shows that radiative transfer models are suitable to be used to estimate the RF of CO2? Myhre uses three radiation models and data about absorptivity etc. from the HITRAN database. Each model is referenced, and you need to follow the references for the details of each model. Do you believe that it is impossible to calculate the radiation emitted from a column of atmosphere of known temperature and constituency?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 28, 2009 14:56:35 GMT
Yes hypotheticals and totally unreals... "Myrhe 1998 calculates the forcing *before* the changes in convection and the hydrological cycle. The forcing is the change in the outgoing long wave radiation that occurs when CO2 is increased instantaneously."A really realistic system. Only a mathematician would think that this approach could be anything like normal. As soon as the first CO 2 molecule gets excited and starts colliding with other molecules then then convection starts. When convection starts all sorts of other feedbacks both positive and negative start some of them reacting to the various states of the others. Not only that but much of the heat leaves the surface as sensible and latent heat carried by water vapour and does not become radiation until far higher in the atmosphere and is ignored by a radiation only model. So we have an imaginary world with no feedbacks, no hydrological cycle (until afterward - why not before??) and then instantaneously raise the level of CO 2 to an unreal level. Then on the outcome of that base the formula for calculating the effect of CO 2 being increased steadily in a real atmosphere with a multiplicity of interrelated feedbacks to an unreal level over a century? This is a scientific approach? The <bow> models' </bow> assumptions are built around formulae from this unreal slab atmosphere with an instantaneous jump in CO 2 to unreachable levels? Then on the basis of these models of 'physical laws' politicians are persuaded to tax industries into bankruptcy? There are cases when assumptions can be overly simplistic to a level that they are unreliable. I think that this is one of them. When you go off on rants like this over the basic physics that proves I am right to be concerned, I know you realise how wrong you are.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Apr 28, 2009 15:25:26 GMT
Steve Over and over again people have asked you to show your equations and their support. You never respond with those equations. Why should anyone ever take you seriously. I get that you are a believer, but please show someone the science. Some of us went to engineering school or studied mathematics or physics. Some of us make our living in technical fields. Hand waving does not make it a reality. Talking about columns of atmosphere without the fluid flow calculations and the thermodynamic transfer functions does not help your arguments. Talking about gas forcings without solar forcing coupled into the above equations does not 'win' any arguments. I understand that the science part is a combination of equations coupled to observations. Correctness is not measured in DB.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 28, 2009 16:36:54 GMT
Why is it so difficult to provide evidence to support a hypothesis?
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Apr 28, 2009 18:00:14 GMT
steve writes "Myhre uses three radiation models and data about absorptivity etc. from the HITRAN database. Each model is referenced, and you need to follow the references for the details of each model.
Do you believe that it is impossible to calculate the radiation emitted from a column of atmosphere of known temperature and constituency?"
What I do or do not believe is totally irrelevant. I cannot prove that radiative transfer models are not suitable to estimate radiative forcings. I dont have the knowledge. But I do know that there is an onus on any scientist who deserves the title, to show that the methodology used is good enough to solve the problem at hand. Nowhere do Myhre et al tackle the subject so as to demonstrate that radiative transfer models are suitable to estimate values of radiative forcing. Until this sort of validation is done, then the numbers produced are not worth the powder to blow them to hell. And you still have not acknowledged that it is impossible to measure radiative forcing, and without actual measurements, there is no basic physics. This is what I was taught in Physics 101. If AGW has been proven to be a scientific truth, and it has not, but if it had, it would be unique in the annals of scientific history. It would be the first time any scientific truth has been established with absolutely no experimental data whatsoever to support it.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 28, 2009 22:36:44 GMT
It looks steve hijacked yet another thread and cannot provide evidence to support his argument. It's beginning to look like maybe he doesn't understand what evidence is. Nonetheless, as he insists his sources are correct and the physics are all worked out to his satisfaction, maybe steve would for benefit of us all analyze the following: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykgg9m-7FK4
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 29, 2009 3:03:24 GMT
Steve said: There are measurements taken a number of years apart that can confirm the effects of increasing CO2. Isn't that with the caveat: All other things being equal? This is just one of three reasons for trusting the analysis. The "all things being equal" relates to average changes to the climate that may have additional effects. By measuring decades apart and by picking two similar atmosphere profiles (usually a profile with clear sky) you are measuring two atmosphere columns with different, known, amounts of CO2, and can confirm that the models used to calculate the radiation produce the correct results in both scenarios. That is additional confirmation that the radiation model is sufficiently accurate. And how much water vapor was in those 'clear sky columns'? I don't suppose that the metrics were normalized for it. This is rarely done - for example the reports on contrails over Reading (40 miles west of London) totally failed to normalize for water vapor; and the 'days after 9/11' report from NASA about how cold it was without aircraft - also failed to report that there was a huge dome of high pressure and very dry air over the entire Eastern seaboard and into the mid-west - unsurprising that it was cooler. So are the models calibrated on the basis - "I can see the stars therefore its only CO 2 that will affect temperatures" ? Or has someone actually done some kind of balloon ascent or satellite metric to confirm identical atmospheres?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 29, 2009 10:45:37 GMT
Steve Over and over again people have asked you to show your equations and their support. You never respond with those equations. Why should anyone ever take you seriously. I get that you are a believer, but please show someone the science. Some of us went to engineering school or studied mathematics or physics. Some of us make our living in technical fields. Hand waving does not make it a reality. Talking about columns of atmosphere without the fluid flow calculations and the thermodynamic transfer functions does not help your arguments. Talking about gas forcings without solar forcing coupled into the above equations does not 'win' any arguments. I understand that the science part is a combination of equations coupled to observations. Correctness is not measured in DB. I have provided the evidence. Have you looked through Myrhe 1998 and followed up the references as I suggested? Here is documentation for one of the later versions of the radiation code used in some of the more high profile IPCC projections: www.met.rdg.ac.uk/~lem/large_models/esrad/
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 29, 2009 10:50:19 GMT
This is just one of three reasons for trusting the analysis. The "all things being equal" relates to average changes to the climate that may have additional effects. By measuring decades apart and by picking two similar atmosphere profiles (usually a profile with clear sky) you are measuring two atmosphere columns with different, known, amounts of CO2, and can confirm that the models used to calculate the radiation produce the correct results in both scenarios. That is additional confirmation that the radiation model is sufficiently accurate. And how much water vapor was in those 'clear sky columns'? I don't suppose that the metrics were normalized for it. This is rarely done - for example the reports on contrails over Reading (40 miles west of London) totally failed to normalize for water vapor; and the 'days after 9/11' report from NASA about how cold it was without aircraft - also failed to report that there was a huge dome of high pressure and very dry air over the entire Eastern seaboard and into the mid-west - unsurprising that it was cooler. The 911 example is daft, as noone seriously trusted the claimed link. The IPCC report looked quite hard at contrails purely on the basis of one report and they concluded that there wasn't much effect from contrails (didn't the report say it was warmer post 9/11? - I can't remember - I know I nearly got lost in fog in the Rockies).
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Apr 29, 2009 11:03:10 GMT
steve writes "I have provided the evidence. Have you looked through Myrhe 1998 and followed up the references as I suggested? "
I am sorry, steve, but you have not provided the evidence. Please realise, steve, I have no ready access to any scientific library. I read Myhre et al ad nauseum. What I am looking for is a direct reference to a report which discusses why radiative transfer models are suitable to estimate radiative forcing. I cannot prove that such a reference does not exist, but I have not found one. You merely give references to papers, which so far as I can see have nothing to do with what I am looking for. Could you provide a reference, and give a few words from the referfence, which shows that it really does address the problem I am having?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 29, 2009 11:56:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Apr 29, 2009 12:22:47 GMT
Footnote from that web page: " Note: this Website does not cover developments from the 1980s forward in radiation models (nor the technical details of the other components of general circulation models, increasingly numerous and sophisticated )."
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 29, 2009 13:21:13 GMT
steve writes "I have provided the evidence. Have you looked through Myrhe 1998 and followed up the references as I suggested? " I am sorry, steve, but you have not provided the evidence. Please realise, steve, I have no ready access to any scientific library. I read Myhre et al ad nauseum. What I am looking for is a direct reference to a report which discusses why radiative transfer models are suitable to estimate radiative forcing. I cannot prove that such a reference does not exist, but I have not found one. You merely give references to papers, which so far as I can see have nothing to do with what I am looking for. Could you provide a reference, and give a few words from the referfence, which shows that it really does address the problem I am having? Jim, I need to understand what aspects you are unhappy with. Could you accept that it is possible to predict the radiation emitted by a blob of gas of known constituents and known temperature? Could you accept that it is possible to reasonably accurately predict the amount of radiation of different wavelengths absorbed by a blob of gas of known constituents and known temperature? What do you understand by the term "radiative forcing"?
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Apr 29, 2009 13:40:44 GMT
steve writes "I have provided the evidence. Have you looked through Myrhe 1998 and followed up the references as I suggested? " I am sorry, steve, but you have not provided the evidence. Please realise, steve, I have no ready access to any scientific library. I read Myhre et al ad nauseum. What I am looking for is a direct reference to a report which discusses why radiative transfer models are suitable to estimate radiative forcing. I cannot prove that such a reference does not exist, but I have not found one. You merely give references to papers, which so far as I can see have nothing to do with what I am looking for. Could you provide a reference, and give a few words from the referfence, which shows that it really does address the problem I am having? Jim, I need to understand what aspects you are unhappy with. Could you accept that it is possible to predict the radiation emitted by a blob of gas of known constituents and known temperature? Could you accept that it is possible to reasonably accurately predict the amount of radiation of different wavelengths absorbed by a blob of gas of known constituents and known temperature? What do you understand by the term "radiative forcing"? Hi Steve. Jim has been unbelievably patient with you -- saintlike! For you to condescend further ("What do you understand by the term radiative forcing?" is not going to help you win anyone over to your side. You need to provide equations with attached sets of measured data from experiments that can be duplicated.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Apr 29, 2009 13:47:07 GMT
socold: your link is a gushing, over-the-top lionization of computer modelers that could have been written by Pravda. Nonetheless, it does include an important paragraph: "Clouds were always the worst problem. Obviously the extent of the planet's cloud cover might change along with temperature and humidity. And obviously even the simplest radiation balance calculation required a number that told how clouds reflect sunlight back into space. The albedo (amount of reflection) of a layer of stratus clouds had been measured at 0.78 back in 1919, and for decades this was the only available figure. Finally around 1950 a new study found that for clouds in general, an albedo of 0.5 was closer to the mark. When the new figure was plugged into calculations, the results differed sharply from all the preceding ones (in particular, the flux of heat carried from the equator to the poles turned out some 25% greater than earlier estimates).(13*) Worse, besides the albedo you needed to know the amount and distribution of cloudiness around the planet, and for a long time people had only rough guesses. In 1954, two scientists under an Air Force contract compiled ground observations of cloudiness in each belt of latitude. Their data were highly approximate and restricted to the Northern Hemisphere, but there was nothing better until satellite measurements came along in the 1980s.(14) And all that only described clouds as currently observed, not even considering how cloudiness might change if the atmosphere grew warmer." Your heroic modelers are nowhere near solving this, and they won't be anytime soon. Climate science is in its infancy. This appears to make some people very uncomfortable, perhaps owing to the associated lack of control over reality. For this, I suggest tai chi and meditation.
|
|