|
Post by dmapel on May 28, 2009 4:21:27 GMT
socold: "This is the kind of real science that was done in yesteryear - like dumping 1000 tons of sea water onto a forest to get a better understanding about forests and the sea."
That one you could easily get funded and published today. Just describe it as research on: The Effects of Anthropogenic Global Warming Induced Rapid Catastrophic Sea Level Rise on Forests. Better yet, dump all that water in the canyons of Manhattan Island. That would probably cause some casualties, but we are trying to save the World.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 28, 2009 4:25:59 GMT
Well the new science is light on experimentation, heavy on rhetoric, cherry picking, manipulating data, etc.
They modeled processes they admittedly understand very little about. The model output started at what should have been the worst case scenario...and went to all the way up to such absurdly high temperatures it SHOULD have been thought a joke...
...then the other AGW proponents took those figures and said "What if the high figures aren't as high as it could get?" and doubled them for their propaganda. Now we've got AGW groups fudging the numbers by so much they have to change the sign or assuming such high sensitivities to CO2 that the changes between glacial and interglacial would actually stop the cycle entirely.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 28, 2009 4:27:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 28, 2009 6:15:16 GMT
I think I'll have a word with my local politician to see if I can get some government money allocated for a few climate experiments.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 28, 2009 8:05:05 GMT
FinoWino, you're right, evidence is piling on that the models are wrong. BUT, in keeping with my philosophy that we really don't know XXXX about all the interactions that determine the climate, the models being wrong does not mean that AGW isn't happening. My personal hypothesis is that any AGW is small, if any, but I could be as wrong as the models are. The one thing about such experiments as the one being discussed is that it can be done repeatedly. We might not know all the variables, but if we can be somewhat certain that the same conditions are maintained while CO2 is being changed, then we can have some degree of confidence that any changes we see are effects of CO2. If we can replicate the experiment several times and get essentially the same results, then we have learned something about CO2 and the climate. What it does mean is that CO2 is not so important as the AGW crowd would have you believe. If they were honest scientists, they would be working on new models that better matched reality. The problem is that can't be done with a model based on CO2 being the primary forcing agent (as the models to date have demonstrated.) They are the kind of people John Kenneth Galbraith spoke of (see sig line below.) They shouldn't deliberately fudge the physics to make co2 irrelevant as you seem to be suggesting they do. If the physics shows that doubling co2 produces significant warming then that's what the physics shows. The total lack of any alternative result produced by any climate model on the planet shows how robust this result is. It doesn't mean noone has tried to model the climate better, you have completely the wrong end of the stick.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 28, 2009 8:45:48 GMT
What it does mean is that CO2 is not so important as the AGW crowd would have you believe. If they were honest scientists, they would be working on new models that better matched reality. The problem is that can't be done with a model based on CO2 being the primary forcing agent (as the models to date have demonstrated.) They are the kind of people John Kenneth Galbraith spoke of (see sig line below.) They shouldn't deliberately fudge the physics to make co2 irrelevant as you seem to be suggesting they do. If the physics shows that doubling co2 produces significant warming then that's what the physics shows. The total lack of any alternative result produced by any climate model on the planet shows how robust this result is. It doesn't mean noone has tried to model the climate better, you have completely the wrong end of the stick. You don't have to fudge the physics to make CO2 look insignificant. The physics only suggests 1.5C from a doubling of CO2 (at most) and from the same physics...we should have already had half of it. An additional .75C of warming over a period of 100 years isn't going to cause horrible (or even significant) damage to the world.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 28, 2009 9:06:34 GMT
They shouldn't deliberately fudge the physics to make co2 irrelevant as you seem to be suggesting they do. If the physics shows that doubling co2 produces significant warming then that's what the physics shows. The total lack of any alternative result produced by any climate model on the planet shows how robust this result is. It doesn't mean noone has tried to model the climate better, you have completely the wrong end of the stick. You don't have to fudge the physics to make CO2 look insignificant. The physics only suggests 1.5C from a doubling of CO2 (at most) and from the same physics...we should have already had half of it. An additional .75C of warming over a period of 100 years isn't going to cause horrible (or even significant) damage to the world. The physics show a range of warming for a doubling of co2 - mostly higher than 1.5C, in fact the mean is about 3C
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 28, 2009 10:42:47 GMT
The physics show a range of warming for a doubling of co2 - mostly higher than 1.5C, in fact the mean is about 3C *phew* that's a relief...I'm glad to see we agree that those figures are obviously incorrect and that the feedbacks must be STRONGLY negative...because nobody in their right mind would claim those figures accurately reflected the real warming when they go against all observational data. So yeah... we're due MAYBE .75C more for a doubling. Glad we could clear that up.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 28, 2009 12:13:17 GMT
The physics show a range of warming for a doubling of co2 - mostly higher than 1.5C, in fact the mean is about 3C *phew* that's a relief...I'm glad to see we agree that those figures are obviously incorrect and that the feedbacks must be STRONGLY negative...because nobody in their right mind would claim those figures accurately reflected the real warming when they go against all observational data. So yeah... we're due MAYBE .75C more for a doubling. Glad we could clear that up. They don't go against all observational data. I have no idea where you are pulling the .75C figure from either.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 28, 2009 12:17:25 GMT
Steve, I believe that monitoring the atmosphere from space is a great thing but a restricted test of the Greenhouse Theory in an semi-enclosed space but still open for convection and water vapor effects should also be useful. Note that I mentioned repeatedly the use of craters with water present (and without). That should allow some verification (or refutation) of the water/evaporation feedbacks in a realistic setting (no modeling required - although desirable) that are supposed to be important to the existing theory. Experiments are almost always better than simulations (IMO). IWylie Wylie, Experiments *are* carried out, and form the bulk of the evidence. Day-to-day measurements of weather are part of the experiment. Observing outgoing longwave ten years apart was an experiment. Observing the relationship between humidity levels and temperatures are experiments; for example during the strong 1998 El Niño and after Pinatubo. Observing the details of hurricane formation is an experiment. Flying planes through clouds to measure amounts of water, ice etc. are experiments. Satellite measurements of above surface atmosphere temperatures are experiments. ARGO and XBT ocean measurements are experiments. You have described an experiment that has not been done. But you haven't stated up front what you think the experiment would show under the differing hypotheses and theories, and what it would prove. Is it really any different to measurements of the gases done in a lab? Does the crater scenario (however big and wide) really say anything useful about the scenario over the ocean, over the Amazon, with a lake, over the Tibetan plains, through the Himalayas...or does it just tell you something about craters? Please note, no mention of the "m" word in the above.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 28, 2009 13:02:38 GMT
What it does mean is that CO2 is not so important as the AGW crowd would have you believe. If they were honest scientists, they would be working on new models that better matched reality. The problem is that can't be done with a model based on CO2 being the primary forcing agent (as the models to date have demonstrated.) They are the kind of people John Kenneth Galbraith spoke of (see sig line below.) They shouldn't deliberately fudge the physics to make co2 irrelevant as you seem to be suggesting they do. If the physics shows that doubling co2 produces significant warming then that's what the physics shows. The total lack of any alternative result produced by any climate model on the planet shows how robust this result is. It doesn't mean noone has tried to model the climate better, you have completely the wrong end of the stick. What if assumptions are made about the behavior of any one of the parameters input into the climate models and they are incorrect? For instance, it is assumed in the climate models water vapor will result in a net positive feedback, but according to Roy Spencer, satellite data indicates a strong negative feedback as was published in his 2007 paper concerning the tropics. Ignoring the data doesn't change the facts. What makes you think because all 23 climate models used by IPCC are correctly modeled. Clouds could account for most if not all warming regardless of what the sun and anything else does. Also, what is negative feedback may appear to be a positive feedback. This is discussed in detail by Roy Spencer. His 2008 paper showed this to be the case and even the referees of that paper, Isaac Held and Piers Forster could not refute the findings. Please point out where Roy Spencer is wrong. Thanks. www.drroyspencer.com
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 28, 2009 13:09:54 GMT
Steve, I believe that monitoring the atmosphere from space is a great thing but a restricted test of the Greenhouse Theory in an semi-enclosed space but still open for convection and water vapor effects should also be useful. Note that I mentioned repeatedly the use of craters with water present (and without). That should allow some verification (or refutation) of the water/evaporation feedbacks in a realistic setting (no modeling required - although desirable) that are supposed to be important to the existing theory. Experiments are almost always better than simulations (IMO). IWylie Wylie, Experiments *are* carried out, and form the bulk of the evidence. Day-to-day measurements of weather are part of the experiment. Observing outgoing longwave ten years apart was an experiment. Observing the relationship between humidity levels and temperatures are experiments; for example during the strong 1998 El Niño and after Pinatubo. Observing the details of hurricane formation is an experiment. Flying planes through clouds to measure amounts of water, ice etc. are experiments. Satellite measurements of above surface atmosphere temperatures are experiments. ARGO and XBT ocean measurements are experiments. You have described an experiment that has not been done. But you haven't stated up front what you think the experiment would show under the differing hypotheses and theories, and what it would prove. Is it really any different to measurements of the gases done in a lab? Does the crater scenario (however big and wide) really say anything useful about the scenario over the ocean, over the Amazon, with a lake, over the Tibetan plains, through the Himalayas...or does it just tell you something about craters? Please note, no mention of the "m" word in the above. Experiments *are* carried out, and form the bulk of the evidence.And daily the evidence is refuting the CO2 AGW fairytale. BTW, please list the experiments if you would
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 28, 2009 13:42:37 GMT
They shouldn't deliberately fudge the physics to make co2 irrelevant as you seem to be suggesting they do. If the physics shows that doubling co2 produces significant warming then that's what the physics shows. The total lack of any alternative result produced by any climate model on the planet shows how robust this result is. It doesn't mean noone has tried to model the climate better, you have completely the wrong end of the stick. What if assumptions are made about the behavior of any one of the parameters input into the climate models and they are incorrect? For instance, it is assumed in the climate models water vapor will result in a net positive feedback, but according to Roy Spencer, satellite data indicates a strong negative feedback as was published in his 2007 paper concerning the tropics. Ignoring the data doesn't change the facts. "it is assumed in the climate models water vapor will result in a net positive feedback" makes it sound like you could just assume the opposite. But no, it is not an assumption. The positive feedback is the outcome of human understanding of how the atmosphere works. The positive feedback is an emergant behavior of humidity, lapse rate, etc. Can anyone show, with reference to underlying physics of the atmosphere, that negative feedback exists? So far no.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on May 28, 2009 14:19:33 GMT
socold: "Can anyone show, with reference to underlying physics of the atmosphere, that negative feedback exists?"
clouds
Magellan asked you to point out where Roy Spencer is wrong. Did you miss that?
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 28, 2009 14:24:12 GMT
socold: "Can anyone show, with reference to underlying physics of the atmosphere, that negative feedback exists?" clouds[/QUOT] with reference to underlying physicsAnd of course I didn't mean anyone here, but anyone in general. If the physics could support net negative feedback in climate there would be such models in existance. link doesn't work.
|
|