|
Post by dmapel on May 28, 2009 15:24:30 GMT
socold: "link doesn't work."
So you are not familiar with Dr Roy Spencer's work. Strange, since it pretty much drives a wooden stake through the heart of the AGW vampire.
|
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 248
|
Post by jtom on May 28, 2009 15:25:11 GMT
No, Steve. Everything you cited are observations, not experiments. Do you have any scientific training whatsoever?
Experiments must be well-defined, controlled, and able to be replicated by others.
Observations and measurements are required to track the results of experiments, but such activities absent the experiment are simply that, observations and measurements. They are still part of science - after all, astronomy is a science even though it is purely a observational. There are no experiments in astronomy (read that again, Steve).
The absolute proof of something to the point of being able to predict results comes solely from experiments. If you do the same experiment multiple times - you do x, y, z in a specific environment - and you get results r, then you have proved, and can predict, that if you do x,y,z in that same environment that you will see results r.
No matter how many times you observe and measure uncontrolled events, whether they be hurricanes or super novae, you can not assuredly predict how the next one will behave. You may have some success at putting boundary and confidence levels on your prediction, but it still is not a truly predictable result.
An excellent example of this is NASA's ever-changing sunspot prediction. They studied observations and measurements of solar activities taken over the past several hundred years, DEVELOPED A MODEL, and predicted what the activity of the sun would be in the immediate future. The models hind-cast superbly. Their forecast proved as wrong as it could possibly be. They originally forecasted the current cycle to be one of the most active cycles ever seen. Instead, we have had the most inactive sun in a century. This is the way it is with observational sciences.
By the way, once you prove something experimentally, you eliminate the corresponding assumption in the model, and show the relationship as a given fact. Why is there such a reluctance to do experiments?
|
|
wylie
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 129
|
Post by wylie on May 28, 2009 15:44:34 GMT
Steve, 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. Steve, Perhaps it would indeed help for me to spell out why I think relatively inexpensive actual experiments of the effect of increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere in somewhat restricted spaces (craters or valleys) would be helpful. 1) There is significant debate (at least here) on the relative contribution of the various parameters, e.g. clouds, convection, greenhouse gas concentration (e.g. water, CO2, etc.) on the local and global temperatures. 2) I would hope that a controlled experiment on the increase in CO2 or Methane in a crater (high altitude and low altitude) or valley and with/without the presence of water would help to provide a confirmation or refutation of at least some of the key model parameters and perhaps even the whole AGW hypothesis in the presence of elevated GHG levels 3) An experiment to increase those levels in a controlled manner would hopefully, especially where convection is less effective (high altitude), provide direct experimental evidence of the relative contribute of radiative transfer vs. convection at different ambient radiation levels (day/night and summer/winter and during cloudy conditions and during sunshine and at various greenhouse gas concentrations) 4) If the AGW hypothesis is real, I would expect that a doubling of CO2 to 800ppm (or Methane to 40ppm) in a high altitude crater at night would increase the local temperature or decrease the temperature loss as compared to no increase in GHG concentration. If the positive feedbacks from water vapor with CO2 are real, and if the AGW hypothesis is real, I would expect that performing the experiment in the presence of a lake or river would increase the temperature further. IF Kiwi is correct, then there should be NO increase in temperature in either case. I am NOT saying that this would solve ALL the questions about AGW!!!! (Far from it). I AM saying that there is a paucity of controlled experimental data outside the lab (observations from satellites notwithstanding) and experiments such as these should be an interesting test. I would be very interested in any other controlled atmospheric GHG experiments that have been performed or suggested in the past. THere is always more than one way to skin the cat. OF course, I don't have the money to do this myself, but I sure would be interested in helping to do this (Even modeling it!!). Hope this helps! IWYlie
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 28, 2009 15:48:38 GMT
socold: "link doesn't work." So you are not familiar with Dr Roy Spencer's work. Strange, since it pretty much drives a wooden stake through the heart of the AGW vampire. I am familiar with his potshot arguments which do no such thing. I thought a bare link to his blog was a reference to something recent rather than a general "socold go find some random argument Roy Spencer has made at some random point in the past".
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on May 28, 2009 16:32:48 GMT
socold: "I am familiar with his potshot arguments which do no such thing. I thought a bare link to his blog was a reference to something recent rather than a general "socold go find some random argument Roy Spencer has made at some random point in the past"." Catastrophic AGW is a house of cards that doesn't take much more than a couple of well placed potshots to knock down. That's why the hysterical proponents of the theory avoid debate. I will help you. Maybe this is what magellan was referring to: wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/19/new-paper-from-roy-spencer-pdo-and-clouds/
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 28, 2009 16:41:45 GMT
socold: "I am familiar with his potshot arguments which do no such thing. I thought a bare link to his blog was a reference to something recent rather than a general "socold go find some random argument Roy Spencer has made at some random point in the past"." Catastrophic AGW is a house of cards that doesn't take much more than a couple of well placed potshots to knock down. That's why the hysterical proponents of the theory avoid debate. I will help you. Maybe this is what magellan was referring to: wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/19/new-paper-from-roy-spencer-pdo-and-clouds/Dear oh dear. Just how has he managed to turn PDO - which has a flat trend over the 20th century, to produce a rising trend in temperature over the 20th century. It looks to me that he's started Earth out of balance at the start of the record. The warming therefore isn't due to the PDO at all but his front-loading of the model (or "excel spreadsheet")
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on May 28, 2009 17:19:17 GMT
socold: "Dear oh dear. Just how has he managed to turn PDO - which has a flat trend over the 20th century, to produce a rising trend in temperature over the 20th century. It looks to me that he's started Earth out of balance at the start of the record. The warming therefore isn't due to the PDO at all but his front-loading of the model (or "excel spreadsheet")"
You read fast. Or did you get the canned refutation from the realclimate team? Spencer's model works better than the IPCC models to explain 20th century temperatures, period.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 28, 2009 17:19:41 GMT
No, Steve. Everything you cited are observations, not experiments. Do you have any scientific training whatsoever? Yes. May I ask the same question of someone who says:
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 28, 2009 17:36:42 GMT
socold: "Dear oh dear. Just how has he managed to turn PDO - which has a flat trend over the 20th century, to produce a rising trend in temperature over the 20th century. It looks to me that he's started Earth out of balance at the start of the record. The warming therefore isn't due to the PDO at all but his front-loading of the model (or "excel spreadsheet")" You read fast. Or did you get the canned refutation from the realclimate team? Spencer's model works better than the IPCC models to explain 20th century temperatures, period. I only had to look at the graph where "PDO only" produces a rising trend. PDO is flat over the 20th century, that's always been my main problem with the PDO explaination. You can only get a match with global temperature if you have another cause, in which case it's that cause - not PDO afterall. I found the realclimate article you refer to: www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/Looks like they spotted some other problems - "The actual ocean mixed layer has a depth on the order of 50 meters. That's why we got such large amplitude and high frequency fluctuations in the previous graph. What value does Roy use for the mixed layer depth? One kilometer." Well I think the page says he uses 800m, but close enough. Realclimate also say he's "Jacked up the radiative forcing beyond all reason". Are either of these arguments correct? What is Roy Spencer's response to them?
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 28, 2009 17:39:54 GMT
Steve, 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. Steve, Perhaps it would indeed help for me to spell out why I think relatively inexpensive actual experiments of the effect of increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere in somewhat restricted spaces (craters or valleys) would be helpful. I can see what you are saying, but the problem is how to run a suitably representative experiment, and whether your predictions about what happen to the whole earth over a number of years can be applied to what happens to your experiment in a short period. Probably the crater experiment doesn't work. I would also say that the satellite obs paper I linked to is only testing the radiation component of a model in a limited circumstance (clear sky and stable atmosphere). Maybe there are other experiments that would work better. I recall some scientists did an experiment involving dumping iron oxide in the oceans to see whether they could influence carbon uptake for example. Following on though from the rather rude attack by jtom above, an experiment vs an observation of a phenomenon are really no different. The important thing is whether you can control the experiment and (equally) can observe the phenomenon, whether the experiment and/or phenomenon is realistic, and whether your predictions of what would happen when the experiment ran or phenomenon occurred is sufficiently well borne out.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 28, 2009 17:41:28 GMT
Roy Spencer's blog paper is based on a simple model, so it must be true ;D
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on May 28, 2009 17:48:41 GMT
socold,
Yeah, I know you found the realclimate article I referred to. Now why don't you read the Spencer article I provided a link to. If you have any questions, email Dr. Spencer. He is not hiding from debate.
"The IPCC has simply assumed that mechanisms of climate change like that addressed here do not exist. But that assumption is quite arbitrary and, as shown here, very likely wrong. My use of only PDO-forced variations in the Earth’s radiative energy budget to explain two-thirds of the global warming trend is no less biased than the IPCC’s use of carbon dioxide to explain global warming without accounting for natural climate variability. If any IPCC scientists would like to dispute that claim, please e-mail me at roy.spencer (at) nsstc.uah.edu. "
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on May 28, 2009 17:52:24 GMT
steve: "Roy Spencer's blog paper is based on a simple model, so it must be true."
It is as verifiable as any of the complex, but not complex enough, IPCC models.
How many science classes have you had?
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 28, 2009 17:55:41 GMT
socold, Yeah, I know you found the realclimate article I referred to. Now why don't you read the Spencer article I provided a link to. If you have any questions, email Dr. Spencer. He is not hiding from debate. Why are comments disabled on his blog? Can you answer the realclimate arguments?
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on May 28, 2009 18:15:58 GMT
socold: "Why are comments disabled on his blog?
Can you answer the realclimate arguments?"
I don't know why comments are disabled. Why don't you email Dr Spencer and ask him?
You mean arguments like this:
"Realclimate also say he's "Jacked up the radiative forcing beyond all reason".
How would anyone answer that BS.
Why don't you read Spencer's paper to see if you believe the realclimate arguments have any validity and get back to us on it.
|
|