Remember me
▼ Content

The Data Mine



Page 6 of 6<<<456
01-11-2015 00:45
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Ceist wrote:No. It wasn't inconsistent and it wasn't "attacking another paper". It did not say that "the IR spectrum which CO2 was effective in could easily reach saturation"

Perhaps it's your comprehension and understanding that is inconsistent?

Already answered your other question. Moving on. You still haven't answered several of mine.

Saturation fallacies

The path to the present understanding of the effect of carbon
dioxide on climate was not without its missteps. Notably, in
1900 Knut Ångström (son of Anders Ångström, whose name
graces a unit of length widely used among spectroscopists)
argued in opposition to his fellow Swedish scientist Svante
Arrhenius that increasing CO2 could not affect Earth's climate. Ångström claimed that IR absorption by CO2 was saturated in the sense that, for those wavelengths CO2 could absorb at all, the CO2 already present in Earth's atmosphere was absorbing essentially all of the IR. With regard to Earthlike atmospheres,
Ångström was doubly wrong. First, modern spectroscopy
shows that CO2 is nowhere near being saturated. Ångström's
laboratory experiments were simply too inaccurate to show the
additional absorption in the wings of the 667-cm
−1 CO2 feature that follows upon increasing CO2 . But even if CO2 were saturated in Ångström's sense—as indeed it is on Venus—his argument
would nonetheless be fallacious. The Venusian atmosphere as a
whole may be saturated with regard to IR absorption, but the
radiation only escapes from the thin upper portions of the
atmosphere that are not saturated. Hot as Venus is, it would
become still hotter if one added CO to its atmosphere.
A related saturation fallacy, also popularized by Ångström, is
that CO could have no influence on radiation balance because
water vapor already absorbs all the IR that CO would absorb.
Earth's very moist, near-surface tropical atmosphere is nearly
saturated in that sense, but the flaw in Ångström's argument is
that radiation in the portion of the spectrum affected by CO escapes to space from the cold, dry upper portions of the
atmosphere, not from the warm, moist lower portions. Also, as
displayed in the inset to figure 2, the individual water-vapor
and CO2 spectral lines interleave but do not totally overlap. That
structure limits the competition between CO and water vapor.


My bold.

The paper you linked to;

https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

is an attack on the origonal paper by Angstrom.

I have looked at it. I have tried to discuss the science of that paper with you. You have reacted to that as though I have called your messiah a pig. Grow up. This is a science focused area of debate. Politeness is not required. Understanding and honesty are.


My bad, I had assumed when you first said "the paper you linked to rubbished another paper' that you were referring to a modern research paper, not Angstrom's conclusions written in 1900 which have long been proven to be false. This is basic textbook stuff. Anyone who has done even cursory study in atmospheric physics and chemistry would already know why Angstrom was wrong, much like first year chemistry students would know why Johann Becher was wrong about 'phlogistons' in the 17th century.

Pierrehumbert's article in Physics Today, is not a research 'paper'. It's nothing new. It's just an article summarising what you would find in any first year textbook on the topic.

You're only pretending to 'discuss science' or 'understand science'. You have shown you don't even have a clue about the basic foundational science that any first year student would understand, so make some very basic mistakes. It's when you then pompously claim that you have found an 'obvious flaw' in basic textbook science and don't even know that it's textbook science, then tell other people to 'grow up' and that 'honesty and understanding are important', that it becomes incredibly funny.




Edited on 01-11-2015 01:05
01-11-2015 01:37
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Ceist - I'm not sure I followed everything just right, but if he is an admirer of Angstrom, in an endeavor to help Tim update his knowledge base, perhaps we should introduce him to the Ptolemaic system. I would be very curious to see how he applies it to modern day scientific discourse.

Thoughts?


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 01-11-2015 01:40
01-11-2015 06:56
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
My thoughts are that this Data Mine thread is a "Kiddie Pool" for people who know less than a 5th grader about even basic science but want to pretend they are 'discussing science'.

The 'rulz' of the thread are to play with carefully cherry-picked kilobytes of 'numbers' from a couple of selected individual surface stations (preferably ones from cold places) and paste them into an Excel spreadsheet on their PCs to 'prove' mainstream science, the laws of physics, the overwhelming consilience of evidence from a broad range of fields, and all the world's scientists (who MUST be 'fudging data' because the 'kiddies' just don't like what scientists are saying), are wrong.

Considering global climate models use Petabytes of data, I'd say the 'kiddies' could have fun playing with 'numbers' for hundreds of thousands of years to come on their home PCs pretending they are modern day Galileos

At least it keeps them off the street corners with their sandwich boards proclaiming "Global warming is a hoax! It's a marxist, fascist, atheist, libtard, commie plot to take over the world!" and harassing people walking past them.



Edited on 01-11-2015 06:59
01-11-2015 08:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5247)
Ceist wrote:
My thoughts are that this Data Mine thread is a "Kiddie Pool" for people who know less than a 5th grader about even basic science but want to pretend they are 'discussing science'.

Personal opinion. Nothing wrong so far, though I don't agree with it.
Ceist wrote:
The 'rulz' of the thread are to play with carefully cherry-picked kilobytes of 'numbers' from a couple of selected individual surface stations (preferably ones from cold places) and paste them into an Excel spreadsheet on their PCs to 'prove' mainstream science, the laws of physics, the overwhelming consilience of evidence from a broad range of fields, and all the world's scientists (who MUST be 'fudging data' because the 'kiddies' just don't like what scientists are saying), are wrong.

Nothing is cherry picked. I have given the url to examine any station you wish. Enjoy yourself.
You might also note that a lot of data that conformed to the rules has been presented other than the individual station data. The Mauna Loa data, for example, has been presented in a form that completely follows the rules set up for the data mine.

Modeled data is no data. It is manufactured numbers with no meaning.

Fudged data is no data. It has been modified by some algorithm (often unknown or secret) and presented as raw data. This is deceptive data. For all practical purposes, it is random numbers in both cases.

The data itself doesn't prove anything (other than it's own existence). If you wish to present data in the Data Mine, just follow the rules. It's not that hard.

Ceist wrote:
Considering global climate models use Petabytes of data, I'd say the 'kiddies' could have fun playing with 'numbers' for hundreds of thousands of years to come on their home PCs pretending they are modern day Galileos

Are you seriously stating that numbers manufactured by a computer program overrides raw data observations?
Ceist wrote:
At least it keeps them off the street corners with their sandwich boards proclaiming "Global warming is a hoax! It's a marxist, fascist, atheist, libtard, commie plot to take over the world!" and harassing people walking past them.

Some people make such conclusions about global warming, but the data presented by the rules does not.
01-11-2015 09:53
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
I'll leave you to play with 'numbers' from individual stations in your own little 'infants pool' thread where you can pretend to be 'discussing data' and 'reel sciencey stuff'


I'll refer to it as the The Rabbit Hole, where crackpot conspiracy theorists who believe all the scientists are 'fudging data' and lay people who have no clue about science can dive down a hole and pretend the real world doesn't exist. It's a special place where no science and no evidence is required, and where one can believe '6 impossible things before breakfast' while mathturbating with 'numbers' - because they don't really even know what the 'numbers' mean or what to do with them.



Edited on 01-11-2015 09:59
01-11-2015 11:14
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1115)
Ceist wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Ceist wrote:No. It wasn't inconsistent and it wasn't "attacking another paper". It did not say that "the IR spectrum which CO2 was effective in could easily reach saturation"

Perhaps it's your comprehension and understanding that is inconsistent?

Already answered your other question. Moving on. You still haven't answered several of mine.

Saturation fallacies

The path to the present understanding of the effect of carbon
dioxide on climate was not without its missteps. Notably, in
1900 Knut Ångström (son of Anders Ångström, whose name
graces a unit of length widely used among spectroscopists)
argued in opposition to his fellow Swedish scientist Svante
Arrhenius that increasing CO2 could not affect Earth's climate. Ångström claimed that IR absorption by CO2 was saturated in the sense that, for those wavelengths CO2 could absorb at all, the CO2 already present in Earth's atmosphere was absorbing essentially all of the IR. With regard to Earthlike atmospheres,
Ångström was doubly wrong. First, modern spectroscopy
shows that CO2 is nowhere near being saturated. Ångström's
laboratory experiments were simply too inaccurate to show the
additional absorption in the wings of the 667-cm
−1 CO2 feature that follows upon increasing CO2 . But even if CO2 were saturated in Ångström's sense—as indeed it is on Venus—his argument
would nonetheless be fallacious. The Venusian atmosphere as a
whole may be saturated with regard to IR absorption, but the
radiation only escapes from the thin upper portions of the
atmosphere that are not saturated. Hot as Venus is, it would
become still hotter if one added CO to its atmosphere.
A related saturation fallacy, also popularized by Ångström, is
that CO could have no influence on radiation balance because
water vapor already absorbs all the IR that CO would absorb.
Earth's very moist, near-surface tropical atmosphere is nearly
saturated in that sense, but the flaw in Ångström's argument is
that radiation in the portion of the spectrum affected by CO escapes to space from the cold, dry upper portions of the
atmosphere, not from the warm, moist lower portions. Also, as
displayed in the inset to figure 2, the individual water-vapor
and CO2 spectral lines interleave but do not totally overlap. That
structure limits the competition between CO and water vapor.


My bold.

The paper you linked to;

https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

is an attack on the origonal paper by Angstrom.

I have looked at it. I have tried to discuss the science of that paper with you. You have reacted to that as though I have called your messiah a pig. Grow up. This is a science focused area of debate. Politeness is not required. Understanding and honesty are.


My bad, I had assumed when you first said "the paper you linked to rubbished another paper' that you were referring to a modern research paper, not Angstrom's conclusions written in 1900 which have long been proven to be false. This is basic textbook stuff. Anyone who has done even cursory study in atmospheric physics and chemistry would already know why Angstrom was wrong, much like first year chemistry students would know why Johann Becher was wrong about 'phlogistons' in the 17th century.

Pierrehumbert's article in Physics Today, is not a research 'paper'. It's nothing new. It's just an article summarising what you would find in any first year textbook on the topic.

You're only pretending to 'discuss science' or 'understand science'. You have shown you don't even have a clue about the basic foundational science that any first year student would understand, so make some very basic mistakes. It's when you then pompously claim that you have found an 'obvious flaw' in basic textbook science and don't even know that it's textbook science, then tell other people to 'grow up' and that 'honesty and understanding are important', that it becomes incredibly funny.


So, back once again to the origional point;

Do you have any science which says that the IPCC has underestimated the effect of CO2 as a cause of heating on the world's climate?

Given that you sy that the very basic stuff is contained in your article I presume that the IPCC has taken this into account. Or is the article different science to the IPCC's????
01-11-2015 11:51
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Ceist wrote:No. It wasn't inconsistent and it wasn't "attacking another paper". It did not say that "the IR spectrum which CO2 was effective in could easily reach saturation"

Perhaps it's your comprehension and understanding that is inconsistent?

Already answered your other question. Moving on. You still haven't answered several of mine.

Saturation fallacies

The path to the present understanding of the effect of carbon
dioxide on climate was not without its missteps. Notably, in
1900 Knut Ångström (son of Anders Ångström, whose name
graces a unit of length widely used among spectroscopists)
argued in opposition to his fellow Swedish scientist Svante
Arrhenius that increasing CO2 could not affect Earth's climate. Ångström claimed that IR absorption by CO2 was saturated in the sense that, for those wavelengths CO2 could absorb at all, the CO2 already present in Earth's atmosphere was absorbing essentially all of the IR. With regard to Earthlike atmospheres,
Ångström was doubly wrong. First, modern spectroscopy
shows that CO2 is nowhere near being saturated. Ångström's
laboratory experiments were simply too inaccurate to show the
additional absorption in the wings of the 667-cm
−1 CO2 feature that follows upon increasing CO2 . But even if CO2 were saturated in Ångström's sense—as indeed it is on Venus—his argument
would nonetheless be fallacious. The Venusian atmosphere as a
whole may be saturated with regard to IR absorption, but the
radiation only escapes from the thin upper portions of the
atmosphere that are not saturated. Hot as Venus is, it would
become still hotter if one added CO to its atmosphere.
A related saturation fallacy, also popularized by Ångström, is
that CO could have no influence on radiation balance because
water vapor already absorbs all the IR that CO would absorb.
Earth's very moist, near-surface tropical atmosphere is nearly
saturated in that sense, but the flaw in Ångström's argument is
that radiation in the portion of the spectrum affected by CO escapes to space from the cold, dry upper portions of the
atmosphere, not from the warm, moist lower portions. Also, as
displayed in the inset to figure 2, the individual water-vapor
and CO2 spectral lines interleave but do not totally overlap. That
structure limits the competition between CO and water vapor.


My bold.

The paper you linked to;

https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

is an attack on the origonal paper by Angstrom.

I have looked at it. I have tried to discuss the science of that paper with you. You have reacted to that as though I have called your messiah a pig. Grow up. This is a science focused area of debate. Politeness is not required. Understanding and honesty are.


My bad, I had assumed when you first said "the paper you linked to rubbished another paper' that you were referring to a modern research paper, not Angstrom's conclusions written in 1900 which have long been proven to be false. This is basic textbook stuff. Anyone who has done even cursory study in atmospheric physics and chemistry would already know why Angstrom was wrong, much like first year chemistry students would know why Johann Becher was wrong about 'phlogistons' in the 17th century.

Pierrehumbert's article in Physics Today, is not a research 'paper'. It's nothing new. It's just an article summarising what you would find in any first year textbook on the topic.

You're only pretending to 'discuss science' or 'understand science'. You have shown you don't even have a clue about the basic foundational science that any first year student would understand, so make some very basic mistakes. It's when you then pompously claim that you have found an 'obvious flaw' in basic textbook science and don't even know that it's textbook science, then tell other people to 'grow up' and that 'honesty and understanding are important', that it becomes incredibly funny.


So, back once again to the origional point;

Do you have any science which says that the IPCC has underestimated the effect of CO2 as a cause of heating on the world's climate?

Given that you sy that the very basic stuff is contained in your article I presume that the IPCC has taken this into account. Or is the article different science to the IPCC's????

Tim, go read a first year science textbook on the subject if you want to 'discuss' climate science or specifically atmospheric physics in any sort of informed intelligent way. There are plenty of textbooks available from reputable academic publishers, including a very comprehensive one by the author of that article, Professor Raymond Pierrehumbert, published by Cambridge University Press. Try it, you just might learn something instead of having to pretend.



Edited on 01-11-2015 11:57
01-11-2015 21:42
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1115)
Ceist wrote:
Tim, go read a first year science textbook on the subject if you want to 'discuss' climate science or specifically atmospheric physics in any sort of informed intelligent way. There are plenty of textbooks available from reputable academic publishers, including a very comprehensive one by the author of that article, Professor Raymond Pierrehumbert, published by Cambridge University Press. Try it, you just might learn something instead of having to pretend.


The reason we got into this is because I asked if you had any science which supported the notion that the IPCC had underestimated the scale of the problem of climate change.

You came back with the paper above.

I looked at it and found it wrong.

You have said that this is standard science (Well, now you have after you finally went and read some of it, maybe.). If it's standard stuff thenm the IPCC will have taken it into account.

If it is new and not standard then I can challenge it as I see fit.

Which is it? New or actually already in the IPCC's reports?
01-11-2015 22:04
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Tim, go read a first year science textbook on the subject if you want to 'discuss' climate science or specifically atmospheric physics in any sort of informed intelligent way. There are plenty of textbooks available from reputable academic publishers, including a very comprehensive one by the author of that article, Professor Raymond Pierrehumbert, published by Cambridge University Press. Try it, you just might learn something instead of having to pretend.


The reason we got into this is because I asked if you had any science which supported the notion that the IPCC had underestimated the scale of the problem of climate change.

You came back with the paper above.

I looked at it and found it wrong.

You have said that this is standard science (Well, now you have after you finally went and read some of it, maybe.). If it's standard stuff thenm the IPCC will have taken it into account.

If it is new and not standard then I can challenge it as I see fit.

Which is it? New or actually already in the IPCC's reports?

What did you find wrong about it?
01-11-2015 22:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5247)
Ceist wrote:
I'll leave you to play with 'numbers' from individual stations in your own little 'infants pool' thread where you can pretend to be 'discussing data' and 'reel sciencey stuff'


I'll refer to it as the The Rabbit Hole, where crackpot conspiracy theorists who believe all the scientists are 'fudging data' and lay people who have no clue about science can dive down a hole and pretend the real world doesn't exist. It's a special place where no science and no evidence is required, and where one can believe '6 impossible things before breakfast' while mathturbating with 'numbers' - because they don't really even know what the 'numbers' mean or what to do with them.


Admittedly there have been quite a few posts (most of them) that don't seem to want to present data at all or has presented data not in accordance with the spirit of the rules I proposed at the beginning. It is not the way I envisioned the Data Mine. I had hoped people would talk about the data itself. Apparently that is not going to be the case.

As far as what the numbers mean, that is the reason for rule 3. Following this rule shows what the numbers mean and how they came to be.

I do not believe all scientists are fudging data. Most are out there collecting real data. That is why I set up rules 1b and 7, specifically to stop fudged data.

You do not have to have a clue about science to present data according to the rules set up. It helps, though.

I think you might be falling down a different Rabbit Hole.
Edited on 01-11-2015 22:41
01-11-2015 22:41
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Ceist wrote:Tim, go read a first year science textbook on the subject if you want to 'discuss' climate science or specifically atmospheric physics in any sort of informed intelligent way.

What "first-year" science textbook for an accredited program have you read (and understand) that covers the models that define "climate," "greenhouse effect," "greenhouse gas," or any kind of "forcing"?

Consequently, if you aren't aware of any, how can you expect others to have somehow read one?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-11-2015 22:54
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote:Tim, go read a first year science textbook on the subject if you want to 'discuss' climate science or specifically atmospheric physics in any sort of informed intelligent way.

What "first-year" science textbook for an accredited program have you read (and understand) that covers the models that define "climate," "greenhouse effect," "greenhouse gas," or any kind of "forcing"?

Consequently, if you aren't aware of any, how can you expect others to have somehow read one?

Assuming that Ceist is referring to books suitable for the first year of a university degree, there are loads of textbooks covering the greenhouse effect. Here's one example:

Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry
01-11-2015 23:05
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote:
Assuming that Ceist is referring to books suitable for the first year of a university degree, there are loads of textbooks covering the greenhouse effect. Here's one example:

Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry

Excellent for the first part. Now for the crucial second part: What accredited chemistry program uses that textbook?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-11-2015 23:54
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Assuming that Ceist is referring to books suitable for the first year of a university degree, there are loads of textbooks covering the greenhouse effect. Here's one example:

Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry

Excellent for the first part. Now for the crucial second part: What accredited chemistry program uses that textbook?

The foreword of the book says:

"This book contains the lectures and problems from the 1-semester course Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry which I have taught at Harvard since 1992. The course is aimed at undergraduates majoring in the natural sciences or engineering and having had one or two years of college math, chemistry, and physics."

A quick Google shows that it's a recommended text on loads of courses at universities around the world including, obviously, the author's course at Harvard.
01-11-2015 23:57
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Ceist - the Cherry-Picking Data Mine!

Ohhhhh. I like it!


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
05-11-2015 21:04
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1115)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Tim, go read a first year science textbook on the subject if you want to 'discuss' climate science or specifically atmospheric physics in any sort of informed intelligent way. There are plenty of textbooks available from reputable academic publishers, including a very comprehensive one by the author of that article, Professor Raymond Pierrehumbert, published by Cambridge University Press. Try it, you just might learn something instead of having to pretend.


The reason we got into this is because I asked if you had any science which supported the notion that the IPCC had underestimated the scale of the problem of climate change.

You came back with the paper above.

I looked at it and found it wrong.

You have said that this is standard science (Well, now you have after you finally went and read some of it, maybe.). If it's standard stuff thenm the IPCC will have taken it into account.

If it is new and not standard then I can challenge it as I see fit.

Which is it? New or actually already in the IPCC's reports?

What did you find wrong about it?


The paper's basic argument was that earth's atmosphere could behave as Venus's does.

They avoided any mention of the vast difference between the two and the fact that the atmosphere of Venus has huge amounts of sulfuric acid and metals in it, amongst other nasties.

They also failed to discuss the fact that if their idea that CO2 can stop an unlimited amout of IR leaving the earth why did it not do so when there has been loads of the stuff in the air in previous periods?

The actual information in the paper seemed to support these issues. I did not get that far into it as any discussion here about it was treated like I had pissed on somebody's grandmother by the warmists here.

I would appreciate a decent discussion about it.
05-11-2015 22:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5247)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Tim, go read a first year science textbook on the subject if you want to 'discuss' climate science or specifically atmospheric physics in any sort of informed intelligent way. There are plenty of textbooks available from reputable academic publishers, including a very comprehensive one by the author of that article, Professor Raymond Pierrehumbert, published by Cambridge University Press. Try it, you just might learn something instead of having to pretend.


The reason we got into this is because I asked if you had any science which supported the notion that the IPCC had underestimated the scale of the problem of climate change.

You came back with the paper above.

I looked at it and found it wrong.

You have said that this is standard science (Well, now you have after you finally went and read some of it, maybe.). If it's standard stuff thenm the IPCC will have taken it into account.

If it is new and not standard then I can challenge it as I see fit.

Which is it? New or actually already in the IPCC's reports?

What did you find wrong about it?


The paper's basic argument was that earth's atmosphere could behave as Venus's does.

They avoided any mention of the vast difference between the two and the fact that the atmosphere of Venus has huge amounts of sulfuric acid and metals in it, amongst other nasties.

They also failed to discuss the fact that if their idea that CO2 can stop an unlimited amout of IR leaving the earth why did it not do so when there has been loads of the stuff in the air in previous periods?

The actual information in the paper seemed to support these issues. I did not get that far into it as any discussion here about it was treated like I had pissed on somebody's grandmother by the warmists here.

I would appreciate a decent discussion about it.

In the case of Venus, that atmosphere has almost no hydrogen in it at all. So if Venus was once like Earth, and the oceans boiled away, where is all that hydrogen? There is some locked up in the sulfuric acid, but not enough.
Secondly, The Venusian atmosphere is almost all CO2. The surface pressure is 90 times the surface pressure on Earth. If sufficient hydrogen were available, you would have all the conditions needed to synthesize hydrocarbons. This should leave the surface black and shiny, but it isn't. You also have to ask where all that CO2 came from. The high pressure can certainly explain the high temperatures of Venus.

I don't think Venus changed from anything due to runaway anything. It has always been like this since it was formed.
Edited on 05-11-2015 22:07
06-11-2015 15:52
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1115)
Into,

Yes I cannot see the justification to directly compare Venus with earth adn find that CO2 could ever stop all the IR from escaping.

That was one of my problems with the paper. It's a bit lost now though....
06-11-2015 16:06
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tim the plumber wrote:
The paper's basic argument was that earth's atmosphere could behave as Venus's does.

They avoided any mention of the vast difference between the two and the fact that the atmosphere of Venus has huge amounts of sulfuric acid and metals in it, amongst other nasties.

They also failed to discuss the fact that if their idea that CO2 can stop an unlimited amout of IR leaving the earth why did it not do so when there has been loads of the stuff in the air in previous periods?

The actual information in the paper seemed to support these issues. I did not get that far into it as any discussion here about it was treated like I had pissed on somebody's grandmother by the warmists here.

I would appreciate a decent discussion about it.


I don't know what 'paper' you are referring to Tim, but the article in Physics Today about atmospheric heat transfer that I linked to did not say anything like what you are saying. Nothing about "CO2 can stop an unlimited amount of IR leaving the earth". How does that even make any sense? It also discussed the differences between Venus and Earth and why earth wouldn't become like Venus.

So I can only assume you are referring to something else. Can you provide a link please?



Edited on 06-11-2015 17:02
06-11-2015 16:11
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into,

Yes I cannot see the justification to directly compare Venus with earth adn find that CO2 could ever stop all the IR from escaping.

That was one of my problems with the paper. It's a bit lost now though....

What 'paper' are you referring to Tim?

The Physics Today article I linked to didn't say anything like "CO2 could stop all the IR from escaping". That wouldn't even make sense. It also described the differences between Venus and Earth. It was just a concise summary mainly about atmospheric radiative heat transfer and what you would find in current textbooks, not some new research paper.

So can you provide a link to this other 'paper' that says what you are saying? Thanks.

If the 'paper' you are referring to IS the Physics Today article I linked to, then you have misrepresented it and have created your own straw man, probably because you didn't understand what he was saying.

"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand"- Bertrand Russell



Edited on 06-11-2015 17:10
06-11-2015 16:13
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Tim the plumber wrote: Into,

Yes I cannot see the justification to directly compare Venus with earth adn find that CO2 could ever stop all the IR from escaping. That was one of my problems with the paper. It's a bit lost now though....


Did you find anything in the article that explains how CO2 can stop any IR from escaping?

Have you ever seen any such explanation anywhere?



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-11-2015 18:03
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1115)
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote: Into,

Yes I cannot see the justification to directly compare Venus with earth adn find that CO2 could ever stop all the IR from escaping. That was one of my problems with the paper. It's a bit lost now though....


Did you find anything in the article that explains how CO2 can stop any IR from escaping?

Have you ever seen any such explanation anywhere?


Yes.

The same way that clouds cause visable light to be reflected back down to the surface.

You maintain the position that all materials react with all EM radiation in the same way. This is wrong. Think about how sun screen works. It stops UV but allows all other wavelengths through.

Since the wavelengths of light given off by the earth are different to those coming from the sun there is the possibility that the sun's energy can get to the surface more easily than the IR emitted by the surface of the earth.

Although I have seen a decent argument that this hypothesis is not at all required to explain the temperature difference between the surface of the moon and that of the earth at sea level.
06-11-2015 19:11
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Tim the plumber wrote: You maintain the position that all materials react with all EM radiation in the same way.

You are incorrect. I have never asserted this.

I am on record as asserting on multiple occasions that different substances have different electromagnetic absorption signatures.

Are you, perhaps, confusing me with someone else?

The question I posed to you was whether you have any reason to believe that CO2 (specifically) can stop any IR from escaping into space. (not clouds, not any other gas)

If so, do you think Global Warming will falsify Planck's law and require it to be discarded? (that's the one that says the planet's radiation is based solely on temperature and not on any substance's ability to prevent/restrict/modify/block/trap/hinder/reduce thermal radiation)

Tim the plumber wrote: Since the wavelengths of light given off by the earth are different to those coming from the sun there is the possibility that the sun's energy can get to the surface more easily than the IR emitted by the surface of the earth.


A. Do you acknowledge that some solar EM is reflected/deflected away, never being absorbed by the earth, making it impossible for that solar EM to be absorbed by the earth?

B. Do you acknowledge that all terrestrial IR (except for a negligible non-zero amount) has only one possible (short-term) final destination, i.e. space?

Your statement doesn't quite hold up.

Tim the plumber wrote: Although I have seen a decent argument that this hypothesis is not at all required to explain the temperature difference between the surface of the moon and that of the earth at sea level. [/color]

The surface of the moon and the surface of the earth form an apples-and-oranges comparison. However an apples-to-apples comparison can be made by noticing that both the moon and the earth are identical at the top of their respective atmospheres (with the lunar surface essentially being the top of the lunar atmosphere). Obviously the bottom of two vastly different quantities of atmosphere for a given solar distance are going to have noticeably different temperatures patterns.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-05-2017 13:27
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Into the Night wrote:The Data Mine prefers plain vanilla. No extra fudge.

Sadly, no valid datasets supporting Global Warming were ever entered into the Data Mine.

I think this is quite the monument to the Global Warming deathbed.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-05-2017 22:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5247)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:The Data Mine prefers plain vanilla. No extra fudge.

Sadly, no valid datasets supporting Global Warming were ever entered into the Data Mine.

I think this is quite the monument to the Global Warming deathbed.


.


None of the data these guys quote meet the requirements of the Data Mine.

It goes to show the usefulness of the rules established here and the amount of manufactured data that is still quoted today.


The Parrot Killer
24-05-2017 20:35
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:The Data Mine prefers plain vanilla. No extra fudge.

Sadly, no valid datasets supporting Global Warming were ever entered into the Data Mine.

I think this is quite the monument to the Global Warming deathbed.


.


None of the data these guys quote meet the requirements of the Data Mine.

It goes to show the usefulness of the rules established here and the amount of manufactured data that is still quoted today.


Agreed. It is *SO* much easier to just accept conclusions we are told to believe than to expend all the effort required to question. Similarly, it is much easier to just fabricate numbers on the spot and to pretend that is reality than it is to suffer the effort and expense of, gasp, valid research.

The phrase "The (unnamed, uncounted) Scientists said so!" is so convenient. There should be one in every home.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-05-2017 20:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5247)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:The Data Mine prefers plain vanilla. No extra fudge.

Sadly, no valid datasets supporting Global Warming were ever entered into the Data Mine.

I think this is quite the monument to the Global Warming deathbed.


.


None of the data these guys quote meet the requirements of the Data Mine.

It goes to show the usefulness of the rules established here and the amount of manufactured data that is still quoted today.


Agreed. It is *SO* much easier to just accept conclusions we are told to believe than to expend all the effort required to question. Similarly, it is much easier to just fabricate numbers on the spot and to pretend that is reality than it is to suffer the effort and expense of, gasp, valid research.

The phrase "The (unnamed, uncounted) Scientists said so!" is so convenient. There should be one in every home.
.


Mine is right next to the description of the Gods of the Church of Global Warming. They're at my hangar, not my home.


The Parrot Killer
14-04-2018 17:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5247)
We keep coming back to the 'data'. Everyone has their own source. Seems like everyone and his brother are trying to make Global Warming data easier to understand with pretty graphs.

It is time to remember the Data Mine and it's purpose.
04-05-2018 22:56
Wake
★★★★★
(3353)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:The Data Mine prefers plain vanilla. No extra fudge.

Sadly, no valid datasets supporting Global Warming were ever entered into the Data Mine.

I think this is quite the monument to the Global Warming deathbed.


.


None of the data these guys quote meet the requirements of the Data Mine.

It goes to show the usefulness of the rules established here and the amount of manufactured data that is still quoted today.


Agreed. It is *SO* much easier to just accept conclusions we are told to believe than to expend all the effort required to question. Similarly, it is much easier to just fabricate numbers on the spot and to pretend that is reality than it is to suffer the effort and expense of, gasp, valid research.

The phrase "The (unnamed, uncounted) Scientists said so!" is so convenient. There should be one in every home.


.



Or as Mark Twain stated: "people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."
Page 6 of 6<<<456





Join the debate The Data Mine:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Headed For A New Ice Age? Latest Data Says Yes!1505-05-2018 01:44
Ideas of Mine3611-02-2018 20:41
TEMPERATURE DATA released for 20171127-01-2018 22:56
Climate Data 800,000 years18818-11-2017 09:11
Possible the IPCC corrupted data ?4207-10-2017 00:09
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact