Remember me
▼ Content

The failure of climate change theory



Page 2 of 4<1234>
08-04-2015 11:11
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Do you mean the area under the curve within the box as a whole, or a running integration with time? I have a degree in engineering. I understand calculus.

Why do you think your 100 year averages are most meaningful? As I pointed out, the temperature curve has significant features much smaller than that. Obviously some are from noise: large volcanoes, PDO, ENSO, etc. But the temperature curve fluctuations do not match; that data do not indicate a correlation with TSI or sunspots.
08-04-2015 16:40
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
Yes I mean the area under the sunspot curve as an integral across the 100 year time frame vs the same integral across the 100 year time frame of temperature. Since you have a degree in engineering, as I do, you could perform that calculation yourself as I have.

Q*t=T. Irradiance is the Q, time is the t, Temperature is what's changing. It's very simple physics and quite intuitive. For instance, if I turn the thermostat up in my house for 5 minutes and check the change in the inside temperature in the house I see no real change. I could set the thermostat to 100 degrees but still see no change. I could say based on that information that there is no correlation between thermostat setting and inside temperature. If I do the same exercise over say one hour, then I do see a correlation.

If you take the linear regression formula in the 100 year chart above and plug in the 100 year moving average sunspot count for that year you will get the 100 year moving average CET value with very minor exceptions and it holds true in all time ranges within the record.
08-04-2015 16:57
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
Please, I welcome any input on my analysis. Here's the excel file if you have excel or a spreadsheet program that can run excel.
Attached file:
svt-2.xlsx
08-04-2015 23:28
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
I'm wondering why you didn't use an 11-year cycle on TSI and sunspot and what the significance of a hundred year cycle has on temperature. Where did you get the idea to use 100 years?
08-04-2015 23:56
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
On my other thread I explained how I came upon the idea. I design bridges and buildings and other infrastructure in the Arctic among other things. All of those require foundations in permafrost. One of the aspects of permafrost that is particularly problematic is creep behavior...basically the same phenomenon that allows glaciers to flow downhill over time. Pile foundations slowly creep into the ground under load. Creep rates are amplified by an increase in temperature, so knowing the future temperature to design for is very important.

I was examining the longest temperature record we have in the Arctic near a bridge site and was trying to formulate some design criteria for ice and permafrost temperature using Barrow, Alaska's temperature data set. The record extends from 1949 to present. I was calculating Freezing Index values for each year and there you can clearly see a trend downward for FI values (warming). I fit a linear regression to it but noticed it was more of a curve, like part of a sin curve, so on a hunch I checked what period of sin wave would produce that curve and it came out to about 80-90 years. With that I searched for solar cycles in that range and found the Gleisberg Cycle. So long story short, just from that data, I ruled out any link to the 11 year and 22 year cycles that are often examined and focused more on the long term ones.

If you've had a chance to look at the correlations it makes sense, I really see the sunspot number (solar irradiance) as the thermostat setting for the Earth. That setting in and of itself isn't enough to drive the temperatures up or down. Only when it is high or low for an extended period do we see the global temperature changes. The oceans are an enormous heat sink that requires a long term sustained increase or decrease in thermal input to change things.

I'm not claiming to be the only one who's stumbled onto this, there are others that I've seen that hint at correlations, but they are always mentioned in passing and never substantiated with charts or hard data. I got frustrated with that fact and pulled the data together myself so I could do my own analysis. I'm not generally a conspiracy theorist, but you have to admit, there is a lot of money at stake if Carbon turns out to be a red herring. I'm more concerned that we'll do something stupid and irreversible to combat the wrong problem and be in dire straights when the cycle reverses.

I'm 100% in favor of alternative energy but I want science to remain scientific and above all skeptical always.
09-04-2015 00:11
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
...also it was a bit of trial and error. Originally I looked at 80 years for the above mentioned reason, but after examining the data, it looks to me like the strongest correlation is at 100 years. It drops off above or below that point.
09-04-2015 10:46
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Did you make the calculation to see if the change in irradiance was sufficient to have caused the warming?

And, what OF the CO2? Surely you're not rejecting the greenhouse effect?
09-04-2015 17:04
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
You're right in pointing out that the direct energy increase from the sun is insufficient in and of itself to produce the full warming effect. This is true in the current cycle as it has been for several periods in the past. With increases in the 10 year moving average temperature of 0.06C/year from 1725-1737, 0.0636 C/year from 1774-1782, 0.0625 C/year from 1816-1828, 0.0621 C/year from 1896 to 1904. Compare those with the current 0.0496 C/year from 1987 to 2008 and you can see that the rate of change is consistent with past time frames. The length of time this changes has extended (21 years) is unprecedented in the record, but then so is the SSN moving average as I've explained earlier.

I think there are additional contributors that amplify the effect, and yes, I do believe in the Greenhouse Effect. Any person living in a sub-arctic environment knows that cloudy days in winter are warmer than clear ones for that reason. I suspect there is some effect due to manmade carbon inputs, but carbon is a very weak greenhouse gas. I think the bigger contributors are increased water vapor at higher temperatures, potentially methane releases as sea temperatures rise, and there is an inverse relationship between C14 and sunspot count. So when the sun's output is high, C14 count is low. Does that result in more C to make CO2? I'm not sure...Could the CO2 increase be partially a result of warming and not entirely the cause of it? Unfortunately, I have a day job and can't explore all these things. I guess my bigger point is, the warming rate we see now is consistent with rates seen in the past and the direct increase in solar output alone was not able to explain the full rise either then or now. Some other contributor was acting at that time, as it probably is now.
09-04-2015 22:22
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Isotopic analysis of the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere shows that nearly every molecule beyond the 280 ppm present at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution originated in the combustion of fossil fuels.

Water vapor cannot be responsible for the warming we've experienced. Water vapor levels in the atmosphere are controlled almost entirely by temperature. And the liftetime of water in the atmosphere is no more than a few days. Water vapor is responsible for a large portion of the warming the Earth experiences above its black body temperature, but it is not responsible for the increased warming of the 20th century.
09-04-2015 22:42
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
Here's a little math to explain how I think it might be happening:

Lets say the average solar irradiance value is 1365 w/m2 and given the size and scale of the recent solar activity (on average) that value goes up to 1367 w/m2. That is 0.15% increase in energy input to the system. That increase will cause a corresponding increase in temperature of 0.15% globally more or less. That, in the case of CET would be 1.0015*282.4K (9.25C)=282.8K (9.66C). Water vapor in the atmosphere increases as temperature increases. A 1C change in temperature equates to roughly 2 w/m2 increase in water vapor contribution to the temperature balance, so lets say a 0.41C increase results in 0.82 w/m2 for argument sake. So the total between solar increase and increased water vapor would be 1367+0.82=1367.82 w/m2.

1367.82/1365=0.21% increase in energy.
1.0021*282.4K=283K (9.84C)

Now we've added 0.183C due to increased water vapor which in turn increases energy retained at the surface:

0.183 * 2w/m2/C=0.366 w/m2.

The new energy value is now: 1367.82+0.366=1368.186 w/m2
And the new CET equivalent temperature is 1368.186/1365*282.4=283.06K (9.91C)

That's 0.66 degrees higher than average which is more than we are currently witnessing.

It's a bit of a feedback loop as the water vapor increase causes temperature increases which cause higher water vapor retention and so on.

Water vapor content in the atmosphere is short term in that, if I reduce the temperature it quickly dissipates, but if the baseline temperature is raised for extended periods (i.e. 100 years) then the baseline equilibrium atmospheric water vapor level also increases.

I'm curious to put this to the test with actual data.
25-04-2015 20:49
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
So, what do you believe you've done here that none of the world's atmospheric physicists thought of doing?
30-04-2015 14:22
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Hi seaninak

I'm afraid that your calculation does not account for the increase in outgoing IR radiation that would result from an increase in global temperature, which would act to partially counteract any warming.

If you ignore GHGs entirely, and use the equation (1-alpha) S/4 = sigmaT^4 to calculate global surface temperature, where alpha is the Earth's albedo, S is the incoming solar radiation, sigma is the Stephan-Boltzmann constant and T is the absolute temperature of the surface, then an increase in incoming solar radiation of 2 W m^-2 would only result in a 0.09 degree increase in temperature, not a 0.41 degree increase in temperature.

Also, the effects of atmospheric water vapour on the energy balance are complicated, since additional atmospheric water vapour means more clouds, which exert a negative radiative forcing (with large uncertainty), since clouds increase the albedo of the Earth. So although water vapour is a GHG, I think that your calculation is over-simplified.
02-05-2015 02:01
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
I have a question for you:

As the Earth's temperature increases, outgoing LW should increase.

As the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere increase (prior to reaching equilibrium) outgoing LW should decrease.

In the short term, which wins? What is the net effect?
Edited on 02-05-2015 02:05
06-05-2015 10:40
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Hi Abraham3

I think you are correct about both effects, however, they re-inforce each other, rather than compete with each other. Attached is a figure from Chapter 1 of the WG1 IPCC 2013 report, which should help to explain this.

You are correct that as the planet warms, there will be more long-wave radiation emitted from the surface. You are also correct that GHGs in the atmosphere absorb some of this outgoing long-wave radiation.

When long-wave radiation is absorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere, it is then re-emitted, both upwards to space, and downwards to the planet's surface. The result of this is that more long-wave radiation is emitted by the warmer planet, and more long-wave radiation is absorbed by GHGs and then re-emitted both to the surface and to space, thus causing the planet to warm, and therefore more long-wave radiation to be emitted from the surface, and so on... this is called a positive feedback (since a perturbation to the system results in an effect that acts to exacerbate/amplify the original perturbation).

So the net effect is that the planet will warm, and less long-wave radiation will be emitted into space.

I hope this has answered your question, but please bug me again about it if I haven't explained something clearly.
Attached file:
ipcc_radiation_balance.pdf
07-05-2015 00:17
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Isn't the final state you describe - with reduced LW emission - a state prior to equilibrium? Equilibrium will be at a higher temperature and, per Mr Boltzmann, one which radiates more energy at all frequencies? I look on the addition of GHGs to the atmosphere as a process which increases the capacity of the atmosphere to hold thermal energy in a buffer. Once that buffer is full, however, emission, one would think, would be proportional to temperature. Of course the increase of the heat content of the atmosphere alters the planet's emissivity. It would have to because at equilbrium, emission must simply equal solar irradiance.

I have been arguing on another message board, that increased outgoing LW is not an indication that the planet has increased its rate of cooling but that it's temperature has simply increased. Now I have yet to see any data showing increase LW going out, but we never let a lack of evidence stop us from claims of perfect knowledge ;-).

Any comments? What utterly basic concept have I missed?
07-05-2015 10:27
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Hi Abraham3
Yes, you are correct that I was describing a state prior to equilibrium.
This is a pretty complicated issue, and once that is slightly out of my field of expertise, but I can comment on a few things.
Firstly, CO2, CH4, and other GHGs reduce the outgoing longwave radiation at only specific frequencies, so while it is true that a warmer planet will emit more longwave radiation, this will not occur at all frequencies. This has been measured by numerous satellites now, and provides strong evidence that it is the increase in GHGs in the atmosphere that is causing an increase in global temperature, and not, for example, an increase in incoming solar radiation (which has also been measured by satellites since the 1970s), or water vapour (because water vapour absorbs long-wave radiation at different frequencies to CO2, etc.).
Secondly, there is some evidence to indicate that there has been a slight downwards trend in outgoing longwave radiation since the 1970s, but this trend might be slightly biased by El Nino conditions at the beginning of the record, and La Nina conditions in more recent times. Outgoing long-wave radiation has a large seasonal cycle and some interannual variability, which makes it harder to detect a significant long-term trend in the data.
I think you are correct that eventually, a balance will be reached, since as far as I am aware, there are no predictions that suggest the planet will continue to warm indefinitely. The attached paper predicts that the increase in global temperature will be partially balanced by an increase in outgoing long-wave radiation, and that the additional heat will be taken up by the oceans (see figure 2).
Another complication, is that an increase in global temperature is likely to increase the moisture content of the atmosphere, which would probably result in more clouds and would thus likely increase the amount of reflected incoming solar radiation, which will affect the global energy budget...
So, I'm not certain, but I would say that a net increase in outgoing long-wave radiation would not necessarily prove that the planet was cooling, as you state yourself. It is difficult to say what it would prove, without taking into account all the other factors in the energy budget. I would say that as long as there is reduced outgoing long-wave radiation in the frequency bands for the main greenhouse gases, then this indicates that humans are altering the Earth's energy balance.
Attached file:
huber_and_knutti_2011.pdf
07-05-2015 10:51
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Very good. Much obliged. And I'm much obliged for your choice of occupation as well.
11-08-2015 03:39
darkwulfe
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
Ahhhh, so predictable.This argument always follows the same pattern, when an idividual such as abraham reaches the limits of their intelligence or knowledge they will become rude and dismissive of a competing view , in this case seaninaks, saying "you think other scientists havent already considered that".That is the main problem with climate change believers, or as we call them in the real world.....IDIOTS!!!!.There is a simple reason why I would more readily agree with seaninak and thats because he seems to have some real world experience.I will always take the opinion of a practical person over an "educated" one, and if you are both even better .Ive built everything , and had many arguments, which I have always won, with engineers over the years.I continually have to remind you guys that you work on paper, and the world isnt made out of paper.The other glaring problem with climate scientists, and I use the term scientists very very loosely, is that you have a habit of mak7ng stuff up all the time.Deleting ice on maps, telling everyone thete are less polar bears when in reality the population has been growing quite quickly, not to mention you had to change the name of your CULT from global warming to climate change because it isnt in fact getying any warmer.Heres a tip , get off your high horse, stop costing the world a fortune by trying to control the temperature and weather of tge world and goand do something constructive with your life.
11-08-2015 08:45
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
darkwulfe - you certainly are a humble one aren't you.

And you seem to have it all sussed out. You clearly have a very thorough understanding of how academia works.

Would love to stay and chat, but unfortunately we are having a departmental meeting this morning to discuss how we can make our random number generator appear more realistic, and whether we can get away with saying that climate change is going to cause all buildings to melt by 2018, and that humans will all have to live in trees from 2019 onwards. I think we should be able to publish in Nature!
13-09-2015 21:47
tommy100010
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
Hi Seaninak,

... and other people involved in the climate change debate. I am a lapsed physical chemist who has long supported the IPCC view of climate change. However, lately there are several pieces of work that have come to my attention that would move my opinion away from the anthropogenic model and toward your solar forcing explanation.

The first is the work of Dr. Nir Shaviv in the physics department at the Hebrew university in Tel Aviv... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPB3v86epTw

Dr. Shaviv's evidence is as follows:

1) using C14/C18 ratio as a proxy for solar activity and using the O18/O16 ratio as a proxy for ocean temperature, that ocean temperature (climate), and solar activity are strongly correlated over geological time.

2) Using rate of change of sea level rise as a calorimeter (over short time periods sea level is changed almost solely by temp.) he has demonstrated that there is a strong correlation between solar activity and climate. These results indicate that the sun has a large effect on the climate... one many times greater than is to be expected from the 0.2 w/m^2 increase in irradiation. He quantifies the net solar input at ~1.5 w/m^2.

3) Dr Shaviv explains this amplification by a change in low level cloud cover which is demonstrable over the solar cycle. All this material has been peer reviewed and published. Using this data and these mechanisms, Dr. shaviv has achieved a far better fit to observed climate change than can be achieved by ignoring the positive feedback effects of low cloud cover.

4) Shaviv claims there is no empirical evidence that climate has a high sensitivity to CO2... and he goes on to try to determine the upper bound of that sensitivity. It is his claim that temperature change over geological time has lead atmospheric co2... as even a lapsed chemist gas solubility equilibrium diagrams still linger in my cns. This data has been challenged... so there are 2 sides to interpretation of raw results. The lag is general but not 100%... but then this is a complex system.

5) Dr. Shaviv claims the behavior cloud cover is the major unknown element. He claims that 20th century climate behaviors is not unique and does not need antho co2 to explain the observations. A reconstruction of global climate over the pasts 5x10^7 years from o18/o16 ratio... and CO2 levels in atmosphere do not show a good correlation... from this he places the upper bound on the co2 sensitivity at the level of the lower bound given by the Ipcc.

6) Shiviv claims... that the sun's solar wind modulates the flux of high energy particles which are the source of ions in the atmosphere such that when the sun is more active we get fewer cosmic rays and less ionization which in turn give fewer cloud condensation nuclei. So the clouds are less white when you get a strong solar wind reflecting less sunlight and increasing the temperature. This mechanism give a large positive feedback on solar effects.

I think this material generally supports Seaninak's observations. I was once a research worker and there is a momentum among scientists. It is dangerous to be an outlyer. I will try to supply some other papers to support this model... I now tend not to believe the Ipcc model but I am willing to be won back over by the ipcc side.

Cheers

tom
RE: Global Warming is still a Cult25-09-2015 23:15
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
kuts muth wrote:Climate Change; A religious cult.

There still is no Global Warming science. It's all just a WACKY fanatical religion that appeals to the scientifically illiterate.

None of the disputing warmazombies and climate lemmings have presented any science to show that their faith is somehow not a religion.

All we can do now is to go pray to "Climate."
02-11-2015 21:07
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
I think this material generally supports Seaninak's observations. I was once a research worker and there is a momentum among scientists. It is dangerous to be an outlyer. I will try to supply some other papers to support this model... I now tend not to believe the Ipcc model but I am willing to be won back over by the ipcc side.


Hi Tom

In a way, there is a lot of momentum in academia, you are correct, but I don't think that people are being swept along so to say. Climate science is not a new field anymore, and so people are having to find ways of doing new science. Naturally, some people are looking into whether it is possible that climate change is not currently being caused by humans.

The thing that you have to remember, is that if climate change today was not being caused by humans, or even if we were a bit unsure, there would be an overwhelming amount of peer reviewed literature about it. Take the temperature hiatus for example: there is a lot of conflicting literature around at the moment about what is causing it, and if it is even happening or not. This is not the case with climate change as a whole.

The lack of presence in the peer reviewed literature is because the arguments do not add up. Numerous independent studies have found that changes in solar radiation over the past century or so can not account for the warming that we are seeing today. Dr Shaviv is absolutely correct in saying that over geological time, global temperature and solar radiation have often been linked, but this is not what is happening now.

There are various measurements that tell us this. For example, we now have satellite data that measure the outgoing IR radiation from Earth. These measurements show that outgoing IR has been decreasing specifically in the wavelengths of the main GHGs, such as CO2 and CH4. Another piece of evidence is that we are currently experiencing a cooling of the stratosphere (we have measurements to confirm this too), and it is only possible to explain this cooling from increases in GHGs, not from changes in incoming solar radiation.

We know that there have been periods in Earth's history where atmospheric GHG concentrations have caused global climate change. Like at the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum for example. So Dr Shaviv's statements about CO2/CH4 always lagging temperature, and the climate not being sensitive to GHG concentrations in the atmosphere are not true.

I suppose it is entirely possible that Dr Shaviv might be partly correct, and that somehow, the climate science community has hugely overestimated the warming caused by CO2. But I think this is very unlikely. Only time will tell.

I would encourage you to try the IPCC again (have you read their 2013 report?), and to read the cited papers if there is something that you do not agree with (assuming that you can get access to non-open access papers?).

It is good to be sceptical, but I don't think you should base your entire view of climate science on a single scientist. If Dr Shaviv' science is robust, then it will stand up to the rigor of other scientists and scientific views and it will gain a lot of momentum. Given that he has been arguing his case for well over ten years now, and there is not much momentum, suggests to me that his theory is actually not that rigorous, because people are not taking that much notice.
02-11-2015 21:51
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
climate scientist wrote:The thing that you have to remember, is that if climate change today was not being caused by humans, or even if we were a bit unsure, there would be an overwhelming amount of peer reviewed literature about it.

Completely false.

A true statement would be "If the ideology of non-human causes of 'climate' change were being heavily funded by government grants, i.e. to purchase predetermined results from people willing to sell their own credibility for a buck, then there would be a 49'er-esque gold rush to perform an overwhelming amount of 'peer reviewed but pre-approved' literature about it.

climate scientist wrote: Take the temperature hiatus for example: there is a lot of conflicting literature around at the moment about what is causing it, and if it is even happening or not.

Of course. Christians still fuss over whether "Rapture" is to be taken literally. There is quite a lot of conflicting documentation on it. [/quote]


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
RE: Global Warming03-11-2015 05:02
tommy100010
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
Climate Scientist... I have come to realize that increased atmospheric Co2 is both a cause and an effect of global warming (positive feedback) and now agree with the ipcc view.

cheers

tom
03-11-2015 09:05
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
IBdaMann - You are welcome to visit our department anytime to see how we supposedly pre-approve the papers we submit, and you can also visit our lab to see how we apparently pre-determine our results in order to make extra money. Your ignorance about academia really is quite astounding!
03-11-2015 12:46
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
climate scientist wrote:
IBdaMann - You are welcome to visit our department anytime to see how we supposedly pre-approve the papers we submit, and you can also visit our lab to see how we apparently pre-determine our results in order to make extra money. Your ignorance about academia really is quite astounding!


Thank you for the offer.

What percentage of your papers/reports/studies presuppose Global Warming simply isn't anything real, and states up front that "climate" is not defined anywhere in the body of science?


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
03-11-2015 12:48
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Nir Shaviv and Henrik Svensmark, have been trying to get some traction with their cosmic rays hypothesis for some years. It's an interesting hypothesis, but the problem is, they seem to just ignore any literature that contradicts (or even falsifies) their hypothesis.

Here is one of science journalist Peter Sinclair's amusing Climate Denial Crock of the Week videos that shows what paleoclimatologist Professor Richard Alley has to say about the cosmic ray hypothesis. Prof Alley starts about 6 minutes in.

The first part of the video is a hoot - where an Australian journalist catches out the producer of the "The Great Global Warming Swindle" in one of the films blatant lies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAx6j625iy4



Edited on 03-11-2015 12:51
03-11-2015 12:54
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
What percentage of your papers/reports/studies presuppose Global Warming simply isn't anything real, and states up front that "climate" is not defined anywhere in the body of science?


Climate is a word. It has a definition. The fact that you deny it means nothing. You might as well say that "temperature" is not defined anywhere in the body of science. All this shows is that you are wrong.
03-11-2015 13:06
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
climate scientist wrote:
IBdaMann - You are welcome to visit our department anytime to see how we supposedly pre-approve the papers we submit, and you can also visit our lab to see how we apparently pre-determine our results in order to make extra money. Your ignorance about academia really is quite astounding!

Do you have room for the 2 burly men in white who carry his straightjacket and tranquiliser medication? He may become violently psychotic and start screaming belligerently at scientists who challenge his delusions about science. For your own sake do NOT mention trigger words like 'evidence' or 'climate' or 'greenhouse gases'.




Edited on 03-11-2015 13:07
03-11-2015 13:29
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Do you have room for the 2 burly men in white who carry his straightjacket and tranquiliser medication? He may become violently psychotic and start screaming belligerently at scientists who challenge his delusions about science. For your own sake do NOT mention trigger words like 'evidence' or 'climate' or 'greenhouse gases'.


No, unfortunately, our lab is filled with random number generators at the moment that are working at full capacity, so there won't be room for IBdaMann and his caretakers!
03-11-2015 13:47
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Climate Scientist, you missed the crux question. Probably just an oversight. I'll repost it here for you:

What percentage of your papers/reports/studies presuppose Global Warming simply isn't anything real, and states up front that "climate" is not defined anywhere in the body of science?



...anyway, as you were saying...

climate scientist wrote: Climate is a word. It has a definition.

Yes. I hope you didn't just learn this. As I have been saying for roughly ever, "climate" is a word in the English language with many meanings. To me, the word "climate" means the temperature in my car, which I adjust with my "climate control" setting. To most people is means the weather at the moment. Within the Global Warming religion, "climate" is a spiritual term that carries a deeply personal meaning for each worshiper, i.e. each member of the congregation has his/her own personal definition.

In fact, the only place where the word "climate" has no meaning is in science, where nothing subjective or unfalsifiable is permitted.

climate scientist wrote: You might as well say that "temperature" is not defined anywhere in the body of science.


This is where you just don't seem to get it. Yes, temperature is formally defined in various science models, such as absolute temperature, thermodynamics, Stefan-Boltzmann and others. "Temperature" is a valid scientific term. I can tell two people, working completely independently to measure the temperature of something and they will both know what to do.

If I tell two people, working independently, to go measure the "climate" of something, neither would know what to do. They would each have to rely on his/her own respective personal definition of "climate." That's why no two reports/studies/papers on "climate" are talking about the exact same thing.

Wait! Do you consider the dictionary to be a science 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
03-11-2015 14:22
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
tommy100010 wrote:
Climate Scientist... I have come to realize that increased atmospheric Co2 is both a cause and an effect of global warming (positive feedback) and now agree with the ipcc view.

tom


Is your belief based on some science that you have reviewed and understand, or is your belief based on WACKY religious faith?


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
03-11-2015 14:34
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
If I tell two people, working independently, to go measure the "climate" of something, neither would know what to do. They would each have to rely on his/her own respective personal definition of "climate." That's why no two reports/studies/papers on "climate" are talking about the exact same thing


Not true. Climate is well defined in science. It doesn't matter if one person uses a 25 year mean to calculate changes in climate, and another person uses a 30 year mean, so long as it is clear which average they have used. The data can easily be re-analysed using a different time period, in order to see if the averaging time period biases the results. In fact, this is done often in climate studies. And climatologists carry out studies and measurements using methodologies that have been established over decades, and are proven to be robust. So yes, if you asked two random people, they might not know what to do. But if you asked two climate scientists, they would know exactly what to do.

What percentage of your papers/reports/studies presuppose Global Warming simply isn't anything real, and states up front that "climate" is not defined anywhere in the body of science?


Your question doesn't make really sense, which is why I didn't answer it, but I will try to do so.

None of my papers/reports/studies assume that Global Warming is real or not, because none of my papers state a position on global warming, because they are all on topics that are far more specific than that, such as whether using a particular curve fitting algorithm can bias seasonal cycle characteristics of GHG time series. And none of my papers/reports/studies define climate, because I do not write about/study climate. I study the carbon cycle. My papers are on very specific aspects of the carbon cycle. I think this is something that non-academics do not get. Very few scientists study or write about whether global warming is happening or not. Most scientists study extremely specific aspects of climate in a lot of detail. When you combine all of these studies in to one big picture, you get an understanding of the state of the climate.
03-11-2015 16:38
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
climate scientist wrote:
Not true. Climate is well defined in science.

I just gave you an example of how it is not.

I'll tell you what, I'll ask someone to measure the global climate tomorrow at noon (zulu). You do likewise. Let me know what results you get and I'll compare the two.

climate scientist wrote: It doesn't matter if one person uses a 25 year mean to calculate changes in climate, and another person uses a 30 year mean, so long as it is clear which average they have used.

It certainly does matter if something is defined, i.e. you have to meet the definition. If you have people just making stuff up willy-nilly, with definitions varying from one person to the next, then no one's results are of any value...hence "climate."

climate scientist wrote: The data can easily be re-analysed using a different time period, in order to see if the averaging time period biases the results. In fact, this is done often in climate studies.


I'm glad you went down this road. You have reemphasized the complete unfalsifiability of "climate" in the same way that Christians render their idea of "God" completely unfalsifiable. Christians say that "God" is "real and active in our lives" while at the same time "He exists outside of time and logic."

You'll claim that "climate" is some tangible reality (that you won't define) that can "get warmer" and that can "change" in ways that can be measured. You also claim that "climate" is a completely notional concept, one of averages, statistics and trends (i.e. not a physical, tangible thing). If someone were to point out that your tangible "climate" violates the laws of physics, you'd quip "You don't understand what 'climate' is" and you retreat into a "notional" meaning of "climate." If asked how statistics/trends/averages can absorb solar EM and get warmer, you'll quip "You don't understand what 'climate' is and change semantics to one of a tangible, measurable "climate system."

So what is "climate" today? Is it a physical/tangible thing or not?

climate scientist wrote: And climatologists carry out studies and measurements using methodologies that have been established over decades, and are proven to be robust.

There is no such thing as a "climatologist" that has anything to do with science. Religious organizations carry out studies. Religions have robust traditional rituals that have lasted for centuries.

climate scientist wrote: But if you asked two climate scientists, they would know exactly what to do.


Great. Measure tomorrow's global "climate" at noon zulu and I'll get a self-proclaimed "climate scientist" to do likewise and we'll compare the results.

I hope you aren't going to take a deep dive into unfalsifiability and try to explain why such verifiability simply can't be accomplished.

climate scientist wrote: None of my papers/reports/studies assume that Global Warming is real or not, because none of my papers state a position on global warming, because they are all on topics that are far more specific than that, such as whether using a particular curve fitting algorithm can bias seasonal cycle characteristics of GHG time series.


So you must have a rigid, definition of a greenhouse gas, yes?

So you must have a falsifiable model of the "greenhouse effect" yes?

You must therefore be able to show how the defining characteristics of a "greenhouse gas" cause the "greenhouse effect" yes?

Would you mind showing that? Please post the science that underlies the GHG assumptions underlying all your reports/studies/papers. That's all I have ever asked.

Yes, you write on specific subjects with underlying assumptions. If your assumptions weren't there guiding your results, you wouldn't arrive at those conclusions and you wouldn't get your funding.

You operate on the Intelligent Design methodology of proving what you have already assumed. You presume the "greenhouse effect" being caused by "greenhouse gases" and you use that assumption to conclude a "greenhouse effect" being caused by "greenhouse gases."


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
03-11-2015 18:31
tommy100010
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
IBdaMann wrote:
tommy100010 wrote:
Climate Scientist... I have come to realize that increased atmospheric Co2 is both a cause and an effect of global warming (positive feedback) and now agree with the ipcc view.

tom


Is your belief based on some science that you have reviewed and understand, or is your belief based on WACKY religious faith?


Please.... I'm a physical chemist and have considered the evidence carefully.... I would really love for our species not to be in trouble

tom
03-11-2015 18:50
tommy100010
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
When people behave like IBdaMann, making little sense and insulting everyone in ear shot, it is generally because they have an ulterior motive... Clean coal like the tobacco industry of yore, pays people to do just this thing. Their job is to suppress debate and sow doubt where there really is none.

tom
03-11-2015 19:26
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
I'll tell you what, I'll ask someone to measure the global climate tomorrow at noon (zulu). You do likewise. Let me know what results you get and I'll compare the two.


See this is you problem. You cannot measure climate at a specific time or day. Climate is a long-term average (typically over 25 years, but anything longer than a decade can be used). You can measure the weather tomorrow at noon if you wish, but this will not tell you anything about the climate. You would need to measure the weather every day at noon for at least 10 years in order to be able to say anything valuable about the state of the climate at that location. Even then, you are probably aliasing your dataset by only measuring at the same time of day (several studies have shown that night time temperatures are changing differently to day time temperatures for example). So it would be best to measure the weather every 3 hours for at least 10 years (but 25 years or more is preferable).

Would you mind showing that? Please post the science that underlies the GHG assumptions underlying all your reports/studies/papers. That's all I have ever asked.


It's all here: http://ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

I have provided this information before and you have rejected it without even reading it.

Yes, you write on specific subjects with underlying assumptions. If your assumptions weren't there guiding your results, you wouldn't arrive at those conclusions and you wouldn't get your funding.


The only assumptions I make are based on physical principles. I have actually not written a paper where the results were based on climate change assumptions. The results that I publish are all directly from measurements that I make. I am not required to come to any specific conclusions in order to secure future funding. My current funding is coming to an end soon, and I will be working on a slightly different topic from the Spring onwards. The results that I have published to date have had no bearing whatsoever on this new funding.

When people behave like IBdaMann, making little sense and insulting everyone in ear shot, it is generally because they have an ulterior motive... Clean coal like the tobacco industry of yore, pays people to do just this thing. Their job is to suppress debate and sow doubt where there really is none.


Hi tom - yes, sadly I think this is the case with IBdaMann. He is closed-minded to the point where he won't even consider that there could be such as thing as the greenhouse effect, and he won't listen to anyone who says otherwise. The thing is that IBdaMann is so unconvincing, that I'm not sure anyone would pay him to sow doubt here. I think he is just addicted to arguing for the sake of it.
03-11-2015 19:41
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin


IBdaMann, if I valued money above all else, then I would not be a climate scientist, I would find a better paid job!
03-11-2015 19:57
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
climate scientist wrote:IBdaMann, if I valued money above all else, then I would not be a climate scientist, I would find a better paid job!

You seem to value your religion so much that you would rather lie to yourself just to get that "Global Warming high" than to take the red pill and join the harsh reality of science.


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
03-11-2015 20:10
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
You seem to value your religion so much that you would rather lie to yourself just to get that "Global Warming high" than to take the red pill and join the harsh reality of science.


Nope, I am interested in learning more about the planet, and I am motivated by doing something worthwhile with my time, not something that is driven by sales targets. My knowledge of climate change is based on facts and evidence, and (to keep you happy) falsifiable models.

If I am not sure about the facts and evidence relating to various aspects of climate science, then I say so. I have done so several times on this forum. For example, I think that there is a lot of uncertainty about the impacts of climate change on hurricane and storm occurrences. Therefore, although in theory, it makes sense that climate change might increase hurricane and storm activity, I think there is not enough evidence yet to conclusively say that this will be the case.

Likewise, I find it very interesting that there has been a hiatus in the global surface temperature record recently. I do not think that this feature will be permanent (i.e. I think the rate of warming will pick up again, since we are still adding a copious amount of CO2 to the atmosphere every year) but I am very curious to know what the causes of the temperature hiatus are. There are various theories at the moment, and it is likely something to do with a change in ocean heat content uptake, but I think there is still more work to be done before we can fully understand the mechanisms.
Page 2 of 4<1234>





Join the debate The failure of climate change theory:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Whirlpool theory of ocean deadzones?019-09-2018 07:09
Fact or Theory?226-05-2018 10:14
Theory coming to fruition?531-03-2018 20:58
Support for the AGW Theory - or Not ...8412-09-2017 17:57
New theory about climate change514-03-2017 18:36
Articles
Theory
▲ 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