Remember me
▼ Content

Is "Climate Change" Complex?



Page 1 of 212>
Is "Climate Change" Complex?05-11-2015 18:53
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Why will no one answer the question?

Does "Climate" change in mysterious ways?

It's just a straightforward, yes/no question.

I'd appreciate any and all embelishment as well.

.


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
05-11-2015 22:05
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Yes climate change is complex.

Any large scale change has a lot of detail in it, as you look further into it you can find more stuff to look at that have complex systems associated with them.

So?
05-11-2015 22:38
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Tim the plumber wrote:Yes climate change is complex.

In what way? All I've been able to glean is that it somehow changes.

Does "climate" change in mysterious ways? Is that what's complex about it?

Tim the plumber wrote: Any large scale change has a lot of detail in it, as you look further into it you can find more stuff to look at that have complex systems associated with them.

Can you give me an example?

Tim the plumber wrote:So?

I was just wondering if there is anyone who understands everything about "climate change."


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
05-11-2015 22:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
A qualified yes. The unsupported models and arguments of global climate warming changes in mysterious ways.

A qualified no. Global climate isn't changing much. Regional changes, such as the movements of deserts, have all been pretty non-mysterious in their causes (continental drift, mismanagement of resources such as trees, etc).

A qualified yes. We really don't know how or why the sun rings like a bell, producing varying sunspots as it rings at a frequency of 11 years. The closest thing outside the Sun itself is the orbit of Jupiter, but that orbital period is slightly longer than the sun's oscillations.
06-11-2015 20:23
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Into the Night wrote:
A qualified yes. The unsupported models and arguments of global climate warming changes in mysterious ways.

A qualified no. Global climate isn't changing much. Regional changes, such as the movements of deserts, have all been pretty non-mysterious in their causes (continental drift, mismanagement of resources such as trees, etc).

A qualified yes. We really don't know how or why the sun rings like a bell, producing varying sunspots as it rings at a frequency of 11 years. The closest thing outside the Sun itself is the orbit of Jupiter, but that orbital period is slightly longer than the sun's oscillations.


Thank you.


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 20:33
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
A qualified yes. The unsupported models and arguments of global climate warming changes in mysterious ways.


Seeing as you are so qualified, would you care to elaborate exactly which types of models are supposedly unsupported, what you mean exactly by the term 'unsupported', and in what way are they unsupported? Or is this another statement that you have just made up?
06-11-2015 20:46
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
climate scientist wrote:
A qualified yes. The unsupported models and arguments of global climate warming changes in mysterious ways.


Seeing as you are so qualified, would you care to elaborate exactly which types of models are supposedly unsupported, what you mean exactly by the term 'unsupported', and in what way are they unsupported? Or is this another statement that you have just made up?


That's for you to falsify. He can't show the absence of support except for mentioning it.

You, on the other hand, can falsify his statement by providing actual science support for "climate." You could falsify his statement right now with one quick post that contains the science model that defines "climate." In a matter of seconds you could lay this whole issue to rest. In fact, you could have done it in the time it took you to write your uninformative post.

So go ahead, take a few seconds and falsify away. You'll be a "climate" hero.


.


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 20:52
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
So go ahead, take a few seconds and falsify away. You'll be a "climate" hero.


Haha! I have no desires whatsoever, to become any kind of 'hero'.
06-11-2015 21:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
climate scientist wrote:
A qualified yes. The unsupported models and arguments of global climate warming changes in mysterious ways.


Seeing as you are so qualified, would you care to elaborate exactly which types of models are supposedly unsupported, what you mean exactly by the term 'unsupported', and in what way are they unsupported? Or is this another statement that you have just made up?


Don't have to. That's your job. It is you that has to support theories that go against existing scientific law, by showing how the existing law is wrong and why.
06-11-2015 21:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
climate scientist wrote:
So go ahead, take a few seconds and falsify away. You'll be a "climate" hero.


Haha! I have no desires whatsoever, to become any kind of 'hero'.


You'd rather just be an irritant, right?
06-11-2015 21:50
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
climate scientist wrote:
A qualified yes. The unsupported models and arguments of global climate warming changes in mysterious ways.


Seeing as you are so qualified, would you care to elaborate exactly which types of models are supposedly unsupported, what you mean exactly by the term 'unsupported', and in what way are they unsupported? Or is this another statement that you have just made up?


Regardless of which models are supported or unsupported, "climate" changes in mysterious ways, yes?


.


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
07-11-2015 17:43
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Don't have to. That's your job. It is you that has to support theories that go against existing scientific law, by showing how the existing law is wrong and why.


Actually, it is not my job. My job is to make greenhouse gas measurements in the atmosphere. I am happy to discuss this with you, but you need to be more specific. There are many different models. Which ones do you think are unsupported? Are you referring to models as in computer models, or models as in the falsifiable type?

You'd rather just be an irritant, right?


You came here to debate science. It is not unreasonable for me to ask that you back up your claims with evidence from the scientific literature. Nor it is unreasonable for me to request that IBdaMann's posts remain civil. You are free to leave this forum at any time, if I am annoying you.

Regardless of which models are supported or unsupported, "climate" changes in mysterious ways, yes?


Only to those who are ignorant. We actually have a pretty good understanding of how and why climate changes. Mysterious and complex are not the same thing. The climate system is complex, but not mysterious.
07-11-2015 17:48
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
climate scientist wrote:Only to those who are ignorant. We actually have a pretty good understanding of how and why climate changes. Mysterious and complex are not the same thing. The climate system is complex, but not mysterious.


In view of that do you think that the IPCC had it radically wrong in 1998 when they made their predictions in the IR4 report?

If not, then given that the range of temperature changes was between very little and 3.4 c (I think) increase in temperature from now to 2100 do you conclude that the upper half of these numbers can be discounted after the pause in warming we have had since then?
07-11-2015 18:29
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Hi Tim

I'm afraid I am not sure which IPCC report you are referring to. The AR4 report was published in 2007. There was no report in 1998.

I can't really comment about your second point until I can see which predictions you are referring to. But I can comment on the predictions from the AR5 report, published in 2013. If you look at Fig. SPM.7 from the Summary for Policy makers report for WG1, you can see that the predicted temperature depends heavily on which emissions scenario we follow. RCP8.5 is a fossil fuel heavy emissions scenario, and since the RCP scenarios were made, global emissions seem to be following RCP8.5 pretty closely, which implies that at the moment, we are on track for temperatures associated with RCP8.5. The temperature range for this scenario by 2100 is from about 2.5 to 5.5 deg C of warming. The IPCC also states that warming will not be uniformly distributed, and will exhibit interannual and decadal variability.

It is this decadal variability which characterises the temperature pause. Firstly, the temperature pause is only in the atmosphere, and not in the oceans. The oceans have continued to warm. Also, if you look at Fig. SPM.1, you can see from the decadal averages of surface temperature that the last decade has been the warmest decade since 1850 by a long way (about 0.2 deg C warmer than the previous decade, and about 0.8 deg C warmer than the decade 1900 - 1909). This tells us that even though there has been a bit of a slow down in the rate of surface warming over the last decade, the temperature of the last decade still by far exceeded the temperature of any previous decade on record. It is very likely with an El Nino happening this year that we will experience the end of the temperature pause. We are waiting to see how this will develop, and trying to measure as much as we can over this period.

So, to summarise, our current understanding of the temperature pause is that represents decadal variability in the temperature signal. We expect the temperature pause to end soon, since the change in radiative forcing from increased ff emissions continues to rise every year, and we are now experiencing an El Nino. I do not think that the temperature pause means that we have over-estimated the predicted warming for RCP8.5. We would need to have a much more prolonged period with little warming for the predictions to be called into question.
07-11-2015 19:39
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
OK. How long a period do you think you would need to be sure that the maximum temperature rise would be in the lower half of the predictions? You must have an answer to this.

Also what degree of warming can the ocean have if there is no warming of the air above it? Surely if the air above the water is at the same temperature as it was then the energy budget for that water will be the same. Any additional IR would be absorbed in the top few cm of the oceans and cause increased temperature there which would warm the air and produce increased evaporation.

What data would cause you to say that GW is not going to happen?
07-11-2015 20:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
climate scientist wrote:
Don't have to. That's your job. It is you that has to support theories that go against existing scientific law, by showing how the existing law is wrong and why.


Actually, it is not my job. My job is to make greenhouse gas measurements in the atmosphere. I am happy to discuss this with you, but you need to be more specific. There are many different models. Which ones do you think are unsupported? Are you referring to models as in computer models, or models as in the falsifiable type?

Irrelevant and an attempt to change the subject. I don't care what your actual job is. You are still trying to shift the burden of proof.

A computer model is not a scientific model. It is a computer program that generates random numbers.

climate scientist wrote:
You'd rather just be an irritant, right?


You came here to debate science. It is not unreasonable for me to ask that you back up your claims with evidence from the scientific literature. Nor it is unreasonable for me to request that IBdaMann's posts remain civil. You are free to leave this forum at any time, if I am annoying you.

It is unreasonable for you to shift the burden of proof.
climate scientist wrote:
Regardless of which models are supported or unsupported, "climate" changes in mysterious ways, yes?


Only to those who are ignorant. We actually have a pretty good understanding of how and why climate changes. Mysterious and complex are not the same thing. The climate system is complex, but not mysterious.

No, you don't. No one does. Synthesizing wild claims about looming climate disasters is not understanding. It's politics and confusion. You may think you are a scientist doing scientific research, but you have started from a biased point in your models and are ignorant of that fact.
07-11-2015 20:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
climate scientist wrote:
Hi Tim

I'm afraid I am not sure which IPCC report you are referring to. The AR4 report was published in 2007. There was no report in 1998.

I can't really comment about your second point until I can see which predictions you are referring to. But I can comment on the predictions from the AR5 report, published in 2013. If you look at Fig. SPM.7 from the Summary for Policy makers report for WG1, you can see that the predicted temperature depends heavily on which emissions scenario we follow. RCP8.5 is a fossil fuel heavy emissions scenario, and since the RCP scenarios were made, global emissions seem to be following RCP8.5 pretty closely, which implies that at the moment, we are on track for temperatures associated with RCP8.5. The temperature range for this scenario by 2100 is from about 2.5 to 5.5 deg C of warming. The IPCC also states that warming will not be uniformly distributed, and will exhibit interannual and decadal variability.

It is this decadal variability which characterises the temperature pause. Firstly, the temperature pause is only in the atmosphere, and not in the oceans. The oceans have continued to warm. Also, if you look at Fig. SPM.1, you can see from the decadal averages of surface temperature that the last decade has been the warmest decade since 1850 by a long way (about 0.2 deg C warmer than the previous decade, and about 0.8 deg C warmer than the decade 1900 - 1909). This tells us that even though there has been a bit of a slow down in the rate of surface warming over the last decade, the temperature of the last decade still by far exceeded the temperature of any previous decade on record. It is very likely with an El Nino happening this year that we will experience the end of the temperature pause. We are waiting to see how this will develop, and trying to measure as much as we can over this period.

So, to summarise, our current understanding of the temperature pause is that represents decadal variability in the temperature signal. We expect the temperature pause to end soon, since the change in radiative forcing from increased ff emissions continues to rise every year, and we are now experiencing an El Nino. I do not think that the temperature pause means that we have over-estimated the predicted warming for RCP8.5. We would need to have a much more prolonged period with little warming for the predictions to be called into question.


We've had El Ninos recorded to before the United States was a nation. The temperature remains flat. There is no correlation in all that time of an El Nino ending a 'pause' as you describe. What makes this cycle special? Magick dust?
07-11-2015 21:32
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Irrelevant and an attempt to change the subject. I don't care what your actual job is. You are still trying to shift the burden of proof.

A computer model is not a scientific model. It is a computer program that generates random numbers.


Computer models can be used scientifically, and can be very accurate. They do not just generate random numbers. How is it that you distrust climate models so much, and yet I assume that you are happy to fly in a commercial jet? Commercial planes are largely flown using computers nowadays, not people.

You still didn't answer my question about which models/types of model you are referring to.

It is unreasonable for you to shift the burden of proof.


Why is this unreasonable? You are claiming that 150 years' worth of scientific research is wrong. It therefore seems perfectly reasonable to me that you should be the one providing evidence to support this claim. If you are right, then it would cause a paradigm shift in science. This would be a huge deal. We would have to re-write all the physics books. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable for me to ask you to provide evidence.

No, you don't. No one does. Synthesizing wild claims about looming climate disasters is not understanding. It's politics and confusion. You may think you are a scientist doing scientific research, but you have started from a biased point in your models and are ignorant of that fact.


I am not a modeller, but I know many climate scientists who are modellers. GCMs are based on physical principles. They are not very good at representing certain processes. No one is hiding this information. Climate scientists have tried to 'break' GCMs, i.e. they have tried to get the models to show that there is no warming with increased GHGs. They have also tried to get the GCMs to reproduce the warming that we have observed using only solar and volcanic forcings. Even if you are distrustful of climate models, our understanding of climate change is based on data. The models are only used for things that we cannot measure, such as the future. They are tools for helping us to understand processes. Climate science is not based on models. I have never made any wild claims about future climate change. The future is still not certain. What is clear, is that climate change is happening, the greenhouse effect is a fact, the planet has warmed due to anthropogenic activities, and the planet is likely to get warmer.

We've had El Ninos recorded to before the United States was a nation. The temperature remains flat. There is no correlation in all that time of an El Nino ending a 'pause' as you describe. What makes this cycle special? Magick dust?


It is well known scientific knowledge that El Nino years correspond to warmer global mean temperature. The reason that 1998 was such a warm year is because of the strong 1998 El Nino. The pause is likely to end, because the global mean temperature is likely to be anomalously high this year, and perhaps next year too. So there won't be a pause in the temperature record. We do no know yet what will happen after this El Nino. The pause is a pause in the rate of temperature change. The atmosphere has still be warming over the last 10 years, just at a slower rate.

OK. How long a period do you think you would need to be sure that the maximum temperature rise would be in the lower half of the predictions? You must have an answer to this.


Studies show that a hiatus of 20-30 years would be very unlikely. Therefore, if we see another decade or so of the pause, then this would indicate that there is probably something else going on that is affecting global temperatures that has not been considered. It is hard to say what the effect on global temperatures would be without knowing more about the cause of the prolonged temperature hiatus, should one occur.

Also what degree of warming can the ocean have if there is no warming of the air above it? Surely if the air above the water is at the same temperature as it was then the energy budget for that water will be the same. Any additional IR would be absorbed in the top few cm of the oceans and cause increased temperature there which would warm the air and produce increased evaporation.


The oceans are warming at depth, as well as at the surface, due to warmer deep waters forming in the Arctic today compared to 100 years ago. Ocean temperature is affected by circulation and surface winds, as well as the diffusion of heat. The change in ocean heat content is clearly presented in the IPCC summary document that I referred you to. There are large datasets of ocean temperatures at different locations and depths. The surface ocean is reasonably well sampled for temperature by the Argo float network.

What data would cause you to say that GW is not going to happen?


A sustained reduction in atmospheric global surface temperatures, a reduction in global ocean heat content, a lowering of sea level rise, a sustained increase in Arctic sea ice extent. Any one of these lines of evidence would indicate global cooling, not global warming, and all of these lines of evidence simultaneously would give very strong evidence of global cooling. At the moment, these lines of evidence all indicate global warming, which is why I think it is almost certain that the planet has warmed and is still warming. There are many other lines of evidence that I have not mentioned here, which also independently confirm global warming, not global cooling, but I think that my post is long enough!
07-11-2015 22:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
climate scientist wrote:
Irrelevant and an attempt to change the subject. I don't care what your actual job is. You are still trying to shift the burden of proof.

A computer model is not a scientific model. It is a computer program that generates random numbers.


Computer models can be used scientifically, and can be very accurate.

Wrong. Computers have nowhere near the resolution required to simulate weather or climate.
climate scientist wrote:
They do not just generate random numbers.
My mistake. Psuedo-random numbers.
climate scientist wrote:
How is it that you distrust climate models so much, and yet I assume that you are happy to fly in a commercial jet? Commercial planes are largely flown using computers nowadays, not people.

False equivalence. Computers on aircraft are simple feedback signal processing loops. They are like glorified household thermostats. These computers don't model anything.
climate scientist wrote:
You still didn't answer my question about which models/types of model you are referring to.
Actually, I just did. You even responded to it. You are denying your own argument.
climate scientist wrote:
It is unreasonable for you to shift the burden of proof.


Why is this unreasonable? You are claiming that 150 years' worth of scientific research is wrong.

Research is not science. Research gathers data. There is no such thing as 'scientific' research just as there is no such thing as 'scientific' evidence.
climate scientist wrote:
It therefore seems perfectly reasonable to me that you should be the one providing evidence to support this claim.
Nope.
climate scientist wrote:
If you are right, then it would cause a paradigm shift in science. This would be a huge deal.
A shift in science HAS occurred. A marked tendency to politicize it.
climate scientist wrote:
We would have to re-write all the physics books. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable for me to ask you to provide evidence.
Physics books are being rewritten all the time. Big hairy deal.
climate scientist wrote:
No, you don't. No one does. Synthesizing wild claims about looming climate disasters is not understanding. It's politics and confusion. You may think you are a scientist doing scientific research, but you have started from a biased point in your models and are ignorant of that fact.


I am not a modeller, but I know many climate scientists who are modellers. GCMs are based on physical principles. They are not very good at representing certain processes. No one is hiding this information. Climate scientists have tried to 'break' GCMs, i.e. they have tried to get the models to show that there is no warming with increased GHGs. They have also tried to get the GCMs to reproduce the warming that we have observed using only solar and volcanic forcings. Even if you are distrustful of climate models, our understanding of climate change is based on data. The models are only used for things that we cannot measure, such as the future. They are tools for helping us to understand processes. Climate science is not based on models. I have never made any wild claims about future climate change. The future is still not certain. What is clear, is that climate change is happening, the greenhouse effect is a fact, the planet has warmed due to anthropogenic activities, and the planet is likely to get warmer.

They can't be. Computers do not deal with physical anything unless they are attached to some sensor or control mechanism. Climate models are not, except that they use screens, keyboards, and printers.
climate scientist wrote:
We've had El Ninos recorded to before the United States was a nation. The temperature remains flat. There is no correlation in all that time of an El Nino ending a 'pause' as you describe. What makes this cycle special? Magick dust?


It is well known scientific knowledge that El Nino years correspond to warmer global mean temperature. The reason that 1998 was such a warm year is because of the strong 1998 El Nino. The pause is likely to end, because the global mean temperature is likely to be anomalously high this year, and perhaps next year too. So there won't be a pause in the temperature record. We do no know yet what will happen after this El Nino. The pause is a pause in the rate of temperature change. The atmosphere has still be warming over the last 10 years, just at a slower rate.
The raw data disagrees with you.
climate scientist wrote:
Also what degree of warming can the ocean have if there is no warming of the air above it? Surely if the air above the water is at the same temperature as it was then the energy budget for that water will be the same. Any additional IR would be absorbed in the top few cm of the oceans and cause increased temperature there which would warm the air and produce increased evaporation.


The oceans are warming at depth, as well as at the surface, due to warmer deep waters forming in the Arctic today compared to 100 years ago. Ocean temperature is affected by circulation and surface winds, as well as the diffusion of heat. The change in ocean heat content is clearly presented in the IPCC summary document that I referred you to. There are large datasets of ocean temperatures at different locations and depths. The surface ocean is reasonably well sampled for temperature by the Argo float network.

Wrong. There are datasets of ocean temperature data of any coverage only going back to the year 2000. The array was only completed in 2007. You have no valid data from 100 years ago.
climate scientist wrote:
What data would cause you to say that GW is not going to happen?


A sustained reduction in atmospheric global surface temperatures, a reduction in global ocean heat content, a lowering of sea level rise, a sustained increase in Arctic sea ice extent. Any one of these lines of evidence would indicate global cooling, not global warming, and all of these lines of evidence simultaneously would give very strong evidence of global cooling. At the moment, these lines of evidence all indicate global warming, which is why I think it is almost certain that the planet has warmed and is still warming. There are many other lines of evidence that I have not mentioned here, which also independently confirm global warming, not global cooling, but I think that my post is long enough!

There is no such thing as a global surface temperature measurement. No luck there.
You might see ocean temperatures reduce in Argo IF you can get hold of the raw data.
There is a sustained increase in the Antarctic ice sheet. Isn't that good enough?
There is the raw data collected by numerous NOAA stations across the country. Isn't that good enough?
07-11-2015 22:28
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
climate scientist wrote:Actually, it is not my job. My job is to make greenhouse gas measurements in the atmosphere.

Is it your job to take CO2 measurements or are you supposed to take measurements of "greenhouse gases"?

Do "greenhouse gases" cause a greenhouse effect"?

Oh crap, we're right back to where you try to explain how physics-defying miracles are somehow science. Whatever.

climate scientist wrote: There are many different models. Which ones do you think are unsupported?

He specified the computer programs. The models implemented by the computer programs are not falsifiable models that have survived the scientific method. Thus, those models, as implemented by their computer programs, are unsupported by any science. They are just pulled out of some warmizombie's arse. And when you pull out of your arse, all you tend to get is shit, and warmizombie shit stinks the worst.

climate scientist wrote:
Regardless of which models are supported or unsupported, "climate" changes in mysterious ways, yes?


Only to those who are ignorant.

I am so glad that you decided to speak for your warmizombie brethren. Mainstream warmizombieism is, by your definition, "ignorant," ...and I agree. You and I stand together on this point.

Climate Mystery: The Case of the Missing Energy
Scientists Explore Secret Cave to Unlock Climate Mystery
Mystery of Ocean Heat Deepens as Climate Changes
(this one below about the "corrosive ocean" is an awesome case of claiming to prove what is initially presumed)
Cracking the mystery of the corrosive ocean
The Effect of Clouds on Climate: A Key Mystery for Researchers
How People and Climate Interact is Still a Mystery
Scientists may have solved a climate change mystery using Greenland ice cores
Climate Change Mystery Mystifies Scientists: Antarctica is Gaining Ice
Mysterious disease may be tied to climate change, says researcher
UAlbany Scientist Helps Unravel Climate Mystery
SOLVING THE MYSTERIES OF HIATUS IN GLOBAL WARMING


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
08-11-2015 00:08
Swayseeker
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
The rate at which bodies absorb, reflect, transmit and emit solar radiation is important. For instance snow has an absorptivity of about 0.28 and a emissivity of about 0.97 at a temperature near 270 kelvins. To complicate matters the absorptivity, etc, can change with changing temperature. Also the murkiness of the ocean and the temperature of the ocean and how many bubbles it has in, etc, can change its reflecting qualities quite a lot. Given that there are many things reflecting, absorbing and emitting, the whole thing is very complex.
08-11-2015 04:18
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Swayseeker wrote:
The rate at which bodies absorb, reflect, transmit and emit solar radiation is important. For instance snow has an absorptivity of about 0.28 and a emissivity of about 0.97 at a temperature near 270 kelvins. To complicate matters the absorptivity, etc, can change with changing temperature. Also the murkiness of the ocean and the temperature of the ocean and how many bubbles it has in, etc, can change its reflecting qualities quite a lot. Given that there are many things reflecting, absorbing and emitting, the whole thing is very complex.


Swayseeker, in a word, no.

There is no "rate" of absorption. EM is absorbed instantaneously, not slowly over time.

Substances are not bodies. Bodies have emissivity, not substances. Substances can change the emissivity of a body, but black/grey/white body math applies only to bodies, not substancs.


.


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
08-11-2015 11:43
Swayseeker
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
If there is no rate of absorption is there no energy absorbed per second?
08-11-2015 12:03
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Wrong. Computers have nowhere near the resolution required to simulate weather or climate.


Precision and accuracy are not the same thing. It is perfectly possible to have something that is very accurate, but not very precise.

Research is not science. Research gathers data. There is no such thing as 'scientific' research just as there is no such thing as 'scientific' evidence.


Hmm.. so cancer research is not scientific. What about the Hadron collider? You have a very odd notion of what is and is not scientific. I'm starting to wonder what you did in your science lessons at school. Presumably you never did any experiments, or collected any data, since according to you, there is no such thing as scientific data.

The raw data disagrees with you.


Nope. Why don't you take a look at the NOAA data plotter:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/

Go ahead, and plot up the data for the 48 contiguous states from 1895 to 2015, and tick the option to plot the trend. The data speak for themselves. If you choose an annual average, instead of a one month average, then a lot of the monthly variability is averaged out and the trend becomes much more visually obvious.

There is no such thing as a global surface temperature measurement. No luck there.
You might see ocean temperatures reduce in Argo IF you can get hold of the raw data.
There is a sustained increase in the Antarctic ice sheet. Isn't that good enough?
There is the raw data collected by numerous NOAA stations across the country. Isn't that good enough?


Actually, we have satellite measurements now that can measure the temperature of the globe within a relatively short period of time. Argo data are freely available on the internet. I have downloaded them myself in the past. I have seen no evidence for a 'sustained increase the in Antarctic ice sheet'. One slightly dubious paper does not invalidate all other papers. There was once a paper published in nature that claimed that trees emitted huge amounts of methane, and that planting trees would cause more climate change. The paper was wrong, as proven by numerous subsequent studies. Yes, the NOAA data is plenty good enough. They show a very clear warming trend. Why don't you have a look yourself.

Is it your job to take CO2 measurements or are you supposed to take measurements of "greenhouse gases"?[quote]

I measure CO2, because it is a greenhouse gas.

[quote]Do "greenhouse gases" cause a greenhouse effect"?


Yes, we have been through this before.

Well done IBdaMann, you posted some links! Wasn't that hard was it? And you demonstrated to us that you can Google the words 'mystery and climate' at the same time. Well done you. I'm not sure what your point is, other than the media seem to like the word mystery. For anyone else though, some of these links are from good sources, and well worth a read. I take it IBdaMann that you didn't read any of them, since they constitute as church flyers in your view.

The rate at which bodies absorb, reflect, transmit and emit solar radiation is important. For instance snow has an absorptivity of about 0.28 and a emissivity of about 0.97 at a temperature near 270 kelvins. To complicate matters the absorptivity, etc, can change with changing temperature. Also the murkiness of the ocean and the temperature of the ocean and how many bubbles it has in, etc, can change its reflecting qualities quite a lot. Given that there are many things reflecting, absorbing and emitting, the whole thing is very complex.


Hi Swayseeker, yes I would definitely agree with your post. The climate system is very complex, and there are many details that are currently not well understood.

IBdaMann, is the atmosphere a body or a substance? It is well known that the atmosphere emits IR itself, owing to its temperature.
08-11-2015 15:04
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Swayseeker wrote:
If there is no rate of absorption is there no energy absorbed per second?

If a photon strikes a molecule, how long do you think it takes to be absorbed? That would be the substance's absrption rate, no? (hint: inststaneous).

There can be no such rate of "energy per second" for just a given substance because any such rate would also require.the electromagnetic frequencies involved and the emission power of the source.


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
08-11-2015 15:08
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swayseeker wrote:
If there is no rate of absorption is there no energy absorbed per second?

If a photon strikes a molecule, how long do you think it takes to be absorbed? That would be the substance's absrption rate, no? (hint: inststaneous).

There can be no such rate of "energy per second" for just a given substance because any such rate would also require.the electromagnetic frequencies involved and the emission power of the source.


How much energy does your kettle use?

It will have a rating in KW.

That's joules per second. Thousands of them.

Stop talking drivel.
08-11-2015 15:59
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Tim the plumber wrote:
How much energy does your kettle use? It will have a rating in KW. That's joules per second.

Wouldn't that be the "power" I specified would be required?

Tim the plumber wrote:Stop talking drivel.

Well, Mr. Brilliance Incarnate, what are you therefore claiming is the energy absorption rate of water?


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
08-11-2015 23:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
climate scientist wrote:
Wrong. Computers have nowhere near the resolution required to simulate weather or climate.


Precision and accuracy are not the same thing. It is perfectly possible to have something that is very accurate, but not very precise.

Quilbbling over accuracy and precision is not the point. No computer built has the resolution needed to model anything like the weather or climate. Resolution is not about accuracy or precision. It is about how high the computer can count. The number of factors you would have to put into such a program is simply beyond the capability of any machine.

Any moron can write a program to push out numbers in a nice neat column or in a pretty graph. That doesn't make them right.

climate scientist wrote:
Research is not science. Research gathers data. There is no such thing as 'scientific' research just as there is no such thing as 'scientific' evidence.


Hmm.. so cancer research is not scientific.

Correct. Indeed, cancer research is horribly politicized. The money wasted there is astounding.
climate scientist wrote:
What about the Hadron collider?

A machine built to collect data. What about it?
climate scientist wrote:
You have a very odd notion of what is and is not scientific.

I am scientifically typing on my scientifically designed keyboard to write scientific statements about what is not scientific.
You are using 'scientific' as an adjective to do nothing more than sound impressive.
climate scientist wrote:
I'm starting to wonder what you did in your science lessons at school. Presumably you never did any experiments, or collected any data, since according to you, there is no such thing as scientific data.

Data is data and evidence is evidence. There is nothing inherent about any experiment or study that makes it 'scientific'. I have done plenty of experiments and studies. I still do.
climate scientist wrote:
The raw data disagrees with you.


Nope. Why don't you take a look at the NOAA data plotter:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/

Go ahead, and plot up the data for the 48 contiguous states from 1895 to 2015, and tick the option to plot the trend. The data speak for themselves. If you choose an annual average, instead of a one month average, then a lot of the monthly variability is averaged out and the trend becomes much more visually obvious.

Composited and fudged data is no data. You really should know better by now than to try that with me.
climate scientist wrote:
There is no such thing as a global surface temperature measurement. No luck there.
You might see ocean temperatures reduce in Argo IF you can get hold of the raw data.
There is a sustained increase in the Antarctic ice sheet. Isn't that good enough?
There is the raw data collected by numerous NOAA stations across the country. Isn't that good enough?


Actually, we have satellite measurements now that can measure the temperature of the globe within a relatively short period of time. Argo data are freely available on the internet. I have downloaded them myself in the past.

By 'past' I assume you mean recently. 'Short period of time' is the operative phrase here.
climate scientist wrote:
I have seen no evidence for a 'sustained increase the in Antarctic ice sheet'. One slightly dubious paper does not invalidate all other papers.

I do not depend on the paper or papers to such statements. Various observations are much better to go by.
climate scientist wrote:
There was once a paper published in nature that claimed that trees emitted huge amounts of methane, and that planting trees would cause more climate change. The paper was wrong, as proven by numerous subsequent studies.

Which is why I don't depend on papers. BTW, you just denied your own argument in another thread.
climate scientist wrote:
Yes, the NOAA data is plenty good enough. They show a very clear warming trend. Why don't you have a look yourself.

No, the NOAA data is not data. It is composited and fudged from raw data according to unknown algorithms. This data does not agree with individual station data across the lower 48. This difference is becoming a problem for scientists conducting research. Some are starting to discover they don't know which dataset to use.
I feel it is much harder to manipulate the individual stations than a central web site, and go with the individual station data.
climate scientist wrote:
[quote]Is it your job to take CO2 measurements or are you supposed to take measurements of "greenhouse gases"?[quote]

I measure CO2, because it is a greenhouse gas.

This is exactly the sort of presupposition in today's research I am talking about. You simply take it as gospel that CO2 is a greenhouse gas capable of magick qualities and go from there. It's not so much thousands of scientists are deliberately trying to hoax the world, as thousands of scientists making the same presupposition you did. Here, you've built your career on it.
09-11-2015 10:37
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night wrote:

This is exactly the sort of presupposition in today's research I am talking about. You simply take it as gospel that CO2 is a greenhouse gas capable of magick qualities and go from there. It's not so much thousands of scientists are deliberately trying to hoax the world, as thousands of scientists making the same presupposition you did. Here, you've built your career on it.

No 'magick qualities' needed. It's just physics and chemistry.

I know you won't bother to even look at these, but it's more for other posters who may be interested in science, rather than your uneducated pseudoscience myths.

"This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating. This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping 'greenhouse' gas."


http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation
http://scied.ucar.edu/molecular-vibration-modes


http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-2/how-greenhouse-effect-works.php

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html

This is a comprehensive overview:
http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/images/Energy/EnergyTheDriverOfClimate.pdf


The earth's natural 'greenhouse' effect has been confirmed by observations all over the world for decades. It's as much a fact as gravity is. The enhanced 'greenhouse' effect is what is referred to as 'global warming'.

You can stick your head in the sand and pretend it isn't real or 'violates the laws of thermodynamics' (it doesn't) all you like, but you just look foolish.



Edited on 09-11-2015 10:58
09-11-2015 11:51
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
How much energy does your kettle use? It will have a rating in KW. That's joules per second.

Wouldn't that be the "power" I specified would be required?

Tim the plumber wrote:Stop talking drivel.

Well, Mr. Brilliance Incarnate, what are you therefore claiming is the energy absorption rate of water?


What are you talking about?

The energy absorption rate of the water in your kettle is whatever the heating element is putting into it.

The microscopic activity of the kettle's heating element involves single electrons moving about and interacting with the metal in the heating element. These are averaged out as energy per second. Which is power.
09-11-2015 22:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

This is exactly the sort of presupposition in today's research I am talking about. You simply take it as gospel that CO2 is a greenhouse gas capable of magick qualities and go from there. It's not so much thousands of scientists are deliberately trying to hoax the world, as thousands of scientists making the same presupposition you did. Here, you've built your career on it.

No 'magick qualities' needed. It's just physics and chemistry.

I know you won't bother to even look at these, but it's more for other posters who may be interested in science, rather than your uneducated pseudoscience myths.

"This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating. This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping 'greenhouse' gas."


http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation
http://scied.ucar.edu/molecular-vibration-modes


http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-2/how-greenhouse-effect-works.php

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html

This is a comprehensive overview:
http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/images/Energy/EnergyTheDriverOfClimate.pdf


The earth's natural 'greenhouse' effect has been confirmed by observations all over the world for decades. It's as much a fact as gravity is. The enhanced 'greenhouse' effect is what is referred to as 'global warming'.

You can stick your head in the sand and pretend it isn't real or 'violates the laws of thermodynamics' (it doesn't) all you like, but you just look foolish.


The animations you provided don't even show a greenhouse effect. Neither do they prove you can violate the laws of thermodynamics.

The papers you provided fall into the energy trap problem. You can't have a trap of energy that is free of the feed forward loop that will eventually (probably quickly) destroy the trap catastrophically. To attempt to do so builds a perpetual motion machine of the 1st kind.
09-11-2015 23:04
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

This is exactly the sort of presupposition in today's research I am talking about. You simply take it as gospel that CO2 is a greenhouse gas capable of magick qualities and go from there. It's not so much thousands of scientists are deliberately trying to hoax the world, as thousands of scientists making the same presupposition you did. Here, you've built your career on it.

No 'magick qualities' needed. It's just physics and chemistry.

I know you won't bother to even look at these, but it's more for other posters who may be interested in science, rather than your uneducated pseudoscience myths.

"This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating. This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping 'greenhouse' gas."


http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation
http://scied.ucar.edu/molecular-vibration-modes


http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-2/how-greenhouse-effect-works.php

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html

This is a comprehensive overview:
http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/images/Energy/EnergyTheDriverOfClimate.pdf


The earth's natural 'greenhouse' effect has been confirmed by observations all over the world for decades. It's as much a fact as gravity is. The enhanced 'greenhouse' effect is what is referred to as 'global warming'.

You can stick your head in the sand and pretend it isn't real or 'violates the laws of thermodynamics' (it doesn't) all you like, but you just look foolish.


The animations you provided don't even show a greenhouse effect. Neither do they prove you can violate the laws of thermodynamics.

The papers you provided fall into the energy trap problem. You can't have a trap of energy that is free of the feed forward loop that will eventually (probably quickly) destroy the trap catastrophically. To attempt to do so builds a perpetual motion machine of the 1st kind.

I didn't provide any 'papers'. They were just educational websites. It's a shame you didn't actually read them. You might have educated yourself enough to understand why you are wrong.

Actually, you are Not Even Wrong*.

*The phrase "Not Even Wrong" implies that not only is someone not making a valid point in a discussion, but they don't even understand the nature of the discussion itself, or the things that need to be understood in order to participate.



Edited on 09-11-2015 23:06
09-11-2015 23:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
Ceist wrote:

I didn't provide any 'papers'. They were just educational websites. It's a shame you didn't actually read them. You might have educated yourself enough to understand why you are wrong.

Actually, you are Not Even Wrong*.

*The phrase "Not Even Wrong" implies that not only is someone not making a valid point in a discussion, but they don't even understand the nature of the discussion itself, or the things that need to be understood in order to participate.

I actually did read them. I do not accept their argument. I consider them 'papers' even though they are websites.

I am not wrong. These sites present arguments that don't work.
Oddly, you never even mentioned the animations 'proving' your case. Are you ceding that part?

Since you feel the need for me to accept this trash to participate in the discussion, why don't we just call it the religion it is and you go your way and I go mine?
09-11-2015 23:44
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Quilbbling over accuracy and precision is not the point. No computer built has the resolution needed to model anything like the weather or climate. Resolution is not about accuracy or precision. It is about how high the computer can count. The number of factors you would have to put into such a program is simply beyond the capability of any machine.


This is why you need a supercomputer to run a GCM. And there are plenty of computer models that are able to predict the weather. What do you think the various country's met services use? Granted, weather predictions are not always correct. But that does not mean that they are not valuable. Climate is easier to predict than weather in some ways, because you do not need such fine scale resolution, either temporally or spatially.

Any moron can write a program to push out numbers in a nice neat column or in a pretty graph. That doesn't make them right.


What about hundreds of physicist with PhDs, and 20+ years of experience. What about models that are verified with real observations? Surely, if it is all just random number generation, then we would not be able to test the models performances using real measured data?

Correct. Indeed, cancer research is horribly politicized. The money wasted there is astounding.


But you are missing the point. Everything that we know about cancer, has come from cancer research and data, not from people sitting around in offices, coming up with theories. Just because we do not know everything about cancer, does not mean that what we do know is not valuable. It is the same with climate change. If you went to the doctor tomorrow and you were diagnosed with cancer, you might go and get another opinion, if you were a bit sceptical. But if 100 doctors independently told you that you had cancer, you would believe them, even though they might not be able to tell you exactly whether you are going to survive or not. Why are you so distrustful of climate scientists? We carry out experiments and collect data with the same scrutiny and scientific rigor as other types of scientists. Our conclusions are based on data. You can theorise about something all you want, but if the measurements tell you something different, then you might want to re-think your theory.

I am scientifically typing on my scientifically designed keyboard to write scientific statements about what is not scientific.


There is nothing scientific about most of your statements, because they are not based on any scientific evidence.

Composited and fudged data is no data. You really should know better by now than to try that with me.


Then plot up the raw data. All of it. It is all available. I assume that by fudged you mean, averaged.

By 'past' I assume you mean recently. 'Short period of time' is the operative phrase here.


Well, I think daily is pretty good time resolution actually.

Which is why I don't depend on papers. BTW, you just denied your own argument in another thread.


I'm not sure why you think I am here to present some kind of case for climate change, or make some kind of argument. I am not a lawer. This is not a trial. The case for climate change is very adequately made by the IPCC reports. I am simply here to correct all of your erroneous statements, so that you do not end up misleading other readers.

No, the NOAA data is not data. It is composited and fudged from raw data according to unknown algorithms. This data does not agree with individual station data across the lower 48. This difference is becoming a problem for scientists conducting research. Some are starting to discover they don't know which dataset to use.
I feel it is much harder to manipulate the individual stations than a central web site, and go with the individual station data.


Are you aware of the GISS temperature record? A few years ago, some physicists at GISS were very sceptical of the methods used by CRU and NOAA to produce the global temperature records. So they decided to make their own, from the raw data, just as you are suggesting. They ended up with a plot that matched both the CRU and NOAA plots almost exactly. The GISS algorithms are available to download freely from their website.

This is exactly the sort of presupposition in today's research I am talking about. You simply take it as gospel that CO2 is a greenhouse gas capable of magick qualities and go from there. It's not so much thousands of scientists are deliberately trying to hoax the world, as thousands of scientists making the same presupposition you did. Here, you've built your career on it.


Yet again, you are missing the point. I make measurements of CO2, so that I can quantify CO2 fluxes between different carbon reservoirs (i.e. how CO2 exchanges between the ocean and atmosphere, for example). Regardless of whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas or not, it is interesting to learn more about how the planet functions, and how the carbon cycle works. The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas simply means that there are more people who are interested in my research. For example, my government is legally obliged to report their CO2 emissions, so if my research can help them to do this, because I can measure CO2 from fossil fuels, then it makes perfect sense that they are interested in my research. The research itself is sound, and not based on any presumptions relating to climate change.
09-11-2015 23:45
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:

I didn't provide any 'papers'. They were just educational websites. It's a shame you didn't actually read them. You might have educated yourself enough to understand why you are wrong.

Actually, you are Not Even Wrong*.

*The phrase "Not Even Wrong" implies that not only is someone not making a valid point in a discussion, but they don't even understand the nature of the discussion itself, or the things that need to be understood in order to participate.

I actually did read them. I do not accept their argument. I consider them 'papers' even though they are websites.

I am not wrong. These sites present arguments that don't work.
Oddly, you never even mentioned the animations 'proving' your case. Are you ceding that part?

Since you feel the need for me to accept this trash to participate in the discussion, why don't we just call it the religion it is and you go your way and I go mine?
Yes, you are Not Even Wrong.

You have no 'argument' other than you don't accept science that shows your strange pseudoscience beliefs are wrong.

Yes, you seem to believe in some type of Sky Dragon Slayer 'religion', not science.



Edited on 09-11-2015 23:47
10-11-2015 18:16
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Tim the plumber wrote: What are you talking about?

Try paying attention. You were the one who simply knee-jerked commentary about "drivel" without understanding the subject matter.

Tim the plumber wrote: The energy absorption rate of the water in your kettle is whatever the heating element is putting into it.

Sorry, you jumped into a discussion hurling insults, so answer the question.

What is the energy absorption rate of water?

That's what you are defending. I claim more information is needed, that you can't just have a list of "energy absorption rates" per substance, but you insisted that my objection is "drivel" so you tell me what they are.


Tim the plumber wrote: The microscopic activity of the kettle's heating element involves single electrons moving about and interacting with the metal in the heating element. These are averaged out as energy per second. Which is power. [/color]


Then answer the other question. When a photon strikes a molecule, how long does it take to be absorbed? I claim it is instantaneous but I see you vehemently disagree. So how long does it really take?



.


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
10-11-2015 19:20
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote: What are you talking about?

Try paying attention. You were the one who simply knee-jerked commentary about "drivel" without understanding the subject matter.

Tim the plumber wrote: The energy absorption rate of the water in your kettle is whatever the heating element is putting into it.

Sorry, you jumped into a discussion hurling insults, so answer the question.

What is the energy absorption rate of water?

That's what you are defending. I claim more information is needed, that you can't just have a list of "energy absorption rates" per substance, but you insisted that my objection is "drivel" so you tell me what they are.


Tim the plumber wrote: The microscopic activity of the kettle's heating element involves single electrons moving about and interacting with the metal in the heating element. These are averaged out as energy per second. Which is power. [/color]


Then answer the other question. When a photon strikes a molecule, how long does it take to be absorbed? I claim it is instantaneous but I see you vehemently disagree. So how long does it really take?



.


The question "What is the absorption rate of water?" is non-sense because water will absorb energy as fast as it goes into it. Hit it with a lightning strike and bang! Plasma.

Obviously when a photon stikes a molecule it absorbs the energy of that photon. I don't know the time it takes for the now hotter molecule to radiate the energy or maybe it conducts it away.....

Obvioulsy you can talk about the avaerage amount of energy absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere. I don't know if it actually happens, if there is really a greenhouse effect. I so know that you have no clue what you are talking about.

Edited on 10-11-2015 19:27
10-11-2015 19:41
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Tim the plumber wrote:
The question "What is the absorption rate of water?" is non-sense because water will absorb energy as fast as it gooes into it. Hit it with a lightning strike and bang! Plasma.

That was my point. Shall I assume now that my post isn't drivel?

Tim the plumber wrote: Obviously when a photon stikes a molecule it absorbs the energy of that photon. I don't know the time it takes for the now hotter molecule to radiate the energy or maybe it conducts it away.....

The issue is just about energy absorption. I claim it is instantaneous. You say that's "drivel." So how long does it take?

Tim the plumber wrote:
Obvioulsy you can talk about the avaerage amount of energy absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere.

Now you're changing the subject.

What is CO2's rate of absorption? I claim there is no such stand-alone thing as "CO2's rate of energy absorption" sans any other parameters. You say that's "drivel." So what is CO2's rate of absorption?

Or maybe you could follow along in the future and ask questions if you are confused by something.


Tim the plumber wrote: I don't know if it actually happens, if there is really a greenhouse effect. I so know that you have no clue what you are talking about.

I created a thread in which I belabored the topic of the "greenhouse effect." Go to that thread and point out where I "don't know what I'm talking about."


.


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
10-11-2015 21:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
climate scientist wrote:
Quilbbling over accuracy and precision is not the point. No computer built has the resolution needed to model anything like the weather or climate. Resolution is not about accuracy or precision. It is about how high the computer can count. The number of factors you would have to put into such a program is simply beyond the capability of any machine.


This is why you need a supercomputer to run a GCM. And there are plenty of computer models that are able to predict the weather. What do you think the various country's met services use? Granted, weather predictions are not always correct. But that does not mean that they are not valuable. Climate is easier to predict than weather in some ways, because you do not need such fine scale resolution, either temporally or spatially.

There is no supercomputer remotely big enough or capable of the required resolution.
There are plenty of computer models that try (with varying degrees of luck) to predict the weather.
Resolution is not about fine or course scale. I've already explained this.

climate scientist wrote:
Any moron can write a program to push out numbers in a nice neat column or in a pretty graph. That doesn't make them right.


What about hundreds of physicist with PhDs, and 20+ years of experience. What about models that are verified with real observations? Surely, if it is all just random number generation, then we would not be able to test the models performances using real measured data?

What about them? Most PhDs I know barely know how to turn their computer on in the morning.
Do you want to talk about the constant conflicts between the computer models and the real data?
It's just random numbers, dude.

climate scientist wrote:
Correct. Indeed, cancer research is horribly politicized. The money wasted there is astounding.


But you are missing the point. Everything that we know about cancer, has come from cancer research and data, not from people sitting around in offices, coming up with theories. Just because we do not know everything about cancer, does not mean that what we do know is not valuable. It is the same with climate change. If you went to the doctor tomorrow and you were diagnosed with cancer, you might go and get another opinion, if you were a bit sceptical. But if 100 doctors independently told you that you had cancer, you would believe them, even though they might not be able to tell you exactly whether you are going to survive or not. Why are you so distrustful of climate scientists? We carry out experiments and collect data with the same scrutiny and scientific rigor as other types of scientists. Our conclusions are based on data. You can theorise about something all you want, but if the measurements tell you something different, then you might want to re-think your theory.

Wrong. People sitting around in offices conducting thought experiments is exactly how we've come up with theories about cancer. Research is guided by these thought experiments.
I am distrustful of anyone calling themselves a 'climate' scientist. The very name shows they are predisposed to the Global Warming religion. Your conclusions are not based on data. They are based on religion that you justify with biased data.
climate scientist wrote:
I am scientifically typing on my scientifically designed keyboard to write scientific statements about what is not scientific.


There is nothing scientific about most of your statements, because they are not based on any scientific evidence.

There is no such thing as scientific evidence. I already explained this. There is evidence, or there is not. That is the point of my statement. You are just using 'scientific' X as an adjective to better impress people.
climate scientist wrote:
Composited and fudged data is no data. You really should know better by now than to try that with me.


Then plot up the raw data. All of it. It is all available. I assume that by fudged you mean, averaged.

I already have. See the Data Mine and other threads. No, I mean fudged (corrected) data.
climate scientist wrote:
By 'past' I assume you mean recently. 'Short period of time' is the operative phrase here.


Well, I think daily is pretty good time resolution actually.

Non-sequitur. I am talking about length of collection, not interval of collection.
climate scientist wrote:
Which is why I don't depend on papers. BTW, you just denied your own argument in another thread.


I'm not sure why you think I am here to present some kind of case for climate change, or make some kind of argument. I am not a lawer. This is not a trial. The case for climate change is very adequately made by the IPCC reports. I am simply here to correct all of your erroneous statements, so that you do not end up misleading other readers.

You can't do it by violating logic. You don't have to be a lawyer. You have to be logical. Courts of law have nothing to do with this. The fact that you assume they do shows your weakness in your understanding of logic.
climate scientist wrote:
No, the NOAA data is not data. It is composited and fudged from raw data according to unknown algorithms. This data does not agree with individual station data across the lower 48. This difference is becoming a problem for scientists conducting research. Some are starting to discover they don't know which dataset to use.
I feel it is much harder to manipulate the individual stations than a central web site, and go with the individual station data.


Are you aware of the GISS temperature record? A few years ago, some physicists at GISS were very sceptical of the methods used by CRU and NOAA to produce the global temperature records. So they decided to make their own, from the raw data, just as you are suggesting. They ended up with a plot that matched both the CRU and NOAA plots almost exactly. The GISS algorithms are available to download freely from their website.
Yes, I know. There is a reason for the incorrect averaging. There are more stations per mile on the East coast then there are anywhere else. Stations east of the Great Lakes have seen a temperature rise, while stations (far fewer of them) in the Southeast have seen a corresponding temperature fall. Other stations west of the these positions (far fewer per mile) see a flat response. In addition, many stations have malfunctioned for a significant portion of the time and data was manufactured to cover the missing data for that station. They also use 'corrected' (fudged) data from these stations. In short, they committed the same kinds of errors NOAA did on their central site.

I use only the raw data, only from stations that have collected reliable information, and only enough stations in an area to keep the number of stations reporting per mile at some sane level.

climate scientist wrote:
[quote]This is exactly the sort of presupposition in today's research I am talking about. You simply take it as gospel that CO2 is a greenhouse gas capable of magick qualities and go from there. It's not so much thousands of scientists are deliberately trying to hoax the world, as thousands of scientists making the same presupposition you did. Here, you've built your career on it.


Yet again, you are missing the point. I make measurements of CO2, so that I can quantify CO2 fluxes between different carbon reservoirs (i.e. how CO2 exchanges between the ocean and atmosphere, for example). Regardless of whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas or not, it is interesting to learn more about how the planet functions, and how the carbon cycle works. The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas simply means that there are more people who are interested in my research. For example, my government is legally obliged to report their CO2 emissions, so if my research can help them to do this, because I can measure CO2 from fossil fuels, then it makes perfect sense that they are interested in my research. The research itself is sound, and not based on any presumptions relating to climate change.

You have denied your own argument. The reason it is interesting to people at all is because of the presumptions relating to climate change (including your own).
13-11-2015 02:36
gctimes
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
Climate change is simple, and man-made climate change is even more so. On the one side of the "debate", you have facts & science - on the other side, you have Big Oil, Big Coal, money and fiction.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Is "Climate Change" Complex?:

Remember me

▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact