The Data Mine

Surface Detail wrote:
Thank you, Into the Night, for confirming that the discussion did not start with me demanding a source of data concerning Atlantic hurricanes. You were lying. If you could just stop lying, we might be able to have a sensible conversation.

By the way, didn't the first rule for your Data Mine demand that posters name the sources of their data? Why are you so concerned that I am trying to enforce your rule?

Surface Detail wrote:
Thank you, Into the Night, for confirming that the discussion did not start with me demanding a source of data concerning Atlantic hurricanes. You were lying. If you could just stop lying, we might be able to have a sensible conversation.

By the way, didn't the first rule for your Data Mine demand that posters name the sources of their data? Why are you so concerned that I am trying to enforce your rule?

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Thank you, Into the Night, for confirming that the discussion did not start with me demanding a source of data concerning Atlantic hurricanes. You were lying. If you could just stop lying, we might be able to have a sensible conversation.

By the way, didn't the first rule for your Data Mine demand that posters name the sources of their data? Why are you so concerned that I am trying to enforce your rule?

Still accusing people using some twisted view of yours, eh? You have been EVADING a sensible conversation by moving the goalposts, accusing me of lying, demanding data to be formatted in a particular way, dissolving into useless discussions about the meaning of Cherry Picking, trying to claim I am worried about you enforcing the rules I set up, etc.

You want to prove me wrong about your attitude? Start having a discussion about the meaning of the data you have!

IBdaMann is waiting for you to have this discussion. You keep going half cocked in some other direction. I don't know what your problem is, but you seem to not realize the implications of what you are doing. Start the discussion about the hurricane activity.

Surface Detail wrote:These papers confirm that the intensity (though not the frequency) of tropical cyclones appears to increasing, and that this is likely due to the higher ocean surface temperatures observed over the last few decades.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:These papers confirm that the intensity (though not the frequency) of tropical cyclones appears to increasing, and that this is likely due to the higher ocean surface temperatures observed over the last few decades.

So is it your contention that Global Warming is causing hurricane power to be combined into fewer hurricanes of greater power? Is that what Global Warming does?

Surface Detail wrote:That is suggested by theory and does, indeed, appear to be the case.

Surface Detail wrote: Though it should be noted that the level of certainty for this is relatively low.

The data sets of the lower troposphere are for the surface temperature. That is the temperature as measured just above the ground by weather staions and the like. All over the earth.

The point of saying that it has not warmed since 1998 is that this is true.

That it warmed between 1970 and 1998 is also true.

I fail to see why you have trouble with these factual statements.

The evidence for these statements is from the data sets produced by the respected bodies used by the IPCC. That they don't supply the numbers you would like them to is unlucky.

Ceist wrote:Because they aren't factual statements.

IBdaMann wrote:

Ceist wrote:The fact that you seriously 'believe' you found an 'obvious flaw in it', says it all.

More bulverism, and more EVASION on your part of Tim's points. You still have not addressed any of the concerns raised.

Tim, on the other hand, apparently has found obvious flaws, and you apparently won't refute Tim's concerns, so Tim's concerns stand and whole "Energy Budget" remains "dismissed" as are your bulverist posts.

Tim the plumber wrote: It is not actually the energy budget I am argueing about with him.

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote: It is not actually the energy budget I am argueing about with him.

The earth's "energy budget" is the diagram. I realize you were debating certain specifics, but the entire overarching concept (model), as presented, goes out the window until all your concerns are adequately addressed.

Citing anyone's opinions, questioning your background or simply presuming you are wrong is insufficient to save this "energy budget" model.

Tim the plumber wrote: It's sort of the opposite.

Tim the plumber wrote: The diagram is of the standard model of the energy budget of the surface of the solid earth.
It's not really disputable. The numbers are accepted and easily tested.

Tim the plumber wrote: You could even do experiments in your back yard to get a lot of the figures.

Tim the plumber wrote: The degree to which they can be changed by CO2 rises is where the debate is.

Tim the plumber wrote: The paper that was cited which refuted a 1905(? something like that) paper said that there was no limit to the potential heating effect of CO2. I am not aware that this is at all mainstream. It is certainly not the view presented by the IPCC.

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote: It's sort of the opposite.

I don't think so. The opposite of FALSE is TRUE, and this diagram is not TRUE without a boatload of additional support. As it is depicted, it violates the 1st LoT.

Tim the plumber wrote: The diagram is of the standard model of the energy budget of the surface of the solid earth.
It's not really disputable. The numbers are accepted and easily tested.

You are going to have one heck of time supporting that statement. Check your passive voice. Who "accepts" the numbers? Who even cares who accepts those numbers? The truth is, it doesn't matter. The numbers simply don't add up. If you are going to assert that the numbers are correct in the manner they are represented, then you need to explain how they somehow still adhere to the 1st LoT (conservation of energy).

Oh, while we're on it, how can I easily test those numbers? Let me know and I'll go test them tomorrow afternoon.

Tim the plumber wrote: You could even do experiments in your back yard to get a lot of the figures.

Great, how did you go about it the last time?

Tim the plumber wrote: The degree to which they can be changed by CO2 rises is where the debate is.

Science says CO2 has zero effect on planetary temperature. What do you say?

Tim the plumber wrote: The paper that was cited which refuted a 1905(? something like that) paper said that there was no limit to the potential heating effect of CO2. I am not aware that this is at all mainstream. It is certainly not the view presented by the IPCC.

The IPCC does not present any sort of science perspective. I'm not sure why anyone would care what their official position is.

Atmospheric composition is not a factor in planetary temperature, therefore the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is irrelevant. The factors in atmospheric temperature are:

1) Proximity to the sun
2) Solar output
3) Quantity of atmosphere (and resulting atmospheric pressure)
4) Transparency of atmosphere.

Composition is not an issue. If you were to replace a certain mass of atmospheric nitrogen with an equivalent mass of atmospheric CO2, the earth's surface temperature will not change.

Tim the plumber wrote: I am not at all convinced of the grrenhouse effect either but the reason I am happy to accept the IPCC's figures is that they hold no fear for me or anybody else who has ever done anything, or is emotionally able to cope with slight changes.

Tim the plumber wrote:
This position puts the onus totally onto the Ecco-communists to explain why we need to hit the panic button.

Tim the plumber wrote: The energy budget diagram is not contestable because something of that sort happens. It's just a diagram of what happens.

Tim the plumber wrote: [color=blue] We can measure the energy of the sun's rays in our back yard.

Tim the plumber wrote: What law of thermodynamics do you see as being violated in the diagram?

Tim the plumber wrote:
If the amount of heat coming in is more than the amount of heat going out the earth will warm up a bit. The oceans will take a lot of heating.

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:These papers confirm that the intensity (though not the frequency) of tropical cyclones appears to increasing, and that this is likely due to the higher ocean surface temperatures observed over the last few decades.

So is it your contention that Global Warming is causing hurricane power to be combined into fewer hurricanes of greater power? Is that what Global Warming does?

That is suggested by theory and does, indeed, appear to be the case. Though it should be noted that the level of certainty for this is relatively low.

Edit: Actually not fewer hurricanes, rather the roughly the same number, but with a higher proportion of powerful ones.

Tim the plumber wrote:
The effects of global warming will be, if the IPCC is right, noticable. They just won't be bad.

They will in fact be good. I can see no real likelyhood of any significant actual down side. The wrost thing I have so far come across is if you have built your house in some African desert close to the river that has not flowed for 20 years the increased rainfall that will fill the river will probably wash your shack away. You will have your choice of highly fertile land to go and farm though.

The energy budget for the surface of the earth can be out of balance. If it is there is more heat going in than coming out which will cause the place to warm up.

If you measure the heat coming out of a kettle when it is warming up it is less than the 2kW of electricity going in untill it hits boiling. Then you will burn your hand if you put it in front of the spout.

Often alarmists talk about Zeta Joules of energy going into the oceans. I have come across 1 who knew what a zeta joule is and was able to understand what happens when it goes into the oceans.

That a Zeta joul is 10 to the 21 Joules sunds vast.

A Joule is the amount of energy it would take to heat 1mg of a substance with a specific heat capacity of 1, 1 degree c.

There are 1000 mg in a liter, 1000 liters in a cubic meter of water or tonne, same thing and water has a heat capacity of 4.2. Each cubic meter of water needs 4.2 x 10^6 Joules per degree to heat up.

There are 1,000,000 square meters in a square kilometer and generally they talk about a depth of 700m, so 7 x 10^8. Multiplied by the 4.2 x 10^6 is 3 x 10^14.

The world's oceans cover 360,000,000 square Km. x the above is 1 x 10^23 Joules needed to heat the oceans by 1 degree.

So each Zeta Joule will cause about 1/100th of a degree of warming.

The best data we can get for the temperature of the worlds oceans is nowhere near accurate enough to get this kind of precision and I don't actually care if it did manage it. It is going to take a heck of a lot of Zetas to cause any change anybody will notice.

Tim the plumber wrote: The effects of global warming will be, if the IPCC is right, noticable. They just won't be bad.

Tim the plumber wrote: They will in fact be good. I can see no real likelyhood of any significant actual down side.

Tim the plumber wrote: The wrost thing I have so far come across is if you have built your house in some African desert close to the river that has not flowed for 20 years the increased rainfall that will fill the river will probably wash your shack away. You will have your choice of highly fertile land to go and farm though.

Tim the plumber wrote:The energy budget for the surface of the earth can be out of balance.

Tim the plumber wrote: If it is there is more heat going in than coming out which will cause the place to warm up.

Tim the plumber wrote:
A Joule is the amount of energy it would take to heat 1mg of a substance with a specific heat capacity of 1, 1 degree c.

Tim the plumber wrote: When the sun comes up at dawn your back yard is cold. The energy going out of it is higher than the energy coming in, it is still cooling.

Tim the plumber wrote: You say that the only variable in the whole system is the sun's input. I don't know if that is true. My feeling is probably 5% agree with you 1% agree that there is a GW effect and 94% I don't know. Thus I cannot really debate the point.

Tim the plumber wrote: So I must use the accepted "consensus" to work with. That would be the IPCC's figures which are so wide that almost any possibility is covered.

Tim the plumber wrote: But looking at the worste case scenario I see nothing to worry about.

Tim the plumber wrote: The argument from the "standard" model is that high energy EM gets through the atmosphere better than th elower energy IR that the earth radiates away so if that is true then I can see there can be a greenhous eeffect. It si after all similar to how the glass in agreenhouse works.

Tim the plumber wrote: I don't know enough to debate the point as I am unable to show any evidence for or against it. I don't know.

Tim the plumber wrote: If it's a statement of faith to rely on science to be honest and as right as they can be then OK.

Tim the plumber wrote: But this is accepted and long standing.

Tim the plumber wrote: It could be wrong I have seen a paper which seemed strong to me which argued the case for the temperature of the surface of th earth not needing any such greenhouse effect to explain it's temperature but I am not able to really have astrong view on it as it's mostly beyond me.

Tim the plumber wrote: But if you accept the IPCC's figures, just for the purpose of moving the argument on, then there needs to be no response at all. How many cities are likely to be flooded by a less than knee high sea level rise?

Tim the plumber wrote:For some reason the average temperature of the moon is very much lower than the earth.

Tim the plumber wrote:
I have seen such a model/paper which did that without needing the greenhouse effect.

Tim the plumber wrote:The generally accepted model needs it though.

Tim the plumber wrote: But I am 94% of the opinion that I am unable to debate the finer points of it at all.

Tim the plumber wrote:I think that political policy should look at the IPCC's over hyped and stretched upwards numbers and have a little think about just how inconsequential they are.

Tim the plumber wrote: To what degree of accuracy is a different question.

Tim the plumber wrote: But it's, on average, a much colder place than here.

Tim the plumber wrote: Your theological attack on any idea of measuring anuthing which might make you think that the other side has a point is desturbing. I find it as fixed and dogmatic as the other side often is.

Tim the plumber wrote: If you use an IR camera you can measure the heat of the moon or any other heat emitting object at a distance.

This is easy and accurate to a level that is much better than 1 degree.

Tim the plumber wrote: Given that I put myself at 94% don't know about the greenhouse effect I don't think I can be accused of being religious about it.

Tim the plumber wrote: You however KNOW about it despite not being able to present any evidence about it. That is religious.

Tim the plumber wrote: I care only in a accademic sense about the effects of increased CO2 if they are not going to be noticable.

Tim the plumber wrote: If care a lot about public policy. Icare that the present mis-use of bad science is killing tens of millions of people per year.

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote: If you use an IR camera you can measure the heat of the moon or any other heat emitting object at a distance.

This is easy and accurate to a level that is much better than 1 degree.

I admit that there exist some rather expensive atronomy IR meters. I don't believe you or anyone have the capability to point five such synchronized devices such that the entirety of the moon's surface is measured at the same instant. Can you?

Tim the plumber wrote:
If you use an IR camera you can measure the heat of the moon or any other heat emitting object at a distance.

This is easy and accurate to a level that is much better than 1 degree.

Given that I put myself at 94% don't know about the greenhouse effect I don't think I can be accused of being religious about it.

You however KNOW about it despite not being able to present any evidence about it. That is religious.

I care only in a accademic sense about the effects of increased CO2 if they are not going to be noticable. If care a lot about public policy. Icare that the present mis-use of bad science is killing tens of millions of people per year.

Surface Detail wrote:Look, Tim, if IBdaMann says the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist, OK?

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:Look, Tim, if IBdaMann says the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist, OK?

Look, I know you're still pouting from your last smackdown, but you don't have to misrepresent my position out of spite.

I have never claimed any unfalsifiable deity to not exist...not the Christian God, not the Global Warming "greenhouse effect," not the Muslim Allah, not the Norse Odin, et. al.

I am an atheist. I simply don't have that theology. Not believing in a WACKY religious fantasy is not asserting that something does not exist.

For your part, you haven't provided any falsifiability. It seems like you are the one insisting that the "greenhouse effect" doesn't exist.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote: If you use an IR camera you can measure the heat of the moon or any other heat emitting object at a distance.

This is easy and accurate to a level that is much better than 1 degree.

I admit that there exist some rather expensive atronomy IR meters. I don't believe you or anyone have the capability to point five such synchronized devices such that the entirety of the moon's surface is measured at the same instant. Can you?

You can only accurately measure something like the IR from the moon from an orbital platform. The Earth's atmosphere (and it's water vapor, ozone, etc., all of which varies) gets in the way of any surfaced based IR meter.

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
If you use an IR camera you can measure the heat of the moon or any other heat emitting object at a distance.

This is easy and accurate to a level that is much better than 1 degree.

Given that I put myself at 94% don't know about the greenhouse effect I don't think I can be accused of being religious about it.

You however KNOW about it despite not being able to present any evidence about it. That is religious.

I care only in a accademic sense about the effects of increased CO2 if they are not going to be noticable. If care a lot about public policy. Icare that the present mis-use of bad science is killing tens of millions of people per year.

Look, Tim, if IBdaMann says the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist, OK? And don't let anyone convince you it does, least of all those sneaky, low-down scientists with their lousy experiments and evidence. IBdaMann knows what's good for you - listen to him and to him alone.

Tim the plumber wrote:
We can measure the temperature of the moon.[/color]

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote: If you use an IR camera you can measure the heat of the moon or any other heat emitting object at a distance.

This is easy and accurate to a level that is much better than 1 degree.

I admit that there exist some rather expensive atronomy IR meters. I don't believe you or anyone have the capability to point five such synchronized devices such that the entirety of the moon's surface is measured at the same instant. Can you?

I don't know about this.

You do.

You are however on weak ground because humans have gone to the moon and found the temperature to be what was expected.

Also we now have space based observational instruments.

Also why would the spectrum of light from the moon be altered by passing through the atmosphere? Any light absorbed would then be scattered when/if re-emitted. We get light from distant galaxies through and work out how hot the stars are...

We can measure the temperature of the moon.

You can only accurately measure something like the IR from the moon from an orbital platform. The Earth's atmosphere (and it's water vapor, ozone, etc., all of which varies) gets in the way of any surfaced based IR meter.