The Data Mine

Tim the plumber wrote:

Ceist wrote:No. It wasn't inconsistent and it wasn't "attacking another paper". It did not say that "the IR spectrum which CO2 was effective in could easily reach saturation"

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

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

Saturation fallacies

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

My bold.

The paper you linked to;

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

is an attack on the origonal paper by Angstrom.

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

Ceist wrote:
My thoughts are that this Data Mine thread is a "Kiddie Pool" for people who know less than a 5th grader about even basic science but want to pretend they are 'discussing science'.

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

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

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

Ceist wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Ceist wrote:No. It wasn't inconsistent and it wasn't "attacking another paper". It did not say that "the IR spectrum which CO2 was effective in could easily reach saturation"

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

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

Saturation fallacies

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

My bold.

The paper you linked to;

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

is an attack on the origonal paper by Angstrom.

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

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

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

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

Tim the plumber wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Ceist wrote:No. It wasn't inconsistent and it wasn't "attacking another paper". It did not say that "the IR spectrum which CO2 was effective in could easily reach saturation"

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

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

Saturation fallacies

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

My bold.

The paper you linked to;

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

is an attack on the origonal paper by Angstrom.

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

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

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

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

So, back once again to the origional point;

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

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

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

Tim the plumber wrote:

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

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

You came back with the paper above.

I looked at it and found it wrong.

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

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

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

Ceist wrote:
I'll leave you to play with 'numbers' from individual stations in your own little 'infants pool' thread where you can pretend to be 'discussing data' and 'reel sciencey stuff'

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

Ceist wrote:Tim, go read a first year science textbook on the subject if you want to 'discuss' climate science or specifically atmospheric physics in any sort of informed intelligent way.

IBdaMann wrote:

Ceist wrote:Tim, go read a first year science textbook on the subject if you want to 'discuss' climate science or specifically atmospheric physics in any sort of informed intelligent way.

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

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

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

Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry

IBdaMann wrote:

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

Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry

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

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

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

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

You came back with the paper above.

I looked at it and found it wrong.

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

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

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

What did you find wrong about it?

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

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

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

You came back with the paper above.

I looked at it and found it wrong.

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

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

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

What did you find wrong about it?

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

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

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

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

I would appreciate a decent discussion about it.

Tim the plumber wrote:
The paper's basic argument was that earth's atmosphere could behave as Venus's does.

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

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

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

I would appreciate a decent discussion about it.

Tim the plumber wrote:
Into,

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

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

Tim the plumber wrote: Into,

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

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote: Into,

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

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

Have you ever seen any such explanation anywhere?

Tim the plumber wrote: You maintain the position that all materials react with all EM radiation in the same way.

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

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

Into the Night wrote:The Data Mine prefers plain vanilla. No extra fudge.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:The Data Mine prefers plain vanilla. No extra fudge.

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

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


.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:The Data Mine prefers plain vanilla. No extra fudge.

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

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


.

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

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

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:The Data Mine prefers plain vanilla. No extra fudge.

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

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


.

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

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

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

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

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:The Data Mine prefers plain vanilla. No extra fudge.

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

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


.

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

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

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

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


.

Into the Night wrote:
It is quite indicative that the avoidance of the Data Mine thread by the Church of Global Warming only goes to show how little data they actually have.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
It is quite indicative that the avoidance of the Data Mine thread by the Church of Global Warming only goes to show how little data they actually have.

I remember your Data Mine from Topix. It was such an outstanding idea; posters could build a repository of valid datasets that would aid anyone in their endeavors to support their claims. Sadly, I believe I was the only one that had made an entry of validated data sources with information on sensor margin of error (if I recall correctly, it concerned Arctic temperature readings that I used to hurl back at litesong as he would rant about how hot the Arctic was becoming). It was your Data Mine that really opened my eyes to the fact that NO ONE had any data, and that the oft-used "the data" reference simply revealed another dupe.

So the Topix Data Mine, just like this one, remained completely devoid of data useful to the Global Warming cause. It makes me laugh to realize the Global Warming gold mine is empty and boarded up. If I were the administrator I would pin the Data Mine to the top of the list.

quoting the IPCC; in the future, scientists should strive to communicate certainty,

gfm7175 wrote:
Hahahaha I like how this thread has gone YEARS... numerous years... without ANY data being presented hahahaha...

This thread sure made my morning

James___ wrote:

quoting the IPCC; in the future, scientists should strive to communicate certainty,

See, NotDaMann? I provide the source of material. It's funny how people like you, ITN, etc. can post with "certainty" yet ignore the primary argument that skeptics use, that talk of CO2 and Global Warming started at the end of the Little Ice Age.

James___ wrote: I mean you guys say that no warming or climate change happens.

James___ wrote: A complete denial of what has actually been observed. This means that you belong to the Church of Logic which is communism. Those who think they are, smarter, better, etc. based on the belief that their idea is true and correct and omits any religious belief is simply The Communist Manifesto.

James___ wrote: After all, many in here claim there is a Church of Global Warming because a belief in God is bad.

James___ wrote: It's interesting but this forum might be about educating people how logic supports communism. maybe that's why GFM and ITN created it. This then makes them the creators and their logic cannot be falsified.

James___ wrote: I owe you an apology ITN. I thought you were a Native American that was unhappy but now just believe that you are a communist and when we accept you logic then we can accept your rule.

gfm7175 wrote:
James?? Being incoherent again??? Say it ain't so!!!!

You know James, sometimes you can use LESS words, yet convey MORE meaning with those words...

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:

quoting the IPCC; in the future, scientists should strive to communicate certainty,

See, NotDaMann? I provide the source of material. It's funny how people like you, ITN, etc. can post with "certainty" yet ignore the primary argument that skeptics use, that talk of CO2 and Global Warming started at the end of the Little Ice Age.

James___, help me out here. You totally lost me. I know you are trying to express something wondrous because I see words that you have typed ... but your post seems to be running interference on itself.

Could I get you to rewrite your point in English. I really didn't latch onto anything coherent.

James___ wrote: I mean you guys say that no warming or climate change happens.

Nope. That's not what I say.

1. Warming happens. The sun does that per Stefan-Boltzmann.
2. Cooling happens. The earth cools per Stefan-Boltzmann.
3. I don't know what you mean when you use "climate" in a seemingly logically contradictory manner.

James___ wrote: A complete denial of what has actually been observed. This means that you belong to the Church of Logic which is communism. Those who think they are, smarter, better, etc. based on the belief that their idea is true and correct and omits any religious belief is simply The Communist Manifesto.

Nope.

A bit of advice for you. You can write less and exert less effort and still get away with being wrong.

James___ wrote: After all, many in here claim there is a Church of Global Warming because a belief in God is bad.

I have not seen these claims. Could you provide some links?

James___ wrote: It's interesting but this forum might be about educating people how logic supports communism. maybe that's why GFM and ITN created it. This then makes them the creators and their logic cannot be falsified.

So it is your contention that Into the Night has been striving all along to render his logic unfalsifiable?

James___ wrote: I owe you an apology ITN. I thought you were a Native American that was unhappy but now just believe that you are a communist and when we accept you logic then we can accept your rule.

@ Into the Night - forgive me for not having noticed before. What is thy bidding?

James___ wrote: Seattle has recorded rising sea levels for over 100 years.

James___ wrote: It's funny how someone like itn who lives around Seattle can say that the people in Seattle are wrong.

James___ wrote: You guys sound just like the IPCC. That is so funny it's sad

James___ wrote:NotDaMann, your clever use of logic isn't working.

James___ wrote: The 3 of you seem to be denying that there was a Medieval Warm Period or a Little Ice Age.

James___ wrote: This is a serious failure of being able to accept reality. It's funny but the 3 of you use modern technology like the internet yet say science is a religion.