Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hangar Talk' started by steingar, Dec 3, 2014.
Do you have a reference on that?
Oh. Without the error bar there is a .6 difference. But with an error bar it would be statistically insignificant.
If a school teacher used this graph for a lesson, what will the teacher say it means? Does this chart have a bias built into it?
What does it mean.? Shouldn't there be a significant difference between incoming and outgoing radiation if a lot of this outgoing radiation is "trapped" by Greenhouse gases?
It depends on how big the error bar is. Error bars are a measure of our uncertainty in a measured value. The true value lies somewhere in the range indicated. 0.6 +- 0.2 means the true value lies between 0.4 and 0.8. 0.6 +- 0.7 means that 0 lies within the range, so we cannot falsify 0 as a possible value.
The teacher should say that it represents the best current measurements of the different parts of the planetary energy balance. That is how NASA represents it. I doubt very strongly that the chart is intentionally biased if that's what you mean, but systematic error is always possible and is something that refinements in instrumentation and technique will hopefully uncover, if it exists.
No. The difference, if it is significant, means only that there is more energy coming in than going out, so the planet must warm to restore the balance. Once a new balance is reached, the difference will once again be zero.
You said you followed the links at the ACS site, but did you read the page on radiative forcing? This paragraph describes the process:
This has been a really enlightening thread with lots of thought-provoking dialog. If azure and retro don't mind, I'd like to learn about your backgrounds - academic, professional, or other. Would each of you give us a short overview or even just a bullet list describing your background?
I used the the googles, and the most accurate CO2 meter I could find was +/- 30ppm. Why doesn't the paper you reference list the equipment used????
I finished my PhD in physics back in the early 1990s. My research area was electron interactions with small diatomic molecules (mainly H2). Afterward I spent about 15 years doing a combination of IRIX and Linux system administration, grid software development, and teaching introductory physics and astronomy at the undergraduate level. My systems work was funded by soft money, which dried up in 2010. Since then I've been teaching full time.
I seriously doubt they use commercially available equipment.
Thanks much. Now waiting to hear from retro.
2014 wasn't the warmist year on record but the headline was widely used.
Instead of technical explanations I would like to hear in layman's terms how the science remains 'settled' in spite of the models being wrong, and the predictions.
I don't have to be a physicist to know that falsifying data in order to hide trends that are there and expose predicted trends that are not evident but were predicted adds up to propaganda. Why do the 'real' scientest rely on then defend anything other than truth that can be replicated?
Go back and look at predictions made by the experts, and then look at what really happened. The climate alarmists 15 or so years ago were forecasting catastrophic events by this time. Yet sea levels have not been rising any faster than they have been for centuries. The major climate models were projecting steady rises in global warming each year, yet average temperatures have not risen for 17 years. Al Gore and his alarmist crowd told us that the Arctic would be free of sea ice during the summer by now and that we would be having more and stronger tornadoes and hurricanes. The Arctic sea ice is still with us, and few ships dare sail there. Many tornado and hurricane records have been broken — not because there were more — but because there have been fewer. Florida has gone a record nine straight seasons without a significant hurricane.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...rs-predictions-like-climate-ch/#ixzz3Ns12CVHS
This link references a laser/ interferometer based system that measures changes as small as 2.3 ppm concentration of CO2. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20080037988.pdf
Some mass spectrometer systems do even better, but those capable of such precision aren't very portable.
Good article. The link above is a conversation among climate scientists. Most of those involved believe in the Greenhouse effect, some think the effect is large, some think the effect is very small . A couple of "deniers " appear every now and then. Even among the believers there is a lot of debate about the workings of the mechanism.
I think it may eventually dawn on them that something is amiss with their theory. My own simple thoughts on climate science is this:
The SB equation can not predict the temperature of an actual celestial body. For those that think it can it is necessary to invent this thing called the Greenhouse effect.
In order to make this effect work, it becomes very complex and the Greenhouse gases are naturally of utmost importance. Most think the balance is important and therefore our addition of CO2 is going to throw everything out of whack. The minority think the mechanism is self correcting, at most a small increase in temp which would be beneficial.
Maybe I have chosen the denier camp becuase I think it presents a much more coherent explanation of Earths' temperature variations. As for the weather, once the Suns rays enter the atmosphere all hell breaks loose and we have only scratched the surface in figuring that out.
As for the temperature of the Earth I think the only thing that matters is the amount of solar radiation that reaches the surface and its' distribution, and the amount of cosmic rays that enter the atmosphere. Increase the radiation the temp warms, decrease the radiation the temps cool. Since the output from the sun appears to be constant, only a couple of things can vary that amount of radiation and dirstibution.
1. Changes in the Earths' orbit.
2. Changes in the Earths' tilt
3. The third factor , which doesn't affect the amount of radiation but the amount of cosmic rays is solar activity.
The first two take place over very long time periods, the third can change the climate in our lifetime. A very interesting paper was published by two astrophysicists that demonstrated a very strong link of solar activity to climate. Basically, when the sun is active this causes solar wind which deflects cosmic rays away from out armosphere. When the the sun is "quiet" , there is less solar wind so more cosmic rays enter the atmosphere. Cosmic rays create ions which are the nuclei for cloud formation. So , active sun we will be warm, quiet sun we will be cloudy and
cold. It is thought that a quiet sun was responsible for the little ice age.
Maybe this is all too simplistic for some, but for me it is what makes the most sense. We are starting to compile a base of reliable data from Satalites and the ARGOS ocean buoys. This data has no need to be "adjusted". Things aren't looking good for the Greenhouse proponents, except for those that say the effect is small.
I read the entire article. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't catch anything in there referencing 2014 and its status on the records ladder.
And you're sure that this rampant falsification of data is actually occurring in research projects all around the world? I'm curious - what is your scientific background? It's a relevant question considering your opinions on how scientific research is performed.
The alarmists are making the falsifications go away through self investigation and exoneration. Earlier they made warm and cold periods go away to create the hockey stick. You are correct I have no formal training but the implication that I lack 'standing' to even question is absurd.
Is it your position that 2014 was the warmest year on record? Based on what?
Do you see the conflict that each year is declared the warmest while there has been no warming for close to 20 years?
You certainly are entitled to your opinions. Just wanted to see what kind background so I'd know how to weight your commons.
Color me self taught in all things including flying skills. I was busy making money when most people where still going to high school.
I do have a sense of smell and therefore question climate science as it is presented by the media and politicians.
Roger that. Charges of major data falsification and global conspiracy among the science community from someone with no science and no academic research background. Got it.
This is simply not true. The Greenhouse effect was not "necessary to invent", it is a consequence of the physics of radiative transfer that is based on the spectroscopic properties of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere, as well as the theory of thermal radiation whose predictions are well matched in the observed fluxes plotted in the figures on those ACS pages you were pointed to, and said you had read (but obviously did not understand).
Again, this is not correct. The complexity is not something imposed to make the theory work, like a fudge factor, it is a consequence of the physics involved and the way changes in variables affect other variables. The radiative transfer model in the ACS link is only one part of the physics involved. To correctly model the atmosphere one needs also to take into account the equations of fluid dynamics.
As others have said, you're entitled to your opinions and no one is forcing you to engage with the science if you're unwilling or unable. It's fine to form a layman's opinion of the integrity of the research based on clues outside the realm of the science itself. But if you won't (or can't) understand the science, at least have the integrity yourself to admit that you're in no position to try to summarize it or pass judgement on exactly what is wrong with a model that fails to conform with observations.
When it comes to MMGW we are no longer in the realm of science. What kind of science continues to ignore what is occurring in the real world? After reading that thread, it is not even certain that anyone has actually been able to measure this "down welling" flux. It is just like everything else you point to as incontestable fact, when in reality it is full of uncertainty. When someone on that thread tried to bring some reality to the discussion , like reminding them that heat only moves from warm to cold, they were ignored.
It is obvious to anyone without blinders on, that climate science has been corrupted. The arrogance of some of the so called scientifc community is amazing. The closer we come to everyone realizing the climate science community has been feeding us Voodoo science the more vitriolic they become.
I'm in a perfect position to pass judgement on these models. We've been asked to do so. Besides, the people telling us what we need to do to avoid catastrophe won't say what is wrong. They just keep repeating the same BS. If you and others like you have such a great understandiing of the science involved, why are you consistently WRONG? Most people would be embarrassed if they were wrong 100% of the time. Stop telling me I don't understand any of this. I wish I didn't understand it so well because it has disgusted me .
Fairly good assessment of the state of climate science.
I'm waiting for the MMGW science to explain how MMGW fits in with the historic cycle of global warming/cooling. And I'm not talking about a microscopic view of history that only goes back a few hundred or thousand years. You can look at anything in minute detail and decide that the data you see right now is "the warmest we've ever seen", even though we know that the earth has always gone through a cycle of much warmer/much colder periods, and will continue to do so.
What most MMGW scientists are looking at is noise on a sine wave. I'm not a scientist, but I'm also not a fool. We didn't start, end, or significantly alter any of the previous glacial periods. We aren't doing it now. Man isn't that strong. More solar energy strikes the surface of the earth in one hour than is provided by all of the fossil energy consumed globally in a year.
Before someone rushes to accuse me of planet rape, let me add that I believe we should do everything within reason to maintain a clean and healthy environment. But while I'm all for a clean and healthy environment, I don't for a second believe that a healthy environment will equate to any meaningful change in the global climate. We're all on the global climate roller coaster together. I don't want the guy next to me to blow smoke in my face, but whether he does or doesn't isn't going to change the mechanics of the ride any at all.
Yup....we have had electricity since 1880 at best.....
Crapping in outhouses for longer than that....
But hey....we have a great grasp on what is happening globally since Earth was formed!!!
Comical.....whatever evidence we have....either way.
I doubt many will read through the PDF you linked to, but it's actually very interesting. Thanks for the link!
Agree....Science in this day and age is looking more like politics.
Which in the end....is sad for both....and doesn't help humanity as a whole.
He who has the most money wins on race day....but the Earth just blinked and that was the equivalent of 1000 race days. And the Earth will blink again tomorrow.
Your opponent in this debate provided his/her credentials/background. Can you supply yours?
“The Antarctic is actually growing and all the evidence in the last few months suggests many assumptions about the poles were wrong. “Global sea ice is at a record high, another key indicator that something is working in the opposite direction of what was predicted.”
“Most people think the poles are melting… they’re not. This is a huge inconvenience that reality is now catching up with climate alarmists, who were predicting that the poles would be melting fairly soon.”
I agree that there is enough uncertainty in our climate's long-term variability to leave some doubt about how much, if any of the recent warming trend is due to human effects. You'll find lots of opinions about that among climate scientists. The vast majority believe it is very likely that most of it is human caused, though I'm not sure how that majority breaks down into "better than 95% likely" vs. "better than 66% likely" or 50% likely or whatever percentage >=50% you pick. At this point I'm in the "likelier than not" camp, but I wouldn't try to be more definite than that. IOW better than 50%. Judith Curry has come down at the "as likely as not" point. There's also a minority who think it's more likely that we're seeing normal climate variability. I don't think we've ruled out that most of what we think is signal is actually noise, but in my mind it's almost certain that we've caused *some* of it.
That argument really doesn't mean anything. On the first point, we were hunter/gatherers during the previous glacials and interglacials, we weren't in any better position than any other species to alter the global climate in any significant way. On the second, the planet also loses almost exactly the same amount of energy that it receives from the Sun, by radiation into space. "Almost" means that increasing GHGs in the atmosphere creates an imbalance that is small, but it's consistently in the warming direction and that is what matters. Say your net cash flow is zero without flying. If you fly even once a month, then your net cash flow is negative and unless you stop or balance the outflow, you are eventually going to go broke.
I wouldn't accuse anyone of planet rape. We're locked on a fossil-fuel treadmill and most of the available alternative energy sources require investments that will hurt everyone across the board just to reduce our fossil fuel usage by a significant amount. The IPCC has run various scenarios in that regard, but even significant reductions in CO2 emissions still carry the risk of serious disruptions to the climate system.
Whether those disruptions will happen or not depends on how sensitive the climate is to changes in CO2. That's another unanswered question in climate science.
I thought this article was interesting.
Co founder of Greenpeace
Mr. Aplin likes nuclear energy. A lot.
What says you ????
The video of Dr. Patrick Moore is very interesting and a good watch for everyone, regardless of your side of the argument. A couple of comments about it.
(1) Moore appears to be a highly educated and knowledgeable figure in ecology. I haven't looked him up, but assume that he is as he is represented here.
(2) He is repeatedly tied to Greenpeace, but left the organization many years ago. He no longer speaks for Greenpeace. No suggestion here that Greenpeace's message is right or wrong, only that Dr. Moore's big tag as one of the founder's of Greenpeace has nothing to do with his (or their) current message.
(3) His message that wood is one of the most important of the earth's resources is one that both sides would agree with, probably even for the same reasons.
(4) His message to use more wood and less steel is probably another one that both sides would agree on. I haven't looked into this argument in much detail, but on the surface it seems like a very good one. Proper forestry management supports renewability. Mining for iron does not.
(5) His argument about the years 1910-1940 and 1970-2000 is too nuanced to swallow without a good bit of research. He may be right or he may be wrong. It depends on specific verbiage in some IPCC message that I haven't looked up. Way too broad to boil down into a succinct argument and not one to be tackled in a few paragraphs.
(6) Cut down more trees and do more forestry. This is where he really runs off the tracks. It's not his whole message in this video, but it's one that is misleading and one that is misused by environmental critics. (a) Clean shaving off old growth forests to get timber does huge environmental damage in a variety of ways. It's an enormous cost that he ignores in his talk. (b) Cutting down indigenous forest without replacing it (for example, logging, then converting to the land to farmland) reduces biodiversity and can alter hydrologic cycles when done in large areas. In the last decade of the 20th century, an area in the Amazon rainforest equal to the size of Spain was logged and converted to pastureland. This is typical of what happens to vast areas of wilderness when humans move in. This is a massive problem with global consequences.
(7) Moore makes no distinction between scientifically farming trees and standard worldwide logging practices. He simply says we need to be cutting down more trees. I'm sure that he understands the need for maintaining some global average of living trees, but he fails to stress this point in his talk. In fact, he ignores it completely. Environmental critics will only hear that part and will push to continue on our path of global deforestation. This will be a catastrophic mistake.
He is a scientist so might be able to find discrepancies with the climate alarmist's dogma. Is anybody going to argue that he is in the pocket of the oil industry as are all climate change deniers?
Putting your head in the sand when data falsification and manipulation is proven. Got it.
Exactly, our overall energy system runs 20% total efficiency max when you figure dealing with waste product. We need to look for at least 80%, and the only way to do that is to run things on multiple levels of efficiency. That is how everything in nature operates, there is no waste because nature makes use and reuse of everything.
We can create current era biological energy from the waste product of our use of fossil era biological energy just by using the released CO2, water, and heat, that we throw away now.
We could take advantage of that in the minting of Carbon Credits to sell to Saudis, the Kuwaitis.... Who need them and get some of our money back and out of the hands of the Global Islamic Revolution happening. The whole Carbon Tax issue can be used to our advantage to bolster our economy and reverse our economic trade imbalance.
Solid Oxide Fuel Cells combined with greenhouses and algae reactors in abandoned industrial and commercial buildings in blighted areas could change the outlook not only for our country but world as well. It could eliminate the welfare system as well.
Yes, he certainly might. I never claimed this was a simple problem. And is he in bed with the oil industry? I have no idea. No reason to believe one way or the other. Plenty of high-profile CC deniers are aligned with prejudiced parties, but I've seen no evidence that Moore is.
See, there is not one entrepreneur among you. You all want to argue about this crap rather than figure out how to take advantage of it.
I'm selling carbon credits. Normally $100,000 per unit but on sale to POA members for only $10,000.