 |
Green World Trust
No greenwash here. Just truths as we find them, open to discussion and change
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Eric
Experienced User
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 189
|
 Posted: 06 Mar 2009 01:28 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Mike Davis wrote: | Eric:
You seem to have a problem with this:
"As long as the feedback factor f is less than 1 the output will not run away."
If there is no run-away then there is no problem with GHG. If there is no problem with GHG them your scary future scenerios are no more than fantasy. |
You are purposely not understanding the meaning of words to create an argument.
Runaway means that the effect is infinite. Feedback means the effect can become large.
| Quote: | | The extreme weather events we are experienceing are mild compared to past events and probably mild compared to some future events. So what! Do you on your high pedistal think that human sacrafice is nessecary to prevent any future events. I think there is evidence that your solutions do not work any better than those used by the Witch Doctors. |
You are bringing up a different issue here to divert attention away from the ones I have been discussing with Richard.
| Quote: | "I read their paper and as a physicist I can say it is BS. "
This statement provides evidence of your ability to have an "open mind." |
On the contrary, it proves I have a mind, and know enough physics to identify that their paper is trash. The second law of thermodynamics is not violated by AGW theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Richard111
Experienced User
Joined: 19 Sep 2008
Posts: 433
|
| Posted: 06 Mar 2009 02:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Eric, I visit this forum seeking enlightenment. You?
I do not ask trick questions. I am a retired electronics technician starting his seventh decade and what you see is what you get.
Now, that Hansen paper, Thank you. Lots of interesting things being done in climate science back in 1981. If Lucy has the time I recommend a look at it.
I haven't yet found what I am looking for so will be reading that paper in more detail tonight. I notice there was a feedback figure of ~1.6 very early in the paper. Raised my eyebrows. More reading will help. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Davis
Experienced User
Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 291
Location: E. Tennessee USA
|
| Posted: 07 Mar 2009 04:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Eric:
Please provide real world evidence that the feedback will cause what is claimed. What we see in temperature has occured in the past. What we see in CO2 has occured in the past. The may have a relationship but I think the current consensus is backwards. It is now known that CO2 follows temperature so can not be a cause as temperature drops causing a loss of plants and a colder land/ocean is a better sink than sourse. A warmer land/ocean is a better source than sink. The earths relationship with the sun provides the external forcing that powers the see saw we are rideing on.
The laws of nature are violated by the AGW FANTASY! You are useing effect as a cause. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lucy Skywalker
Site Admin
Joined: 09 May 2006
Posts: 544
Location: Somerset, UK
|
| Posted: 07 Mar 2009 07:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've concluded, sadly, through quite extensive pm's, that Eric is not open to science though he says that's what he wants. There really is very little point of contact. He dismisses anyone on the AGW blacklist without dealing with their science to my satisfaction, and supports warmists as if they are gospel. He and I appear to see two unrecognizably different Lawrence Solomons, two different Solankis, two different Bromwichs... and that was as far as we got. He cherrypicks yet condemns cherrypicking. Strange.
I have adjusted and improved my own wording in several places, in response to his queries - though not, I think, to his satisfaction. The best part was substantial rewording of the very opening paragraphs of the Primer. But it's become a one-way street. I want to move on now...
...the best result for me from tussling with Eric, is it has driven me back to the skeptics' Climate Science wiki project. I am sure this has to be the next creative step from blogs like CA and WUWT. I've now written up this project as a new page and plan to send it, when I am ready, to WUWT as a guest article if Anthony will take it.
I have a funny feeling that this is what I came to Climate Science to do: that my work was first to learn, then to write up, then to discuss, and now to facilitate, to help a wiki start, and gradually stand back as & when really competent skeptical scientists take hold. I'm pretty sure that I have other work to do, that is not Climate Science; but that first I had to reach sufficient competence here, and still I have to complete my work here. I think we'll all know when that point is reached. It will be when the next project is growing under its own steam.
Hey, what metaphors  
Already I can feel the energy shifting. Eric came for a reason. Nothing in the universe happens without reason. Thanks Eric, in a strange way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard111
Experienced User
Joined: 19 Sep 2008
Posts: 433
|
| Posted: 07 Mar 2009 08:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Um.. does this mean we no longer have a resident physicist? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eric
Experienced User
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 189
|
| Posted: 08 Mar 2009 06:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard111 wrote: | | Um.. does this mean we no longer have a resident physicist? |
Good question. If you see this post, I am still here for the time being.
I am assuming that a difference of opinion need not be fatal, but Lucy owns this web site.
My posts speak for themselves. I present the evidence that persuades me to have the opinions I have. I do learn new things here from people that do really have knowledge to offer, such as Ferdinand.
It often happens in religion that some of the strongest believers are the converted.
I am not a climate scientist, but found the paper by Hansen et. al. on CO2 quite readable, and the 1D calculation results with different assumptions about clouds gave a good indication of the reasons for the uncertainties in the amount of warming he calculated. For me it was a very instructive paper.
This is clearly not easy stuff, and back of envelope calculations such as I have seen on some of the web pages by deniers, such as Hertzberg, quoted by Lucy, cannot be persuasive arguments against AGW. This is clearly something that has to be worked out in the peer reviewed literature. So far the overwhelming majority of people who work in the field accept AGW. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lucy Skywalker
Site Admin
Joined: 09 May 2006
Posts: 544
Location: Somerset, UK
|
| Posted: 08 Mar 2009 07:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think I can cope now and even enjoy Eric being here |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard111
Experienced User
Joined: 19 Sep 2008
Posts: 433
|
| Posted: 08 Mar 2009 08:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, so. The wheel turns and we all move on.
Eric, the Hansen paper has taken residence on my hard drive for quick reference. I am unable to find any proof that CO2 is driving the climate changes. I can find many, many references to CO2 and models producing results that claim climate temperatures are/will increase because of increasing CO2. That is not proof. Especially as mentioned in almost the first paragraph that "The most sophisticated models suggest a mean warming of 2C to 3.5C for a doubling of the CO2 concentration from 300 to 600 ppm." There are references to other papers I cannot access which may have more information.
I put a post in the thread Greenhouse gas theory long disproved? that raises a question about equality of absorption and emmision of energy from a CO2 molecule. That is the level I am at. Once I have a handle on that water vapour should be a doddle and then I can move on to lapse rates and humidity etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PAWB
Experienced User
Joined: 14 Oct 2008
Posts: 69
Location: Devon, England
|
| Posted: 08 Mar 2009 09:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Richard:
The quote "The most sophisticated models suggest" sums up what is wrong with AGW. It is all based on computer models which have no basis in physics (they don't model the physics, the seasons, day and night, ocean currents, the sun's activity, clouds etc etc and they don't model fine detail). I spent years modelling closed thermal-hydraulic systems, not an open system like the atmosphere of earth. It took years to validate the model against experimental data before it could be used with any confidence. And we had to verify the coding and construct detailed user instructions. Compare that with climate models, which are far more complex, aren't based on correct physics, cannot be validated because there is no experimental or even climate data and as for verification, well who knows? And I haven't mentioned chaos theory.
The word "suggest" sums it all up. Climate models are not evidence of anything. Engineers don't design things based on suggestions, they use validated models. I know, I spent years involved in the subject.
How much do we know about how the climate works. 5%, 10%?
_________________
Phillip in Devon, England |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eric
Experienced User
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 189
|
| Posted: 09 Mar 2009 01:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| PAWB wrote: | Richard:
The quote "The most sophisticated models suggest" sums up what is wrong with AGW. It is all based on computer models which have no basis in physics (they don't model the physics, the seasons, day and night, ocean currents, the sun's activity, clouds etc etc and they don't model fine detail). I spent years modelling closed thermal-hydraulic systems, not an open system like the atmosphere of earth. It took years to validate the model against experimental data before it could be used with any confidence. And we had to verify the coding and construct detailed user instructions. Compare that with climate models, which are far more complex, aren't based on correct physics, cannot be validated because there is no experimental or even climate data and as for verification, well who knows? And I haven't mentioned chaos theory.
The word "suggest" sums it all up. Climate models are not evidence of anything. Engineers don't design things based on suggestions, they use validated models. I know, I spent years involved in the subject.
How much do we know about how the climate works. 5%, 10%? |
Climate models are not for the purpose of designing a commercial product that must function exactly as expected. They don't have to be as good as the models you worked on to be of use. You also had the benefit of being able to build and test a product under controlled conditions.
You claim that climate models are not based on correct physics, this is a doubtful proposition on its face given the number of people that have been working on this problem. I have read some of the web posts on this topic and haven't found any of them to be correct.
The models are a combination of fundamental physics that has been tested and is well understood, and empirical parameters that are the result of observations, involving clouds and aerosals for instance. These are still being developed, and provide some of the uncertainty, which is bounded by observations. Solar radiation has been included in models, contrary to what you have said above.
Trying to model long term client with models that include details of the development of weather is futile. There is not enough computing power in the world available to do that. The lack of details of weather is a criticism of climate models that is made sometimes by meteorologists. I suspect some of this is a kind of turf battle, but these folks are a minority. The American Meteorological society gave Hansen its highest award for his modelling work that was instrumental in understanding climate.
There is no other way than computer modeling to study such a complex system. The alternative is to do no research whatever on the subject of climate. This type of modeling has been criticized by Freeman Dyson, the elementary particle physicist, because it doesn't proceed entirely from first principles of physics and uses empiricism that he dislikes. The problem with using his preferred approach is that there would be no way to do research on this subject at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eric
Experienced User
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 189
|
| Posted: 09 Mar 2009 01:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard111 wrote: | Ah, so. The wheel turns and we all move on.
Eric, the Hansen paper has taken residence on my hard drive for quick reference. I am unable to find any proof that CO2 is driving the climate changes. I can find many, many references to CO2 and models producing results that claim climate temperatures are/will increase because of increasing CO2. That is not proof. Especially as mentioned in almost the first paragraph that "The most sophisticated models suggest a mean warming of 2C to 3.5C for a doubling of the CO2 concentration from 300 to 600 ppm." There are references to other papers I cannot access which may have more information.
I put a post in the thread Greenhouse gas theory long disproved? that raises a question about equality of absorption and emmision of energy from a CO2 molecule. That is the level I am at. Once I have a handle on that water vapour should be a doddle and then I can move on to lapse rates and humidity etc. |
I don't know what you require as proof. I suspected that you would say that there was no proof, at the time you asked for a paper.
I guess if you believe the scientist author of the paper to be a liar, it will be impossible for him to demonstrate anything to you.
The 1 dimensional models Hansen talks about are described in this article by Spencer Weart, who is a science historian who has written extensively about the discorvery of global warming.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm
He points out some of the fingerprints of greenhouse warming that are suggested even in the simple models are currently confirmed in the data.
| Quote: | | During the 1980s, many scientists came to believe that the Earth was getting warmer. But that said nothing about the cause. A search got underway for "fingerprints" — specific patterns of climate that would point to the greenhouse effect (or point away from it, to some other cause). As one example, both computer models and simple reasoning declared that when gases in mid-atmosphere blocked radiation coming up from the surface, that would leave the stratosphere above the gases cooler. By 1988, "a number of intriguing candidates are appearing that might be part of a fingerprint," a Science magazine report said, but "no one is claiming a certain identification of the greenhouse signal."(97) |
The stratospheric cooling that was predicted is seen in the data as well as other fingerprints of the Greenhouse effect, including increase in height of the tropopause, and the simulataneous warming of the oceans from the top downward, which cannot be explained by increases is solar radiation.
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Pew%20Center_Global%20Fingerprints_3.06.pdf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard111
Experienced User
Joined: 19 Sep 2008
Posts: 433
|
| Posted: 09 Mar 2009 07:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry Eric, you are becoming tedious.
I haven't accused anyone of lying. I am looking for proof that CO2 can warm up the atmosphere. I simply don't believe it can.
Currently, I am trying to get my head around The Compton Effect.
You of course understand all that. So why not write a short explanation, suitably dumned down, that explains at the molecular level, how CO2 can absorb radiation, heat up the surrounding air, and reradiate to heat up some more air. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PAWB
Experienced User
Joined: 14 Oct 2008
Posts: 69
Location: Devon, England
|
| Posted: 09 Mar 2009 07:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Eric:
I stand 100% by my statement about climate models. If you think the science of climate modelling is settled, read the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper 'Falsification of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Eff ects within the Frame of Physics' or the paper by Michael Hammer at Jennifer Marohasy's blog compared to the Kiehl & Trenberth model. Climate models haven't been able to replicate the past and they cannot model the future. They are no better than computer games and will remain so until we understand how the climate works.
_________________
Phillip in Devon, England |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eric
Experienced User
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 189
|
| Posted: 09 Mar 2009 04:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard111 wrote: | Sorry Eric, you are becoming tedious.
I haven't accused anyone of lying. I am looking for proof that CO2 can warm up the atmosphere. I simply don't believe it can.
Currently, I am trying to get my head around The Compton Effect. |
The compton effect is the result of the application of energy and linear momentum conservation laws to a collision between a individual electron and a photon. Linear momentum is a vector so the intial and final directions of motion will figure into the equation for conservation of momentum.
| Quote: | | You of course understand all that. So why not write a short explanation, suitably dumned down, that explains at the molecular level, how CO2 can absorb radiation, heat up the surrounding air, and reradiate to heat up some more air. |
I already did that , but I will try a little harder . The IR energy absorbed by the CO2 or other GHG molecule is converted to a mechanical vibration or rotational energy of motion in some excited state. This molecule does not stay in the excited state forever. The amount of time in this excited state will depend on the density and temperature of the gas, which affects collision rate. The higher the collision rate, the shorter the length of time spent in the excited state. This has the effect of broadening the spectral line as does the velocity distribution of the molecules which are doing the absorbing. The photon that is emitted may be altered in energy and direction from the photon that was originally absorbed. As a result the radiation flux emitted originally upward from the ground will be partially redirected back to the ground as a result of absorption - re emission processes.
Some of the time, a collision between a molecule in an excited state and another molecule will result in a radiationless transition, with the excited state energy of vibration or rotation converted into kinetic energy of linear motion. This energy is shared with other molecules during successive collisions.
This is an example of how the IR can heat the gas.
I am sorry that you consider my efforts tedious. Science is a tedious methodical pursuit by nature. That is why few people go into it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PAWB
Experienced User
Joined: 14 Oct 2008
Posts: 69
Location: Devon, England
|
| Posted: 09 Mar 2009 04:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The radiation emitted by gas molecules will be equally in all directions. Because there is <0.1% CO2 in the air, little IR from the ground is actually absorbed and emitted by CO2. Most is absorbed by water vapour or passes through the atmosphere straight out to space. Much energy from the ground is conducted to air (nitrogen and oxygen) molecules and is convected upwards and the energy is eventually radiated away to space. Likewise water is evaporated and convected upwards, with the latent heat being released and radiated away.
_________________
Phillip in Devon, England |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
