WC you obviously ignore proof and believe what you want so why would I bother any longer?
You seem to be quite a eminence in the topic though. Including a vast collection of pretty graphs, with a bunch of arrows in them.
You should consider sharing what you know with the world.
I think it's inconclusive as far as establishing if climate change is man made or not.
WC you obviously ignore proof and believe what you want so why would I bother any longer?
Something to consider:
Peer Review, Publication in Top Journals, Scientific Consensus, and So Forth
In following the discussion of global warming and related issues in the press and the blogosphere, I have been struck repeatedly by the assumption or expression of certain beliefs that strike me as highly problematical. Many writers who are not scientists themselves are trading on the prestige of science and the authority of scientists. Reference to “peer-reviewed research” and to an alleged “scientific consensus” are regarded as veritable knock-out blows by many commentators. Yet many of those who make such references appear to me to be more or less ignorant of how science as a form of knowledge-seeking and scientists as individual professionals operate, especially nowadays, when national governments―most notably the U.S. government―play such an overwhelming role in financing scientific research and hence in determining which scientists rise to the top and which fall by the wayside.
I do not pretend to have expertise in climatology or any of the related physical sciences, so nothing I might say about strictly climatological or related physical-scientific matters deserves any weight. However, I have thirty-nine years of professional experience―twenty-six as a university professor, including fifteen at a major research university, and then thirteen as a researcher, writer, and editor―in close contact with scientists of various sorts, including some in the biological and physical sciences and many in the social sciences and demography. I have served as a peer reviewer for more than thirty professional journals and as a reviewer of research proposals for the National Science Foundation, the National Ins utes of Health, and a number of large private foundations. I was the principal investigator of a major NSF-funded research project in the field of demography. So, I think I know something about how the system works.
It does not work as outsiders seem to think.
Peer review, on which lay people place great weight, varies from being an important control, where the editors and the referees are competent and responsible, to being a complete farce, where they are not. As a rule, not surprisingly, the process operates somewhere in the middle, being more than a joke but less than the nearly flawless system of Olympian scrutiny that outsiders imagine it to be. Any journal editor who desires, for whatever reason, to reject a submission can easily do so by choosing referees he knows full well will knock it down; likewise, he can easily obtain favorable referee reports. As I have always counseled young people whose work was rejected, seemingly on improper or insufficient grounds, the system is a crap shoot. Personal vendettas, ideological conflicts, professional jealousies, methodological disagreements, sheer self-promotion, and a great deal of plain incompetence and irresponsibility are no strangers to the scientific world; indeed, that world is rife with these all-too-human attributes. In no event can peer review ensure that research is correct in its procedures or its conclusions. The history of every science is a chronicle of one mistake after another. In some sciences these mistakes are largely weeded out in the course of time; in others they persist for extended periods; and in some sciences, such as economics, actual scientific retrogression may continue for generations under the misguided (but self-serving) belief that it is really progress.
At any given time, consensus may exist about all sorts of matters in a particular science. In retrospect, however, that consensus is often seen to have been mistaken. As recently as the mid-1970s, for example, a scientific consensus existed among climatologists and scientists in related fields that the earth was about to enter a new ice age. Drastic proposals were made, such as exploding hydrogen bombs over the polar icecaps (to melt them) or damming the Bering Strait (to prevent cold Arctic water from entering the Pacific Ocean), to avert this impending disaster. Well-reputed scientists, not just uninformed wackos, made such proposals. How quickly we forget.
Researchers who employ unorthodox methods or theoretical frameworks have great difficulty under modern conditions in getting their findings published in the “best” journals or, at times, in any scientific journal. Scientific innovators or creative eccentrics always strike the great mass of prac ioners as nut cases―until their findings become impossible to deny, which often occurs only after one generation’s professional ring-masters have died off. Science is an odd undertaking: everybody strives to make the next breakthrough, yet when someone does, he is often greeted as if he were carrying the ebola virus. Too many people have too much invested in the reigning ideas; for those people an acknowledgment of their own idea’s bankruptcy is tantamount to an admission that they have wasted their lives. Often, perhaps to avoid cognitive dissonance, they never admit that their ideas were wrong. Most important, as a rule, in science as elsewhere, to get along, you must go along.
Research worlds, in their upper reaches, are pretty small. Leading researchers know all the major players and what everybody else is doing. They attend the same conferences, belong to the same societies, send their grad students to be postdocs in the other people’s labs, review one another’s work for the NSF, NIH, or other government funding organizations, and so forth. If you do not belong to this tight fraternity, it will prove very, very difficult for you to gain a hearing for your work, to publish in a “top” journal, to acquire a government grant, to receive an invitation to participate in a scientific-conference panel discussion, or to place your grad students in decent positions. The whole setup is tremendously incestuous; the interconnections are numerous, tight, and close.
In this context, a bright young person needs to display cleverness in applying the prevailing orthodoxy, but it behooves him not to rock the boat by challenging anything fundamental or dear to the hearts of those who cons ute the review committees for the NSF, NIH, and other funding organizations. Modern biological and physical science is, overwhelmingly, government-funded science. If your work, for whatever reason, does not appeal to the relevant funding agency’s bureaucrats and academic review committees, you can forget about getting any money to carry out your proposal. Recall the human frailties I mentioned previously; they apply just as much in the funding context as in the publication context. Indeed, these two contexts are themselves tightly linked: if you don’t get funding, you’ll never produce publishable work, and if you don’t land good publications, you won’t continue to receive funding.
When your research implies a “need” for drastic government action to avert a looming disaster or to allay some dire existing problem, government bureaucrats and legislators (can you say “earmarks”?) are more likely to approve it. If the managers at the NSF, NIH, and other government funding agencies gave great amounts of money to scientists whose research implies that no disaster looms or no dire problem now exists or even that although a problem exists, no currently feasible government policy can do anything to solve it without creating greater problems in the process, members of Congress would be much less inclined to throw money at the agency, with all the consequences that an appropriations cutback implies for bureaucratic thriving. No one has to explain all these things to the parties involved; they are not idiots, and they understand how the wheels are greased in their tight little worlds.
Finally, we need to develop a much keener sense of what a scientist is qualified to talk about and what he is not qualified to talk about. Climatologists, for example, are qualified to talk about the science of climatology (though subject to all the intrusions upon pure science I have already mentioned). They are not qualified to say, however, that “we must act now” by imposing government “solutions” of some imagined sort. They are not professionally knowledgeable about what degree of risk is better or worse for people to take; only the individuals who bear the risk can make that decision, because it’s a matter of personal preference, not a matter of science. Climatologists know nothing about cost/benefit considerations; indeed, most mainstream economists themselves are fundamentally misguided about such matters (adopting, for example, procedures and assumptions about the aggregation of individual valuations that lack a sound scientific basis). Climate scientists are the best qualified people to talk about climate science, but they have no qualifications to talk about public policy, law, or individual values, rates of time preference, and degrees of risk aversion. In talking about desirable government action, they give the impression that they are either fools or charlatans, but they keep talking―worst of all, talking to doomsday-seeking journalists―nevertheless.
In this connection, we might well bear in mind that the United Nations (and its committees and the bureaus it oversees) is no more a scientifc organization than the U.S. Congress (and its committees and the bureaus it oversees). When decisions and pronouncements come forth from these political organizations, it makes sense to treat them as essentially political in origin and purpose. Politicians aren’t dumb, either―vicious, yes, but not dumb. One thing they know above everything else is how to stampede masses of people into approving or accepting ill-advised government actions that cost the people dearly in both their standard of living and their liberties in the long run.
Don't you agree that is shows there is no measurable increase in temperature caused by CO2?
You would not know how to read the data tables no matter how long you looked them up on wikipedia.
I realize you are a dimwit but the calculations required for climate modeling especially when it involves turbulence are humongous. They do not fit on a wiki page for you to read and then let someone else interpret for you.
How about some proof of all those accusations you just laid out.
You are not a peer of these scientists. You are a parts changer who uses wikipedia to think you know what you are talking about. That is the biggest complaint dimwits like yourself use. Sure they are elitist but quite frankly most people are stupid which you are a testament to.
The article is on a pretty bad premise. When he starts in part one criticizing the model because it uses nonlinear systems, I realized very quickly that he does not know what is what.
All turbulence equations are nonperiodic. They do not reach equilibrium. Its pretty much the basis of what was known a decade ago as chaos theory or interpretation of nonperiodic systems.
From that point he nitpicks precision in gradients and plain makes up bull although he presents it as fact especially with that prehistoric atmospheric composition as its based on the ocean.
Its typical bull that one can expect wild partschanger to blindly accept.
It certainly shows that we emit much more CO2 than ever before.
Do you know for a fact that there's no certain threshold at which CO2 might have an impact on temperature?
If there is such a threshold, what overall impact does it have compared to other factors that might affect climate?
Do we even know all possible other factors?
As I have stated earlier in the thread, I can't discard that man has a hand in climate changes, as I can't discard other known or unknown factors.
So, as far as that graph goes, it doesn't really tells me much of anything as far as anything conclusive or something that we can extract usable information from as far as answering all those questions.
As Darrin indicated, there's a bunch of shortcuts that need to be taken because we really either don't have enough data, or we don't have enough capacity to truly mix in all the potential variables. Now, that doesn't prove or disproves anything. It merely asks for more research.
But the pretty graphs!!! Many arrows!!!
I imagine he is looking up nonperiodic systems right now on wikipedia.
Here's a pretty chart with a big arrow!
Sure, when mankind was coming out of the ice age, we emitted almost nothing in the grand scheme of things. Now we emit about 2% of the sourced CO2.
The CO2 in the ice core records end about 2,200 years ago. It does take a sharp rise starting about 8,000 years ago, the approximate time frame we humans started population the world in high numbers. However, since we also came out of the ice age about 11,000 years ago in numbers, so did all oxygen breathing species that emit CO2.
Oh, CO2 does have an effect. There are differing theories out there. If you look at any long term temperature trend though, you see that the warming we have over the last few hundred years isn't unique. As for a limit? the logarithmic nature makes it nearly impossible for it to climb very much in forcing value. I'm not going to attempt to quantify the other questions at all. To attribute warming all to mankind with all the accepted facts out there in proxy data is ludicrous. We know that the ocean contains more than 50 times the CO2 than the atmosphere does. We know that man made sourcing of CO2 is about 2% of the sources CO2. With Henry's law controlling the equilibrium between the two, it should be obvious how much ocean temperature plays a roll in CO2 atmospheric levels. Even if we didn't emit that 2%, considering greater than a 50:1 equilibrium, we would be increasing in CO2 levels. Back to the other graph. We didn't have any type of industrialization 12,000 years ago to increase the CO2 levels then.
We definitely have impact. It is mostly in the form of soot, in my opinion. Solar forcing is the largest factor in climate change. We can argue about the level of greenhouse gasses, but no matter how you look at it, when you see everything, it is still less than solar. When you consider the carbon cycle, the CO2 isn't dissipating as fast as it used to. When you apply Henry's Law with temperature increases, increased CO2 will obviously follow the ocean's surface temperature changes. As the earth warms, the oceans absorb less CO2 as a sink and emit more CO2 as a source. This is why any graph you find from proxy data will show CO2 lagging temperature.
Well, it is limited. Temperature samples are an average of about 43 years apart. CO2 samples are an average of 1460 years apart. The chances of missing real es in CO2 are rather large. It does show that CO2 followed temperature as we came out of the ice age. It does show that increased CO2 did not attribute to increased temperature as it sharply rose.
He's talking about making a good model isn't he? Not looking at a single aspect. Sure, it's difficult to make sure other factors aren't clouding the information. Some things are easily ascertained, others are not.
We do know that greenhouse gasses follow a logarithmic curve when plotting level vs. radiative forcing. We do know that water is the strongest of the top several, CO2 follows, then N2O and CH4. Nobody in the scientific community disputes these, because they are facts that are readily demonstrated. What is in dispute is the forcing of each in a complex system. On top of that there is some overlap in the spectral absorption between them.
Lets consider the worse case scenario that CO2 is assumed to play as a percentage of the greenhouse effect. This would be 26%. Now I believe that number to be around 10% or less, but I'll humor the 26%, and the 9% to 26% range is consensus. We also know that the greenhouse effect is about 33 degrees. If we take 26% of 33, we get a radiative forcing of 8.58 degrees. Now if we assume that to be true at a level of 380 ppm, what do we get? If we use James Hansen's algorithm for CO2, for his calculations to equal 8.58 degrees at 380 ppm, the constant value "α" needs to be 1.2026 for temperature. The 3.35 value is for radiative forcing in watts per square meter. A doubling of CO2 then by his formula yields a 1.42 degree increase. A bit short of the IPCC's 1.5 to 3 degree for doubling. Scientists give the low end of CO2 percentage as 9%. If we do the same thing, with Hansen's formula, 9% of 33 is only 2.97 degrees. We get an "α" value of 0.4163 and a doubling value of 0.49 degrees. If we accept Hansen's formula and the 9% to 26% rage, the truth must lie somewhere between. These ranges correspond to a 0.22 degree increase at 9% and a 0.64 degree increase at 26%, for a change from 280 ppm to 387 ppm.
Hansen's formula includes assumed positive feedback, I think. It might be overlap with H2O, or both.
Just for you ElNono....
Two more arrows!
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 10-11-2010 at 11:13 PM.
Its awesome how you read wildpartschangers posts and read how he is paraphrasing someone else's reports that he agrees with the premise of.
Its also funny that dimwit is citing grida.no which is part of the UN environmental group.
Here are some of their published materials which all use the peer review process.
Best Practices in Environmental Information Management in Africa: The Uganda Case Study
www.grida.no/publications/the-uganda-case-study
Blue Carbon Fund: The Ocean Equivalent of REDD for
Carbon Sequestration in Coastal States
http://www.grida.no/_res/site/file/p...s/blue-carbon/
BCflyer.pdf
Blue Carbon: The Role of Healthy Oceans in Binding
Carbon
www.grida.no/publications/rr/blue-carbon
A Case for Climate Neutrality: Case Studies of Moving
Towards a Low Carbon Economy
www.grida.no/news/default/4082.aspx
The Changing Himalayas: Impact of Climate Change on
Water and Livelihoods in the Greater Himalayas
www.grida.no/publications/himalaya/ebook2.aspx
Climate in Peril: A Popular Guide to the Latest IPCC
Reports
www.grida.no/publications/climate-in-peril
Continental Shelf: The Last Maritime Zone
www.grida.no/publications/shelf-last-zone
The Environmental Food Crisis: The Environment’s Role
in Averting Future Food Crises
www.grida.no/publications/rr/food-crisis
Environment & Poverty Times, Issue 6
www.grida.no/publications/et/ep6/
Environment and Security Issues in the Southern Mediterranean
Region
www.grida.no/publications/list/3951.aspx
An Integrated Ecosystem Management Approach to
Conserve Biodiversity
www.grida.no/publications/list/3716.aspx
Khaidarkan Mercury - Addressing primary mercury mining
in Kyrgyzstan
www.grida.no/publications/rr/mercury
Local Responses to Too Much and Too Little Water in
the Greater Himalayan Region
www.grida.no/publications/himalaya/ebook3.aspx
Many Strong Voices - turning vulnerability into strength
www.grida.no/publications/msv_tvis
Reindeer Husbandry and Barents 2030
www.grida.no/publications/list/4324.aspx
The Natural Fix? The Role of Ecosystems in Climate
Mitigation
www.grida.no/publications/rr/natural-fix
Towards Sustainable Energy Services for Households
and Small Businesses – Barriers and Recommendations
www.grida.no/publications/list/4164.aspx
Uganda: Atlas of our Changing Environment
www.grida.no/news/default/3747.aspx
They use the methodology he spent most of this thread criticizing and then he cites them. Its awesome.
Might sound like a broken record, but I've chosen not to draw conclusions on merely one subset of the many possible factors that could affect climate change. I think there's merit, and is encouraged, to study every known factor at the micro level, so they can be eventually used to create a richer, better model to analyze as many interactions possible between as many factors as possible and eventually draw usable information.
I never did get this question answered. I honestly don't know the answer.
If soot is so much more of a warming element, then the pole exposed to more soot by far, the north pole, would have lost MUCH more ice and experienced much more warming than the south pole.
That is a fairly testable hypothesis. Anyone?
If you know they're not the same then what the is the point of bringing them up? Weather is far more chaotic than than climate and climate is actually easier to model because of this. It just makes absolutely no sense to bring this up to make your point if you know they are the same.
The fact that clouds are parameterized as opposed to realistically produced is simple a matter of computing power. This doesn't change the fact that these models you disregard can hindcast previous climate. If X happens when Y is at B then you can use that to model the situation and not the actual formation.
I don't know what you mean by the models not accounting for the previous decade but thats simply incorrect. You either have no idea how to interpret the output or you have no idea what happened to the climate over the past decade.
Explain?
Why do you think the IPCC underestimated the arctic ice melting? If they didn't believe soot caused that much forcing then it makes more sense, no?
I'd like to see WC counteract spectroscopic evidence that CO2 is indeed trapping a larger amount of heat than he attributes. Also, can he explain how he comes to his conclusions and supports his percentages as opposed to the ones used by the IPCC?
Also, lol @ WC trying to solve Hansen's formula and wondering why he can't get the right numbers. You're making the same mistake you made earlier and ignoring the negatives. 26% of net heating is not the same as 26% of gross heating.
Ill give you an example of how you erred, parts changer. A worker makes 10 dollars an hour and works a 40 hour week. He also has 100 deducted from his paycheck for net pay of 300. Well, that doesn't mean he makes 7.50 an hour.
I wish you would tell me where you got the idea to work it back like that so I could go laugh at the webpage/blog or whatever. Drrrr why doesn't my algebra work drrrr.
But that is the case isn't it? Look at Cryophere if you want to see sea ice changes. I have read some time back that Antarctica is not losing net glacier ice, but I don't have those references handy. Comparing the sea ice should be good enough.
Long term trend, 1979 to 2008:
Short term trend, last two years:
Look it up.This is a more complex topic than what meteorologists learn, and I'm not going to look it up for you.
Consider, added warmth increases the water absorbed into the atmosphere. This leads to increased clouds as the air cools. Increased cloud cover increases albedo. many of those clouds are of the higher al ude ones. That part doesn't so much matter, what matters in the net change in albedo.
I an pretty certain through materials I have read over the years that they dismiss facts that do not support their agenda.
I would ask that the same proof be shown of those claiming the amount they claim first. Why isn't this ever been shown in the public domain for open source peer review?
Please explain, and do you think I'm using the gross or the net?
I know this much, your assumptions are wrong, but just in case, please explain my error.
Nonsequiter
I fail to follow your assumed find of error. The constant is easily replace to change the percentage of the outcome. The formula I used is James Hansen's and I pointed out his assumed constant is 5.35 for producing the CO2 effect in watts/sq meter. Physical heat is linear to power input. This isn't a black body radiative formula. What i did what backward engineer what others are claim to show their claim is in error.
If you think I did that wrong, show me your results in backward engineering the stated results.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
