quote:I'm outta here. If you are simply going to dismiss the evidence like that, then there is no hope for any of us!
Woops. Sorry I stirred up so much venom chaps!
Woops. Sorry I stirred up so much venom chaps!
What a busy day today. Here's an interesting empirical falsification of AGW... one I'd not seen before. Ocean Heat anomoly
Looks like the heat content of the oceans has been decreasing over the last few years whereas the models predict it should have been increasing.
Looks like the heat content of the oceans has been decreasing over the last few years whereas the models predict it should have been increasing.
Geoman.
RE: "Woops". I think this is my line Geo. I didn't mean to cause any upset by suggesting that a comment paper shouldn't need a peer review, as I think that this is part of the process of disproving a paper that already enjoys the peer review label. Meaning, the 'comment' is intended to reopen discussion on the 'already reviewed paper'.
But, hey, I'm not a scientist either and I thought we were all here in this forum for discussion!
Lucibee: I profoundly apologise if I caused your indignation. However, I would dearly like to hear the reasons for your disagreement and not someone else's. Take a trip to Climate Audit's forum and ask EliRabbet a question (Eli is there, but is usually cryptic when responding). Simples!
Best regards, suricat.
RE: "Woops". I think this is my line Geo. I didn't mean to cause any upset by suggesting that a comment paper shouldn't need a peer review, as I think that this is part of the process of disproving a paper that already enjoys the peer review label. Meaning, the 'comment' is intended to reopen discussion on the 'already reviewed paper'.
But, hey, I'm not a scientist either and I thought we were all here in this forum for discussion!
Lucibee: I profoundly apologise if I caused your indignation. However, I would dearly like to hear the reasons for your disagreement and not someone else's. Take a trip to Climate Audit's forum and ask EliRabbet a question (Eli is there, but is usually cryptic when responding). Simples!
Best regards, suricat.
quote:Originally posted by Lucibee:
I'm outta here. If you are simply going to dismiss the evidence like that, then there is no hope for any of us!
I'll wait until one of your falsification papers gets into Science or Nature, and then get back to you.
Sorry Luci, I posted before I saw your second post linking to Smiths paper, the Rabbett blog just touched a nerve at the end of a long day (His kind of dismissive arrogance really rankles me)
As for Smiths paper, this seem (at first glace) to be a far more appropriate riposte to Gerlich and Tscheuschner s paper (Notwithstanding Kramm, Dlugi & zelgar s comments). I'll reply after reading both( distracted by footie tonight! Yay Reds
)Please be aware though that we are all on the same side and I do believe that humanity is in 'dire straits', I personally think that our biggest problem is general land [mis]management dating back thousands of years, and the need for this to be addressed trumps co2 induced climate change.( I know that many solutions for the latter would aid the former, but hey, lets have the horse before the cart for once)! Lets start living with this planet, not on it!!!
Son of Mulder.
When I were a lad, my maths teacher insisted that equations were accompanied with a "given" list that explained all the detail of the data and functions applied to it. The emergence of quantum and relativistic math from their classical root currently seems to ignore this discipline of "full disclosure".
The "least action principle" of micro math can be identified as the "path of least resistance" of macro math, but sometimes these are incompatible because the micro math can easily be the inverse of the macro math without full disclosure of this. I find this confusing, to say the least.
I concur. MEP is a "brand" that seems to walk a median line between macro and micro theory.
This is my whole point. Micro math doesn't leave the 'paper trail' that most individuals need to follow for their acceptance of the math! Surely the accountability of micro math needs improvement?
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
I'm a great believer that all physical action can be formulated as least action principles like in lagrangian and hamiltoniam formulation of classical mechanics.
When I were a lad, my maths teacher insisted that equations were accompanied with a "given" list that explained all the detail of the data and functions applied to it. The emergence of quantum and relativistic math from their classical root currently seems to ignore this discipline of "full disclosure".
The "least action principle" of micro math can be identified as the "path of least resistance" of macro math, but sometimes these are incompatible because the micro math can easily be the inverse of the macro math without full disclosure of this. I find this confusing, to say the least.
quote:
As to whether "Entropy Production of Atmospheric Heat Transport" is such an action to be maximised will be an interesting area to follow as it may well have an impact on GCM formulation.
I concur. MEP is a "brand" that seems to walk a median line between macro and micro theory.
quote:
That's possible because when dealing with least action your're dealing with an integrated function and it is only when you differentiate it that the physics you are used to appears.
This is my whole point. Micro math doesn't leave the 'paper trail' that most individuals need to follow for their acceptance of the math! Surely the accountability of micro math needs improvement?
Best regards, suricat.
From :Have Changes In Ocean Heat Falsified The Global Warming Hypothesis? - A Guest Weblog by William DiPuccio
"IR radiation that is absorbed and re-emitted by these gases, particularly CO2, is said to be amplified by positive feedback from clouds and water vapor".
I am still working through this "paper". A question arises whenever I read the above statement about amplification, how in nature do you get something for nothing? Is it just a poor use of words?
Thanks
"IR radiation that is absorbed and re-emitted by these gases, particularly CO2, is said to be amplified by positive feedback from clouds and water vapor".
I am still working through this "paper". A question arises whenever I read the above statement about amplification, how in nature do you get something for nothing? Is it just a poor use of words?
Thanks
geoman
I think amplification is a reasonable word to use. It doesn't imply something for nothing but is another way of saying positive feedback I believe.
quote:A question arises whenever I read the above statement about amplification, how in nature do you get something for nothing? Is it just a poor use of words?
I think amplification is a reasonable word to use. It doesn't imply something for nothing but is another way of saying positive feedback I believe.
Suricat
The principle came out of classical and was then incorporated into Quantum and Relativity. I view it as an example of holism ie the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. You can see the parts but how they all link together requires integration ie an intuitive leap. It does make things easier once you have the Action function because you then deconstruct to get the answers to test against measurements.
In quantum there was another leap which was to define the probabalistic wavefunction and relate it's space and time derivatives to classical momentum and energy. Then Dirac relativised it and then least action was used for Quantum electro dynamics see this.
It works but Feynmann said "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." so we're in good company.
quote:When I were a lad, my maths teacher insisted that equations were accompanied with a "given" list that explained all the detail of the data and functions applied to it. The emergence of quantum and relativistic math from their classical root currently seems to ignore this discipline of "full disclosure".
The principle came out of classical and was then incorporated into Quantum and Relativity. I view it as an example of holism ie the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. You can see the parts but how they all link together requires integration ie an intuitive leap. It does make things easier once you have the Action function because you then deconstruct to get the answers to test against measurements.
In quantum there was another leap which was to define the probabalistic wavefunction and relate it's space and time derivatives to classical momentum and energy. Then Dirac relativised it and then least action was used for Quantum electro dynamics see this.
It works but Feynmann said "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." so we're in good company.
Thanks SoM.
However there is only one external heat source for this planet, and I can understand how there could transference of energy from one wavelength to another, eg visible spectrum into IR by absorption and emission. The positive feedback that is mentioned time and time again baffles me. How can the total radiation falling on the Earth's surface be greater than the Solar radiation that enters the top of the atmosphere? Where does the energy for this process come from? Is this what the IPCC call Radiative Forcing?
Many thanks.
However there is only one external heat source for this planet, and I can understand how there could transference of energy from one wavelength to another, eg visible spectrum into IR by absorption and emission. The positive feedback that is mentioned time and time again baffles me. How can the total radiation falling on the Earth's surface be greater than the Solar radiation that enters the top of the atmosphere? Where does the energy for this process come from? Is this what the IPCC call Radiative Forcing?
Many thanks.
Geoman
Assume energy from the sun stays constant, Infrared radiated from the earth doesn't all leave before some is 'captured' by a greenhouse gas and then some of that is thrown back at the earth so adds to the energy from the sun. Increase the greenhouse gas and more gets thrown back so it gets warmer (that's forcing). That causes water to evaporate which is also a greenhouse gas and that captures more outgoing IR and throws some more back (That's positive feedback). ie less IR leaves the top of the atmosphere until the surface warms and radiates even more. So no extra energy from the sun but more is recycled before finally leaving.
quote:The positive feedback that is mentioned time and time again baffles me. How can the total radiation falling on the Earth's surface be greater than the Solar radiation that enters the top of the atmosphere? Where does the energy for this process come from? Is this what the IPCC call Radiative Forcing?
Assume energy from the sun stays constant, Infrared radiated from the earth doesn't all leave before some is 'captured' by a greenhouse gas and then some of that is thrown back at the earth so adds to the energy from the sun. Increase the greenhouse gas and more gets thrown back so it gets warmer (that's forcing). That causes water to evaporate which is also a greenhouse gas and that captures more outgoing IR and throws some more back (That's positive feedback). ie less IR leaves the top of the atmosphere until the surface warms and radiates even more. So no extra energy from the sun but more is recycled before finally leaving.
Thanks SOM
I understand the above, but what is thrown back has come from the earth, indeed the result should be that a little less than 50% of the captured IR comes back to the earth. However without any additional heating the earth can not remain at the same temperature since it has just emitted energy as IR upwards. This exchange of energy up to be captured then transmitted down to the earth if left alone without any further addition to the system would result in cooling, not heating. I can not see this as amplification.
I must still be missing something. Please bear with me, I will get there in the end!
quote:some is 'captured' by a greenhouse gas and then some of that is thrown back at the earth so adds to the energy from the sun
I understand the above, but what is thrown back has come from the earth, indeed the result should be that a little less than 50% of the captured IR comes back to the earth. However without any additional heating the earth can not remain at the same temperature since it has just emitted energy as IR upwards. This exchange of energy up to be captured then transmitted down to the earth if left alone without any further addition to the system would result in cooling, not heating. I can not see this as amplification.
I must still be missing something. Please bear with me, I will get there in the end!
Geoman.
I also share your madness Geo. This is why I complain often about micro math (quantum stuff) and its often inverse function in comparison with macro math (classical stuff). There is no amplification, only attenuation!
The confusion lays in the different energy levels between the two wavelengths of insolation and OLR (outgoing long-wave radiation). In this analysis, high frequency (short wavelength) = high energy transmission, however, low frequency (long wavelength) = low energy transmission.
The absorption of Earth's atmosphere in the full EM (electromagnetic) spectrum displays the properties of a high pass filter. In other words, insolation gets to the surface quite easily (with the exclusion of UVa frequencies and above), though is attenuated where there is cloud and particulates, but IR is blocked after only a few metres of attenuation below the mid troposphere. Thus, energy is quite easily introduced to regions below the mid tropo, but after being degraded to longer wavelengths below this region is strongly attenuated by the local mass (atmosphere).
To my logic, this is nothing more than attenuation biasing. Hope my madness helps.
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
Thanks SOM
quote:
some is 'captured' by a greenhouse gas and then some of that is thrown back at the earth so adds to the energy from the sun
I also share your madness Geo. This is why I complain often about micro math (quantum stuff) and its often inverse function in comparison with macro math (classical stuff). There is no amplification, only attenuation!
The confusion lays in the different energy levels between the two wavelengths of insolation and OLR (outgoing long-wave radiation). In this analysis, high frequency (short wavelength) = high energy transmission, however, low frequency (long wavelength) = low energy transmission.
The absorption of Earth's atmosphere in the full EM (electromagnetic) spectrum displays the properties of a high pass filter. In other words, insolation gets to the surface quite easily (with the exclusion of UVa frequencies and above), though is attenuated where there is cloud and particulates, but IR is blocked after only a few metres of attenuation below the mid troposphere. Thus, energy is quite easily introduced to regions below the mid tropo, but after being degraded to longer wavelengths below this region is strongly attenuated by the local mass (atmosphere).
To my logic, this is nothing more than attenuation biasing. Hope my madness helps.
Best regards, suricat.
quote:Originally posted by suricat:
Geoman.quote:
Thanks SOM
quote:
some is 'captured' by a greenhouse gas and then some of that is thrown back at the earth so adds to the energy from the sun
I also share your madness Geo. This is why I complain often about micro math (quantum stuff) and its often inverse function in comparison with macro math (classical stuff). There is no amplification, only attenuation!
The confusion lays in the different energy levels between the two wavelengths of insolation and OLR (outgoing long-wave radiation). In this analysis, high frequency (short wavelength) = high energy transmission, however, low frequency (long wavelength) = low energy transmission.
The absorption of Earth's atmosphere in the full EM (electromagnetic) spectrum displays the properties of a high pass filter. In other words, insolation gets to the surface quite easily (with the exclusion of UVa frequencies and above), though is attenuated where there is cloud and particulates, but IR is blocked after only a few metres of attenuation below the mid troposphere. Thus, energy is quite easily introduced to regions below the mid tropo, but after being degraded to longer wavelengths below this region is strongly attenuated by the local mass (atmosphere).
To my logic, this is nothing more than attenuation biasing. Hope my madness helps.
Best regards, suricat.
mufcdiver.
I don't see how muf. Geoman has a problem with the logic used in climatology. All I did was try to explain this as classical science.
How do you see this and what's a "falsifaction" (you may want to edit that)?
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
Like where you are going with this suricat, this could have legs for a falsifaction of the 'Radiation budgets part in AGW
I don't see how muf. Geoman has a problem with the logic used in climatology. All I did was try to explain this as classical science.
How do you see this and what's a "falsifaction" (you may want to edit that)?
Best regards, suricat.
Sorry suricat, I [mis]read you post as an underestimation on the IPCC part in the Earths ability to store the radiation received from the Sun.quote:Originally posted by suricat:
mufcdiver.
I don't see how muf. Geoman has a problem with the logic used in climatology. All I did was try to explain this as classical science.
How do you see this and what's a "falsifaction" (you may want to edit that)?
Best regards, suricat.
mufcdiver.
Perhaps, but your input is still welcome. How do you see this?
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
Sorry suricat, I [mis]read you post as an underestimation on the IPCC part in the Earths ability to store the radiation received from the Sun.
Perhaps, but your input is still welcome. How do you see this?
Best regards, suricat.
mufcdiver.
BTW, what I explained wasn't radiative budget. It was some of the action exerted by an Earth model.
Best regards, suricat.
BTW, what I explained wasn't radiative budget. It was some of the action exerted by an Earth model.
Best regards, suricat.
Son of Mulder, mufcdiver.
This looks like an excellent falsification of CO2's radiative forcing though!
http://jennifermarohasy.com/bl...se-effect/#more-5058
Thoughts? The site comments are good too!
Best regards, suricat.
This looks like an excellent falsification of CO2's radiative forcing though!
http://jennifermarohasy.com/bl...se-effect/#more-5058
Thoughts? The site comments are good too!
Best regards, suricat.
Suricat
Anoher excellent post. We discussed the Miskolczi stuff with Steve_M last year I seem to remember. He didn't like the Kirchoff bit from what I recall. I think the Venus stuff in the comments section is a red herring as it doesn't have oceans and rain to my knowledge as it's too close to the sun.
I shall be breaking out my old book on Entropy Theory to refresh my knowledge and to try and understand more of the details of Miskolczi's work....don't hold your breath.
As an aside, I found an interesting possible wager that by 2015 we should be able to determine whether AGW is real see this.
I'm not a betting man but there could be some egg on face come 2015 for some.
quote:This looks like an excellent falsification of CO2's radiative forcing though!
Anoher excellent post. We discussed the Miskolczi stuff with Steve_M last year I seem to remember. He didn't like the Kirchoff bit from what I recall. I think the Venus stuff in the comments section is a red herring as it doesn't have oceans and rain to my knowledge as it's too close to the sun.
I shall be breaking out my old book on Entropy Theory to refresh my knowledge and to try and understand more of the details of Miskolczi's work....don't hold your breath.
As an aside, I found an interesting possible wager that by 2015 we should be able to determine whether AGW is real see this.
I'm not a betting man but there could be some egg on face come 2015 for some.
Son of Mulder.
Yea! I thought it was pretty good too.
Yes and I'd have agreed with Steve for desert, rocks and concrete, but rain-forest is mushy and ocean is downright spongy on wide spectrum 'Kirchoff' albedo so I didn't feel confident to 'engage' in this when more than 70% of the planet is water and there're still a lot of forests. There are more degrees of freedom involved that include M's theory here, but as has already been said, he seems quite cavalier in attitude and quiet on communications (makes me think he has a good manager).
I think the Venus stuff is posted by astronomers looking for a universal climate template (or posters looking for full universality of the application).
I've read somewhere that Venus does have rain, but it doesn't achieve planet-fall and it isn't just water, it's sulphuric acid!
The magnetosphere of Venus is almost non existent in comparison with Earth, thus, its proximity to our sun has 'boiled off' lighter elements and compounds into Venus's high atmosphere to be 'blown away' by solar wind. In this respect I think mankind should revere Earth's collision with Thea, which established Earth's iron core and effective magnetosphere! Without this magnetosphere Earth would contain much less water.
I won't because they are probably outdated and anything I've googled so far is behind a money wall, but I did find this:
http://sdphca.ucsd.edu/pdf_files/PRL04434.pdf
Though I don't think it's appropriate!
Ha! Yes, on the UK Gov taxes as well (not to mention carbon certificates)! Though I believe that moderation of energy use is wise in any case.
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
Another excellent post. ((edit) corrected spelling [because this plays havoc with my spell check when I quote with typos])
Yea! I thought it was pretty good too.
quote:
We discussed the Miskolczi stuff with Steve_M last year I seem to remember. He didn't like the Kirchoff bit from what I recall.
Yes and I'd have agreed with Steve for desert, rocks and concrete, but rain-forest is mushy and ocean is downright spongy on wide spectrum 'Kirchoff' albedo so I didn't feel confident to 'engage' in this when more than 70% of the planet is water and there're still a lot of forests. There are more degrees of freedom involved that include M's theory here, but as has already been said, he seems quite cavalier in attitude and quiet on communications (makes me think he has a good manager).
quote:
I think the Venus stuff in the comments section is a red herring as it doesn't have oceans and rain to my knowledge as it's too close to the sun.
I think the Venus stuff is posted by astronomers looking for a universal climate template (or posters looking for full universality of the application).
I've read somewhere that Venus does have rain, but it doesn't achieve planet-fall and it isn't just water, it's sulphuric acid!
The magnetosphere of Venus is almost non existent in comparison with Earth, thus, its proximity to our sun has 'boiled off' lighter elements and compounds into Venus's high atmosphere to be 'blown away' by solar wind. In this respect I think mankind should revere Earth's collision with Thea, which established Earth's iron core and effective magnetosphere! Without this magnetosphere Earth would contain much less water.quote:
I shall be breaking out my old book on Entropy Theory to refresh my knowledge and to try and understand more of the details of Miskolczi's work....don't hold your breath.
I won't because they are probably outdated and anything I've googled so far is behind a money wall, but I did find this:
http://sdphca.ucsd.edu/pdf_files/PRL04434.pdf
Though I don't think it's appropriate!
quote:
As an aside, I found an interesting possible wager that by 2015 we should be able to determine whether AGW is real see this.
I'm not a betting man but there could be some egg on face come 2015 for some.
Ha! Yes, on the UK Gov taxes as well (not to mention carbon certificates)! Though I believe that moderation of energy use is wise in any case.
Best regards, suricat.