Son of Mulder.
I've discovered another link that may be of interest with regard to MEP.
http://ams.allenpress.com/arch...20-0442-10-3-441.pdf
Hope this helps.
Best regards, suricat.
interjection - yay, the impiracle falsification thread is back!
Beer Belle. Hi there! 
Some of us are here, but I think I upset Lucibee.
If anyone needs a soft landing into entropy I found this link on Tamino's web site.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/20...0/entropy/#more-1522
I also found it amusing.
Best regards, suricat.
Some of us are here, but I think I upset Lucibee.
If anyone needs a soft landing into entropy I found this link on Tamino's web site.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/20...0/entropy/#more-1522
I also found it amusing.
Best regards, suricat.
Falsification of greenhouse effect
I hope you guys realise that we do actually have scientists working on this, and that you don't need to become an expert in this field to unravel it!
I saw The Age of Stupid this weekend, and I have to say that although it was OK, I don't recommend that you see it if you are a skeptic, coz you'll probably pick as many holes as I did!
However, it did strike me that we have a sense of unreality about the whole thing - indeed about our future in general. We are incapable of imagining what will happen to us until it happens, and although our ability to react to situations in the past has saved us, I don't think it necessarily can do so all the time.
If we wait until 2015 to "settle the science", it will be too late. And what's the betting that someone will suggest that maybe we should wait until 2025... and 2035.... and 2045.... just to make sure?
We have enough evidence to do something now. We have never been so lucky in the past. To ignore that in favour of "waiting to see what happens" is pure stupidity in relation to the risks involved.
Carry on trying to disprove basic laws of physics if you like, but I suggest that your time might be better spent doing something else!
I hope you guys realise that we do actually have scientists working on this, and that you don't need to become an expert in this field to unravel it!
I saw The Age of Stupid this weekend, and I have to say that although it was OK, I don't recommend that you see it if you are a skeptic, coz you'll probably pick as many holes as I did!
However, it did strike me that we have a sense of unreality about the whole thing - indeed about our future in general. We are incapable of imagining what will happen to us until it happens, and although our ability to react to situations in the past has saved us, I don't think it necessarily can do so all the time.
If we wait until 2015 to "settle the science", it will be too late. And what's the betting that someone will suggest that maybe we should wait until 2025... and 2035.... and 2045.... just to make sure?
We have enough evidence to do something now. We have never been so lucky in the past. To ignore that in favour of "waiting to see what happens" is pure stupidity in relation to the risks involved.
Carry on trying to disprove basic laws of physics if you like, but I suggest that your time might be better spent doing something else!
Lucibee.
Welcome back Luci. I'm glad you have returned and I think your retreat from this forum was due to a stupid misunderstanding, or bad post, on my part.
I concur, but the scientists don't arrive at a conclusion that I (as an engineer) can understand as a true outcome from the events that have transpired. A radiative Earth model doesn't explain it all!
Why? And "what"?
I was of the understanding that this thread is a continuation of the 'Is there an empirical falsification of anthropogenic CO2' thread from C4 (though to be fair, this should be defined by SoM as it's his thread).
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
I hope you guys realise that we do actually have scientists working on this, and that you don't need to become an expert in this field to unravel it!
Welcome back Luci. I'm glad you have returned and I think your retreat from this forum was due to a stupid misunderstanding, or bad post, on my part.
I concur, but the scientists don't arrive at a conclusion that I (as an engineer) can understand as a true outcome from the events that have transpired. A radiative Earth model doesn't explain it all!
quote:
Carry on trying to disprove basic laws of physics if you like, but I suggest that your time might be better spent doing something else!
Why? And "what"?
I was of the understanding that this thread is a continuation of the 'Is there an empirical falsification of anthropogenic CO2' thread from C4 (though to be fair, this should be defined by SoM as it's his thread).
Best regards, suricat.
quote:I concur, but the scientists don't arrive at a conclusion that I (as an engineer) can understand as a true outcome from the events that have transpired. A radiative Earth model doesn't explain it all!
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it therefore has to be wrong!
No, a radiative Earth model doesn't explain it all, as shown by the comments on the G&T paper. Earth systems models are necessarily very complicated, but that does not preclude the use of simpler analogous models to explain the main principles to lay persons.
Suricat
Indeed that was precisely my intention....in the absence of M Batchelor who owned the original thread.
The emphasis being on empirical because how else could it be falsified? And also a reminder that by anthropic global warming we are talking about 'dangerous warming'.
And by dangerous I mean that the world will be in a significantly worse state than without any warming.
quote:I was of the understanding that this thread is a continuation of the 'Is there an empirical falsification of anthropogenic CO2' thread from C4 (though to be fair, this should be defined by SoM as it's his thread).
Indeed that was precisely my intention....in the absence of M Batchelor who owned the original thread.
The emphasis being on empirical because how else could it be falsified? And also a reminder that by anthropic global warming we are talking about 'dangerous warming'.
And by dangerous I mean that the world will be in a significantly worse state than without any warming.
Lucibee.
This is a "misquote" Luci because I do have an understanding of it, but the outcome isn't what was stated! A solely radiative Earth model can't model all the entropy/enthalpy processes that are involved. There aren't enough degrees of freedom covered by radiation alone!
Aye, the explanation to "the masses"! All I can say on this is "shut the f*** *p until you have a 100% analogy" for "the masses"!!! I think an introduction into the real world of 'educated analysis' is better than 'indoctrination'.
Sorry SoM, this is a bit OT. However, I think it's also indicative of where the truth is.
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it therefore has to be wrong!
This is a "misquote" Luci because I do have an understanding of it, but the outcome isn't what was stated! A solely radiative Earth model can't model all the entropy/enthalpy processes that are involved. There aren't enough degrees of freedom covered by radiation alone!
quote:
No, a radiative Earth model doesn't explain it all, as shown by the comments on the G&T paper. Earth systems models are necessarily very complicated, but that does not preclude the use of simpler analogous models to explain the main principles to lay persons.
Aye, the explanation to "the masses"! All I can say on this is "shut the f*** *p until you have a 100% analogy" for "the masses"!!! I think an introduction into the real world of 'educated analysis' is better than 'indoctrination'.
Sorry SoM, this is a bit OT. However, I think it's also indicative of where the truth is.
Best regards, suricat.
Lucibee.
Just in case you think that the rancour in my last post was aimed at you personally, it wasn't. I enjoy our little talks.
It was aimed squarely at the mono-dimensional radiative models that mislead our policy makers.
Best regards, suricat.
Just in case you think that the rancour in my last post was aimed at you personally, it wasn't. I enjoy our little talks.
It was aimed squarely at the mono-dimensional radiative models that mislead our policy makers.
Best regards, suricat.
Here's a video I've found of Lord Monckton giving a presentation in the US. I find it quite impressive. Some very interesting facts and observations....some of them empirical. It's about 90 mins but well worth it.
Son of Mulder.
First time I've seen Lord Monckton in action. He certainly presents well and takes a lot of the faff out of the science. Although this is a recent presentation you'll find that our sun has recently broken radio silence since the piece was recorded. See;
http://sidc.oma.be/
Though, it's still quiet.
I must admit that I didn't realise just how much the IPCC is influencing the science. I knew it was to a degree from all the grumbles around the Internet, but not to the suggested degree if Monckton is correct. I'm also surprised that he didn't mention atmospheric black carbon and dust, though to do so would have added to the length of the presentation.
Nice one SoM. Especially as I've drawn very similar conclusions myself.
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
Here's a video I've found of Lord Monckton giving a presentation in the US.
First time I've seen Lord Monckton in action. He certainly presents well and takes a lot of the faff out of the science. Although this is a recent presentation you'll find that our sun has recently broken radio silence since the piece was recorded. See;
http://sidc.oma.be/
Though, it's still quiet.
I must admit that I didn't realise just how much the IPCC is influencing the science. I knew it was to a degree from all the grumbles around the Internet, but not to the suggested degree if Monckton is correct. I'm also surprised that he didn't mention atmospheric black carbon and dust, though to do so would have added to the length of the presentation.
Nice one SoM. Especially as I've drawn very similar conclusions myself.
Best regards, suricat.
Mufcdiver
This was one of the chestnuts that I debated hard with Steve_M. His position was that Radiosonde measurements of the equatorial troposphere were unreliable and that we should rely on converting windspeeds to temperature. Shame we've lost the C4 archive. Also presence of a hotspot would be consistent with the models that predict AGW but absence at best implies that the models are wrong but AGW may still be right.
quote:Anyone seen the greenhouse signature that proves CO2 induced AGW?
This was one of the chestnuts that I debated hard with Steve_M. His position was that Radiosonde measurements of the equatorial troposphere were unreliable and that we should rely on converting windspeeds to temperature. Shame we've lost the C4 archive. Also presence of a hotspot would be consistent with the models that predict AGW but absence at best implies that the models are wrong but AGW may still be right.
mufcdiver.
This expectation has always baffled me muf as CO2 interacts with IR. Outgoing Long-wave Radiation (OLR) begins to see it's extinction into outer space at about 3-5 kilometres altitude, dependant on the latitude of occupation (if I remember what Steve_M said correctly). Thus, OLR at 8 kilometres over the equator is expected to be within the start of the window of OLR radiation into space. If the 8 kilometres region is beginning to cool, then the regions above must be cooling at a greater rate. How a greater temperature can be observed in the expected tropospheric region of the hot spot is beyond my understanding. But an increase in the altitude of the tropopause isn't (latent transport and evaporative exchanger principle)! Perhaps increased convection winds can show this better, or total water plus SH? I doubt it, they are under too much influence from insolation.
However, an increase of CO2 propensity in the stratosphere would elevate temperature due to OLR refraction, giving greatest temperature increase at the low stratospheric altitudes and permitting greater temperatures within the region where the hot spot is expected. There is a problem with this!
CO2 is easily diffused into water condensate and is washed out of the tropospheric atmosphere by the precipitation phase of the atmospheric hydrological cycle. This offers a weak boundary that keeps atmospheric CO2 within the troposphere and reduces its population of the above stratosphere (diffusion pump principle).
At a guess, I'd say that this hot spot won't be observed until the CO2 diffusion pump pressure is breached (would this be a "tipping point"?).
Oh, those models!
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
Where is the hot spot?
This expectation has always baffled me muf as CO2 interacts with IR. Outgoing Long-wave Radiation (OLR) begins to see it's extinction into outer space at about 3-5 kilometres altitude, dependant on the latitude of occupation (if I remember what Steve_M said correctly). Thus, OLR at 8 kilometres over the equator is expected to be within the start of the window of OLR radiation into space. If the 8 kilometres region is beginning to cool, then the regions above must be cooling at a greater rate. How a greater temperature can be observed in the expected tropospheric region of the hot spot is beyond my understanding. But an increase in the altitude of the tropopause isn't (latent transport and evaporative exchanger principle)! Perhaps increased convection winds can show this better, or total water plus SH? I doubt it, they are under too much influence from insolation.
However, an increase of CO2 propensity in the stratosphere would elevate temperature due to OLR refraction, giving greatest temperature increase at the low stratospheric altitudes and permitting greater temperatures within the region where the hot spot is expected. There is a problem with this!
CO2 is easily diffused into water condensate and is washed out of the tropospheric atmosphere by the precipitation phase of the atmospheric hydrological cycle. This offers a weak boundary that keeps atmospheric CO2 within the troposphere and reduces its population of the above stratosphere (diffusion pump principle).
At a guess, I'd say that this hot spot won't be observed until the CO2 diffusion pump pressure is breached (would this be a "tipping point"?).
Oh, those models!
Best regards, suricat.
quote:Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
Mufcdiverquote:Anyone seen the greenhouse signature that proves CO2 induced AGW?
This was one of the chestnuts that I debated hard with Steve_M. His position was that Radiosonde measurements of the equatorial troposphere were unreliable and that we should rely on converting windspeeds to temperature. Shame we've lost the C4 archive. Also presence of a hotspot would be consistent with the models that predict AGW but absence at best implies that the models are wrong but AGW may still be right.
I remember[vaguely] the thread of the conversation but can't remember if you resolved whether 'if the models could be wrong, has CO2 induced AGW anything else left to stand on'?
I mean 'Radiosonde are good for one measurement that suits us, but not good for another' sounds like cherry picking to me!
quote:Originally posted by suricat:
mufcdiver.quote:
Where is the hot spot?
This expectation has always baffled me muf as CO2 interacts with IR. Outgoing Long-wave Radiation (OLR) begins to see it's extinction into outer space at about 3-5 kilometres altitude, dependant on the latitude of occupation (if I remember what Steve_M said correctly). Thus, OLR at 8 kilometres over the equator is expected to be within the start of the window of OLR radiation into space. If the 8 kilometres region is beginning to cool, then the regions above must be cooling at a greater rate. How a greater temperature can be observed in the expected tropospheric region of the hot spot is beyond my understanding. But an increase in the altitude of the tropopause isn't (latent transport and evaporative exchanger principle)! Perhaps increased convection winds can show this better, or total water plus SH? I doubt it, they are under too much influence from insolation.
However, an increase of CO2 propensity in the stratosphere would elevate temperature due to OLR refraction, giving greatest temperature increase at the low stratospheric altitudes and permitting greater temperatures within the region where the hot spot is expected. There is a problem with this!
CO2 is easily diffused into water condensate and is washed out of the tropospheric atmosphere by the precipitation phase of the atmospheric hydrological cycle. This offers a weak boundary that keeps atmospheric CO2 within the troposphere and reduces its population of the above stratosphere (diffusion pump principle).
At a guess, I'd say that this hot spot won't be observed until the CO2 diffusion pump pressure is breached (would this be a "tipping point"?).
Oh, those models!
Best regards, suricat.
As I understand it suricat the hotspot is an interaction between WV and IR which starts at the surface which is instigated by the two bands of CO2 situated in the tropics! The IPCC showed that it should be there, maybe we should ask them
mufcdiver.
I've been referred to three CO2 bands in the past, but only one has a relevant energy level for radiative power. If there is no latent transport then this +ive radiative forcing may have some impact. Otherwise, latent transport overwhelms this.
You want the bouncers to wear pink??? You tell 'em!!!
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
As I understand it suricat the hotspot is an interaction between WV and IR which starts at the surface which is instigated by the two bands of CO2 situated in the tropics!
I've been referred to three CO2 bands in the past, but only one has a relevant energy level for radiative power. If there is no latent transport then this +ive radiative forcing may have some impact. Otherwise, latent transport overwhelms this.
quote:
The IPCC showed that it should be there, maybe we should ask them
You want the bouncers to wear pink??? You tell 'em!!!
Best regards, suricat.
quote:Originally posted by suricat:
mufcdiver.quote:
As I understand it suricat the hotspot is an interaction between WV and IR which starts at the surface which is instigated by the two bands of CO2 situated in the tropics!
I've been referred to three CO2 bands in the past, but only one has a relevant energy level for radiative power. If there is no latent transport then this +ive radiative forcing may have some impact. Otherwise, latent transport overwhelms this.quote:
The IPCC showed that it should be there, maybe we should ask them
You want the bouncers to wear pink??? You tell 'em!!!
Best regards, suricat.
I'll have to have a look around for this, its late so I'll post on Hey
in the interim cos this may need some work Muf
mufcdiver.
I need time to digest this muf, but don't forget that energy per se isn't always only represented by temperature and there may be some odd inclusions with temperature in this .pdf (e.g. entropy). Though at first glance this seems tied to temperature in the graphs!
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
This is what I got PDF
I need time to digest this muf, but don't forget that energy per se isn't always only represented by temperature and there may be some odd inclusions with temperature in this .pdf (e.g. entropy). Though at first glance this seems tied to temperature in the graphs!
Best regards, suricat.