Ok here we go again. I found this list of 10 AGW fallacies today .
Which of the 10 myths can be refuted.... where is Steve_M?
Which of the 10 myths can be refuted.... where is Steve_M?
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Mufc
Excellent video, I hadn't seen that before but I'd read about Bob Carter....pretty much sums up my position.
Lucibee
Yes elementary risk management without the weightings of likelihood, or the base case of business as usual where many of the technology challenges are being worked anyway while the AGW picture evolves ie prepare doesn't need to include implement from the start but only when the empirical evidence becomes significantly supportive.... none of it is anything like overnight type urgency.
quote:This google video kinda fits in with that SoM,
Excellent video, I hadn't seen that before but I'd read about Bob Carter....pretty much sums up my position.
Lucibee
quote:I have a video too!
I would have loved to post this on the C4 forum...
Yes elementary risk management without the weightings of likelihood, or the base case of business as usual where many of the technology challenges are being worked anyway while the AGW picture evolves ie prepare doesn't need to include implement from the start but only when the empirical evidence becomes significantly supportive.... none of it is anything like overnight type urgency.
I have a pdf Falsication Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics and its been through the peer review doodah!
err... which journal?
International Journal of Modern Physics Bquote:Originally posted by Lucibee:
err... which journal?
Son of Mulder.
High five SoM!
Probably most of them.... And I think Steve_M is taking a sabbatical at "C A", but If I understand him, his curiosity will get the better of him, we'll hear from him soon. "Falsification" is too strong an attractant to keep him away (so is obsfuscation)! I've no doubt he's ogling this site for anything that 'piques' his interest (just like me).
With all due respect SoM, we've already been through these principles. How do you regard the MEP (maximum entropy production) principle? Here's a link to an important paper that describes this (basically) for climate cells.
http://home.iitk.ac.in/~osegu/Entropy_Prod2.pdf
I can't see any centrifugal influence from Earth rotation in their math model. Can you?
Best regards, suricat.
High five SoM!
quote:
Which of the 10 myths can be refuted.... where is Steve_M?
Probably most of them.... And I think Steve_M is taking a sabbatical at "C A", but If I understand him, his curiosity will get the better of him, we'll hear from him soon. "Falsification" is too strong an attractant to keep him away (so is obsfuscation)! I've no doubt he's ogling this site for anything that 'piques' his interest (just like me).
With all due respect SoM, we've already been through these principles. How do you regard the MEP (maximum entropy production) principle? Here's a link to an important paper that describes this (basically) for climate cells.
http://home.iitk.ac.in/~osegu/Entropy_Prod2.pdf
I can't see any centrifugal influence from Earth rotation in their math model. Can you?
Best regards, suricat.
Hey suricat
Have you had a look at the pdf that I posted?
I first saw it on CA at the version that I linked to, haven't seen the published version though( something to do with actually paying for the priv.)
Have you had a look at the pdf that I posted?
I first saw it on CA at the version that I linked to, haven't seen the published version though( something to do with actually paying for the priv.)
I'm not a physicist. I'll have to ask the guys at RealClimate about that one.
Where's Steve_M when you need him?
mufcdiver.
I've bought a "dongle" for my laptop so I'm able to download stuff better now. I've seen this paper before and it's a long read so I really don't want to read it again. However, (when I did read it) it seems to be in general agreement with my direction of understanding, which is:
CO2 is too sparse to be a major contributor to atmospheric warming; back radiation is an apparent effect and not a cause (in analogy, a bit like registering 'back EMF' [EMF = electromotive force, or volts] in only part of an electrical inductor within an 'AC circuit' for a 'grey body', or with a resistor transposed with the inductor for a 'black body').
Put succinctly, a radiative model doesn't account for a climate because climate can only be modelled by the actions of the mass within the atmosphere, as and when, they are prescribed/proscribed by radiative influences from outside of the atmosphere.
As for privileges, the most recent papers to gain acceptance are nearly always hidden behind a 'money wall' and can't be posted in a forum (well they can, but fellow forum readers will have to pay to see them).
Best regards, suricat (simples, ha, I like that).
quote:
Hey suricat
Have you had a look at the pdf that I posted?
I first saw it on CA at the version that I linked to, haven't seen the published version though( something to do with actually paying for the priv.)
I've bought a "dongle" for my laptop so I'm able to download stuff better now. I've seen this paper before and it's a long read so I really don't want to read it again. However, (when I did read it) it seems to be in general agreement with my direction of understanding, which is:
CO2 is too sparse to be a major contributor to atmospheric warming; back radiation is an apparent effect and not a cause (in analogy, a bit like registering 'back EMF' [EMF = electromotive force, or volts] in only part of an electrical inductor within an 'AC circuit' for a 'grey body', or with a resistor transposed with the inductor for a 'black body').
Put succinctly, a radiative model doesn't account for a climate because climate can only be modelled by the actions of the mass within the atmosphere, as and when, they are prescribed/proscribed by radiative influences from outside of the atmosphere.
As for privileges, the most recent papers to gain acceptance are nearly always hidden behind a 'money wall' and can't be posted in a forum (well they can, but fellow forum readers will have to pay to see them).
Best regards, suricat (simples, ha, I like that).
Apparently, it's all nonsense:
Failure of peer review
Note that the article you cited is a review article and is not primary research...
Failure of peer review
Note that the article you cited is a review article and is not primary research...
And here is proof...
Geoman.
This should be a better place for readers to download this .pdf file;
http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.2767
as it's the destination of the archive link.
Please pardon my extra link Geoman, as many ex-C4 posters are .pdf archive source challenged due to their exclusions from the old C4 web-site (this probably includes me).
I think that this is an excellent comment paper that outlines some of the failings of ignoring a full 'Earth model' when accounting for 'radiative balance' relative to Earth's climate.
The 'two shell model' of 'surface' and 'radiating atmosphere' for OLR (outgoing long-wave radiation) only emphasises the activity of latent convection in the absence of OLR's 'escape' from the Earth system (the main role of the atmospheric hydrocycle, and mass, to an altitude of somewhere above the mid tropo only increases providence for MEP (maximum entropy production) theory). The proverbial 33 degrees centigrade differential between the observed temp from space and the ave global near surface temp springs to mind!
I'm sure there is more to discuss on this. It really is a shame that Steve_M isn't here to add to our chatter.
A welcome introduction to the debate for my part (even if my math isn't fully up to speed).
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
You guys may be interested in this
This should be a better place for readers to download this .pdf file;
http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.2767
as it's the destination of the archive link.
Please pardon my extra link Geoman, as many ex-C4 posters are .pdf archive source challenged due to their exclusions from the old C4 web-site (this probably includes me).
I think that this is an excellent comment paper that outlines some of the failings of ignoring a full 'Earth model' when accounting for 'radiative balance' relative to Earth's climate.
The 'two shell model' of 'surface' and 'radiating atmosphere' for OLR (outgoing long-wave radiation) only emphasises the activity of latent convection in the absence of OLR's 'escape' from the Earth system (the main role of the atmospheric hydrocycle, and mass, to an altitude of somewhere above the mid tropo only increases providence for MEP (maximum entropy production) theory). The proverbial 33 degrees centigrade differential between the observed temp from space and the ave global near surface temp springs to mind!
I'm sure there is more to discuss on this. It really is a shame that Steve_M isn't here to add to our chatter.
A welcome introduction to the debate for my part (even if my math isn't fully up to speed).
Best regards, suricat.
quote:Originally posted by Lucibee:
Apparently, it's all nonsense:
Failure of peer review
Note that the article you cited is a review article and is not primary research...
Luci, Mr Rabbett should try practicing what he preaches and maybe then he would realise what a steaming pile he had posted! Thank you for linking to that 'pile'[not]
Lucibee.
Oh, Luci!
From my experience with Eli, only the minimum data is offered in any communication. The data offered is usually obtuse and difficult to follow. Although the guy is very intelligent and well adept within his field, he tends to be too cryptic to be helpful in a discussion.
The "Smith" paper that you reference is the paper that Geoman's linked paper comments upon. BTW, I don't know whether a 'comment paper' needs to be reviewed or not to be valid as a 'comment' (in my estimation, I doubt that Geoman's linked paper needs to be reviewed to be a valid "comment").
Hope this helps.
Best regards, suricat.
Oh, Luci!
From my experience with Eli, only the minimum data is offered in any communication. The data offered is usually obtuse and difficult to follow. Although the guy is very intelligent and well adept within his field, he tends to be too cryptic to be helpful in a discussion.
The "Smith" paper that you reference is the paper that Geoman's linked paper comments upon. BTW, I don't know whether a 'comment paper' needs to be reviewed or not to be valid as a 'comment' (in my estimation, I doubt that Geoman's linked paper needs to be reviewed to be a valid "comment").
Hope this helps.
Best regards, suricat.
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.
I'll wait until one of your falsification papers gets into Science or Nature, and then get back to you.
MUFC
Another goody Mufc. Have you discovered a Pandoras box since leaving C4. I particularly like 4.3 Science and Global Climate Modelling, starting on page 88 and the Physicists Summary on page 92.
Steve_M is a physicist whereas I'm a lapsed applied mathematician who specialised in theoretical physics, so his comments would be of interesting to me. I suspect he is lost to us now and I don't hold out Suricat's optimism that he will reappear.
Suricat
I came across it as I was looking for something to kickstart discussion here as we have lost our vast repository of threads from C4 days.
As for "How do you regard the MEP (maximum entropy production) principle?". 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. This was extended to Quantum and relativistic realms. The challenge is to find the functions (Actions) to be minimised (or maximised). It can be reduced to a minimisation problem by taking the recoprocal of the maximised quantity. The general topic is call the Principle of Least Action.
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.
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.
I can't judge the validity in this case but I know from experience (many years ago) that it is so in lagrangian mechanics. In that the Action was L=T-V where T is kinetic energy and V is gravitational potential energy. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_mechanics
quote:I have a pdf Falsication Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics and its been through the peer review doodah!
Another goody Mufc. Have you discovered a Pandoras box since leaving C4. I particularly like 4.3 Science and Global Climate Modelling, starting on page 88 and the Physicists Summary on page 92.
Steve_M is a physicist whereas I'm a lapsed applied mathematician who specialised in theoretical physics, so his comments would be of interesting to me. I suspect he is lost to us now and I don't hold out Suricat's optimism that he will reappear.
Suricat
quote:With all due respect SoM, we've already been through these principles. How do you regard the MEP (maximum entropy production) principle? Here's a link to an important paper that describes this (basically) for climate cells.
I came across it as I was looking for something to kickstart discussion here as we have lost our vast repository of threads from C4 days.
As for "How do you regard the MEP (maximum entropy production) principle?". 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. This was extended to Quantum and relativistic realms. The challenge is to find the functions (Actions) to be minimised (or maximised). It can be reduced to a minimisation problem by taking the recoprocal of the maximised quantity. The general topic is call the Principle of Least Action.
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.
quote:I can't see any centrifugal influence from Earth rotation in their math model. Can you?
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.
I can't judge the validity in this case but I know from experience (many years ago) that it is so in lagrangian mechanics. In that the Action was L=T-V where T is kinetic energy and V is gravitational potential energy. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_mechanics