|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 9, 2023 9:05:01 GMT
Most scientist do deal in numbers, the problem of course is that once they present a number it ends up being shown to be wrong. The IPCC reports dealt in many numbers and most have not stood the test of time. I would tend to agree with Happer, some small fraction seems about right as that tends to illustrate its inconsequential nature. Probably is fine in Climate science as the models all indicate probabilities, possibilities, likelihoods and maybes. No way to run science but then it largely is not science it is politics and that is why it is driven by politicians who cannot resist the opportunities that science obliquely presents them with. I've already suggested a scientific approach here. You use satellites and weather balloons to take samples of atmospheric gases and you see how these vary over time. The equipment you use has been calibrated to a certain accuracy. Some of the best physics lab equipment can measure to many significant figures so your survey would be sensitive to the smallest of changes. With a global 3D survey of gas concentrations you can run a simulation of the overall reflectivity and absorption vs wavelength and compute the global warming effect from additional man-made emissions over time. You can carry all your errors over to give an overall error in your figure. This is how the pros do it. This is how I was trained to do it as well because I went to an old school university where they were meticulous. Now of course if Happer has already done all of this he can give us a talk on how he did it and what he found out. If he can't then all he has is his opinion. This is what we are looking at. Scientists are never persuaded by opinion though. It leaves the jury still out until we have quantitive investigations which are generally peer-reviewed, but a word of warning, peer review is no guarantee. You are supposed to read it and perform your own peer review. The problem is that using deterministic equations on a stochastic system doesn't work. It doesn't matter how accurately you measure the data the prediction will always be wrong. It's the difference between a single pendulum (which is deterministic) and a double pendulum (which is stochastic). The former can be predicted very accurately but the latter can't be predicted at all - no matter how accurate your data. The climate models are based on the weather models but with the addition of logic to increase temperatures in line with CO2 concentrations. As we all know with the weather models they can be reasonably accurate for a few days but anything over a week can be wildly inaccurate. Yet the climate change bodies are using their models to predict decades ahead. That's why they're always wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 9, 2023 12:11:58 GMT
I've already suggested a scientific approach here. You use satellites and weather balloons to take samples of atmospheric gases and you see how these vary over time. The equipment you use has been calibrated to a certain accuracy. Some of the best physics lab equipment can measure to many significant figures so your survey would be sensitive to the smallest of changes. With a global 3D survey of gas concentrations you can run a simulation of the overall reflectivity and absorption vs wavelength and compute the global warming effect from additional man-made emissions over time. You can carry all your errors over to give an overall error in your figure. This is how the pros do it. This is how I was trained to do it as well because I went to an old school university where they were meticulous. Now of course if Happer has already done all of this he can give us a talk on how he did it and what he found out. If he can't then all he has is his opinion. This is what we are looking at. Scientists are never persuaded by opinion though. It leaves the jury still out until we have quantitive investigations which are generally peer-reviewed, but a word of warning, peer review is no guarantee. You are supposed to read it and perform your own peer review. The problem is that using deterministic equations on a stochastic system doesn't work. It doesn't matter how accurately you measure the data the prediction will always be wrong. It's the difference between a single pendulum (which is deterministic) and a double pendulum (which is stochastic). The former can be predicted very accurately but the latter can't be predicted at all - no matter how accurate your data. The climate models are based on the weather models but with the addition of logic to increase temperatures in line with CO2 concentrations. As we all know with the weather models they can be reasonably accurate for a few days but anything over a week can be wildly inaccurate. Yet the climate change bodies are using their models to predict decades ahead. That's why they're always wrong. It depends on what you are measuring. I think you will find the concentrations of gases in the upper atmosphere pretty stable, the effects in terms of weather below much less so. There is a bit of exchange between the gases and the ground but there is a Boltzmann distribution of molecules and energies when you average over time. The height is the potential energy so as the energy of the molecule increases its average height will increase. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 9, 2023 12:26:12 GMT
Mags suggested that crime causes poverty, but that hypothesis fails when you se the crime does not cause poverty in well to do areas. Or that crime is not carried out by the well off to anywhere near the scale it is among the poor. No - I showed that what you described didn't confirm your explanation for the correlation, exclude mine or exclude a mixture of both with mine being dominant. Crime will cause poverty in well to do areas for the very obvious and inarguable reasons I outlined right at the beginning of this discussion. You do not seem to grasp that all you actually see is the correlation - the explanation for the correlation is an entirely different thing |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 9, 2023 13:42:26 GMT
If you try and figure out the total energy of the system by your various measurements of thermal energies on the planet and its atmosphere then this figure will not jump all over the place. It's a steady state system except the amount of greenhouse gases increase, which is what you are trying to find out and the other factor is the change in the albedo of the surface which we can measure. This will vary if vegetation changes and also the ice, because ice is white and very reflective. Indeed the most often cited climate model uses this energy approach.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 9, 2023 20:19:07 GMT
Do you mean urban areas trap heat in their structures? If so I agree, but would point out that this trapped heat has no measurable effect on earths weather. This is because its trapped away from the atmosphere. Do you ever think about the nonsense you write Zanygame? Plainly the heat trapped by structures DOES have an effect on the Earth's weather because urban areas are significantly hotter than urban areas. When "structures" (like buildings etc) are warmed up by the Sun that heat gradually escapes into the atmosphere and warms up the air. So in what way is it different from heat that is trapped by CO2 which also warms up the air? And the "extreme weather events" that you talk about (like hurricanes for example) are fed by this heat - that's where they get their energy from. However, you need to be careful about exaggerating the increase in extreme weather events. I remember a "More or Less" report on this which found little evidence that they had become more common. In fact they found that in many cases the amount of damage done by a "weather event" was being used as a measure of the strength of the event, when this mainly related to the amount of property damaged - and was often caused by building in the wrong place (flood plains for example). Basically measuring the severity of a weather event by the cost of the damage done is not very sensible. And droughts in the UK are exacerbated by our water companies selling off reservoirs. Etc. And you've never provided a source for your claim that 95% of scientists think that CO2 is the primary cause of global warming. When did this survey take place? God you're tiresome with your constant petty insults, so dull. Stop skip reading. I said NO MEASURABLE EFFECT. I.e measurable against the far larger heat source from the sun, And incidentally your urban heat also comes from the sun. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 9, 2023 20:37:20 GMT
Mags suggested that crime causes poverty, but that hypothesis fails when you se the crime does not cause poverty in well to do areas. Or that crime is not carried out by the well off to anywhere near the scale it is among the poor. No - I showed that what you described didn't confirm your explanation for the correlation, exclude mine or exclude a mixture of both with mine being dominant. Crime will cause poverty in well to do areas for the very obvious and inarguable reasons I outlined right at the beginning of this discussion. You do not seem to grasp that all you actually see is the correlation - the explanation for the correlation is an entirely different thing When considering which is cause and which correlation, one should look at which is more common. Do punctures cause swerving or swerving cause punctures? Both can be true, but we know which is far more common. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2023 21:22:22 GMT
When considering which is cause and which correlation, one should look at which is more common. Do punctures cause swerving or swerving cause punctures? Both can be true, but we know which is far more common. This looks a bit like swerving, so I hope you're not deflated. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 9, 2023 21:42:39 GMT
No - I showed that what you described didn't confirm your explanation for the correlation, exclude mine or exclude a mixture of both with mine being dominant. Crime will cause poverty in well to do areas for the very obvious and inarguable reasons I outlined right at the beginning of this discussion. You do not seem to grasp that all you actually see is the correlation - the explanation for the correlation is an entirely different thing When considering which is cause and which correlation, one should look at which is more common. Do punctures cause swerving or swerving cause punctures? Both can be true, but we know which is far more common. Zany, to my mind your argument has become confused You can rationally have the opinion that crime causes poverty. I'd say such a position is warranted because we know for a fact that crime mechanically causes poverty (in every case), while the opposite claim is in the realm of vague psychological theorising. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 9, 2023 21:54:30 GMT
When considering which is cause and which correlation, one should look at which is more common. Do punctures cause swerving or swerving cause punctures? Both can be true, but we know which is far more common. Zany, to my mind your argument has become confused You can rationally have the opinion that crime causes poverty. I'd say such a position is warranted because we know for a fact that crime mechanically causes poverty (in every case), while the opposite claim is in the realm of vague psychological theorising. I can see no further discussion to be had on this subject that does not cover old ground. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 9, 2023 22:08:46 GMT
When considering which is cause and which correlation, one should look at which is more common. Do punctures cause swerving or swerving cause punctures? Both can be true, but we know which is far more common. ZG, in context with the discussion, that's a ridiculous analogy. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 9, 2023 22:12:47 GMT
When considering which is cause and which correlation, one should look at which is more common. Do punctures cause swerving or swerving cause punctures? Both can be true, but we know which is far more common. ZG, in context with the discussion, that's a ridiculous analogy. I tend to agree. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 10, 2023 7:46:11 GMT
Do you ever think about the nonsense you write Zanygame? Plainly the heat trapped by structures DOES have an effect on the Earth's weather because urban areas are significantly hotter than urban areas. When "structures" (like buildings etc) are warmed up by the Sun that heat gradually escapes into the atmosphere and warms up the air. So in what way is it different from heat that is trapped by CO2 which also warms up the air? And the "extreme weather events" that you talk about (like hurricanes for example) are fed by this heat - that's where they get their energy from. However, you need to be careful about exaggerating the increase in extreme weather events. I remember a "More or Less" report on this which found little evidence that they had become more common. In fact they found that in many cases the amount of damage done by a "weather event" was being used as a measure of the strength of the event, when this mainly related to the amount of property damaged - and was often caused by building in the wrong place (flood plains for example). Basically measuring the severity of a weather event by the cost of the damage done is not very sensible. And droughts in the UK are exacerbated by our water companies selling off reservoirs. Etc. And you've never provided a source for your claim that 95% of scientists think that CO2 is the primary cause of global warming. When did this survey take place? God you're tiresome with your constant petty insults, so dull. Stop skip reading. I said NO MEASURABLE EFFECT. I.e measurable against the far larger heat source from the sun, And incidentally your urban heat also comes from the sun. The reason that an urban area is considerably warmer than an equivalent rural area is that the rural area traps a large amount of the Sun's energy and uses it to grow (i.e. to create more vegetation via photosynthesis) while the urban area simply acts as a giant storage heater. The buildings and roads etc all warm up and then heat up the surrounding atmosphere. Your statement was that " Do you mean urban areas trap heat in their structures? If so I agree, but would point out that this trapped heat has no measurable effect on earths weather. This is because its trapped away from the atmosphere. This is total bollocks. The heat is leaked into the atmosphere - while the rural area locks it away. And it causes VERY SIGNIFICANT warming - far more than the average 1.5C. So maybe you'd like to explain why this warming effect is irrelevant while the very small effect of heating caused by CO2 trapping energy IS relevant? Go on admit that you're know nothing about this subject. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 10, 2023 8:02:15 GMT
If you try and figure out the total energy of the system by your various measurements of thermal energies on the planet and its atmosphere then this figure will not jump all over the place. It's a steady state system except the amount of greenhouse gases increase, which is what you are trying to find out and the other factor is the change in the albedo of the surface which we can measure. This will vary if vegetation changes and also the ice, because ice is white and very reflective. Indeed the most often cited climate model uses this energy approach. Best of luck trying to figure that out. Are you aware of how impossible it is to accurately measure the total energy of the planet? It's impossible to measure the thermal energy of the land let alone the oceans which are a vast unknown quantity. And as for the effect of greenhouse gases that's even more difficult. Does CO2 have an overall warming effect or not? We don't know. The same for water in the atmosphere. Both these greenhouse gases have warming and cooling effects depending on their phase (in the case of water) and depending on the nature of the area in the case of CO2. And no one has ever managed to do the calculations. And even if anyone EVER managed to get all the data (which is impossible) and ever managed to work out all the basic equations (again impossible) and managed to measure the data to extreme accuracy (again impossible) the models would STILL be wrong - for the simple reason that it's a stochastic system and doesn't obey deterministic laws. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 10, 2023 8:19:31 GMT
God you're tiresome with your constant petty insults, so dull. Stop skip reading. I said NO MEASURABLE EFFECT. I.e measurable against the far larger heat source from the sun, And incidentally your urban heat also comes from the sun. The reason that an urban area is considerably warmer than an equivalent rural area is that the rural area traps a large amount of the Sun's energy and uses it to grow (i.e. to create more vegetation via photosynthesis) while the urban area simply acts as a giant storage heater. The buildings and roads etc all warm up and then heat up the surrounding atmosphere. Your errors grow with every post. Urban areas store more of the suns energy per sq mtr, but its tiny compared to the overall planets surface. Further much that heat would dissipate into space if we didn't have AGW. Because its over such a small area. Your electric fire is hotter than the sun when you are next to it, but it doesn't warm the planet. If you can't work out the difference between Urban areas and the Co2 cover of the entire planet I don't think I can help you any further. Earths surface 511,000,000 Sq Km. Urban areas 4,599,000 Sq Km. Less than 1% And please learn to put my words in quotes, its not that difficult. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 10, 2023 8:24:17 GMT
Zanygame said: "As far as denier scientists are concerned give me the list of these thousands of scientists who tried to call out global warming and were pilloried or lost their jobs. I say they don't exist. I say the idea that any the scientists I know could be silenced on the truth is just bollox. Let alone the thousands that support AGW."
I don't think a scientist would recognise the meaning of the worth "truth" in relation to "theories". And any genuine scientist would be very cautious about the climate change models. The only comment I've heard on these models was by Mat Collins (a leading expert in climate modelling) and he said that "they don't work very well" - which is a bit of an understatement. So who are the "thousands that support AGW" zanygame?
You're fond of saying that 95% of scientists think that AGW is primarily caused by CO2. So where is your source for this statement?
|
|
