Matthew
Yes, a siphon is an example of a single process, or, if you wish, two dependent processes. But the IPCC concept of radiation from a colder atmosphere supposedly transferring thermal energy to a warmer surface is an independent process. There is no dependency between it and any subsequent transfer of that thermal energy back to the atmosphere or direct to space, perhaps via latent heat or convective heat transfer. It's like cutting the siphon hose at the top and still expecting it to work. There are reasons why the electro-magnetic energy in back radiation is not converted to thermal energy in a warmer surface: it does not even penetrate water by more than a few nanometers anyway,
It's my belief that many climatologists now know the science is false and yet, to protect their incomes and self-esteem they persist in promulgating the radiative forcing conjecture which never gained the status of a theory in physics, let alone a law. They make deliberate attempts, for example, to rubbish the gravito-thermal effect such as that refutedd on our 'WUWT errors' page <a href="http://climate-change-theory.com/wuwt.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. And people like Anthony Watts deliberately ban our explanation of this valid science on biased blogs like wattsupwiththat.
Please read our group's <a href="http://climate-change-theory.com" rel="nofollow">website</a> for our response to your question about the Second Law. It is that law which can be used to prove the existence of the gravitationally-induced density gradient and temperature gradient, and that enables us to prove the radiative greenhouse conjecture to be false. Over 1,000 a week are visiting that website now.
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Group of physicits
↧
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Beta Blocker
With their use of the term “climate signal” a.k.a “climate change signal”, climate scientists are attempting to draw a parallel with traditional signal processing practice & theory, which has a long and valuable history in the hard sciences. But the question must be asked, does the parallel go only so deep? And if so, how deep?
Jim D: An example of a signal is if you take the summer mean temperature in your region for 30 years, e.g. 1951-1980. If you plot this as a probability of a given temperature it will look like a Gaussian curve with a mean and standard deviation of nearly 1 C. Then you look at recent summers and the new mean is a standard deviation higher. That would be a climate change signal. A picture helps.
It would appear from Jim D’s example that what does, or does not, constitute a ‘climate change signal’ is context sensitive.
The implication here is that it is not possible to apply the term ‘climate signal’ universally inside a specific research paper without first defining and enumerating the specifically applicable characteristics which allow some body of reference data, plus the scientific interpretation of that data, to be labeled as a ‘climate signal’ in supporting the conclusions of the research paper.
On the surface of it, the graph Jim D references would be one example of a sub-class of climate signal.
If there are multiple subclasses of climate signals, then what are the rules for establishing the characteristics which allow some body of reference data, plus the scientific interpretation of that data, to be labeled as a ‘climate signal’ within the analytical context in which it will be used?
Without establishing a context-specific definition for the term ‘climate signal’ as it is being used in a specific research paper, then it might be easy for a climate skeptic to assert that the term is being used merely to establish a veneer of scientific credibility which isn’t necessarily present in the research itself.
Let’s use as my graph of Central England temperature (CET) 1772-2013 as an example of how one might go about defining what a climate signal represents within the specific context in which it is being used.
Between 1840 and 1870, CET was rising at approximately +0.3 C per decade. GMT was rising at the same time, although not quite at the same rate. Here is an example where a local temperature variation appears to be happening in rough correlation with global temperature variation. Looking at the right side of the graph, the same can be said for more recent temperature variations in CET and in GMT post 1945.
All right, a question …. can we say with justification that any local rise in Hadley CET is a mere temperature signal, while the rise in Hadley GMT for a similar period is a certified climate change signal? Why or why not?
Similarly, are there local climate change signals in addition to global climate change signals? If Central England is known to be warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet, does the local temperature change signal also simultaneously represent a global climate change signal?
If we were to state that we believe the local increase in CET between 1950 and 2000 is most likely a reflection of a persistent change in global temperature which is occurring on a worldwide basis — and if we were also to believe that the localized change in CET is an example subclass of a climate signal we might call a ‘local climate change signal’ — i.e., it is something more than a mere temperature signal occurring locally — then how would we view the rise in CET of +0.4 C per decade in the period of 1810-1835 where there is no corresponding Hadley GMT data to compare with?
Can we discount the possibility that there was a rough corresponding increase in Global Mean Temperature between 1810 and 1835, even if it wasn’t of the same magnitude as the change in CET? Why or why not? (The same question applies to all pre-1850 temperature trends in the CET record.) Moreover, if we choose to discount that possibility, what lines of evidence would we marshal to support our opinions?
The larger point here is that within the context of a specific research paper, climate scientists must define precisely what it is they mean by a ‘temperature signal’, a ‘climate signal’, and/or a ‘climate change signal’.
If there are multiple subclasses of climate signals which apply to different areas of climate science, then climate scientists must document the rules they use for establishing those characteristics which allow some body of reference data, plus the scientific interpretation of that data, to be labeled as a ‘climate signal’ within the analytical context of the research paper in which the term is being used.
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Rob Starkey
Gates
I have read the theory. I have also not read anything reliable that shows that extreme weather events are actually increasing. Some (alarmists) try to use the value of property damages over time, but that doesn’t take inflation into account. What what observations are you referencing to confirm the theory???
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by nickels
“As to “equilibrium climate sensitivity”, that is meaningless, such a system as the Earth’s climate which is in a continuous state of perturbation from an unknown number of influences and incorporates numerous feedbacks which involve those perturbing influences can never reach equilibrium.”
Agreed. There is the concept of a linearized model and a climate sensitivity of that linearization. And, of course, every different state of the climate has its own linearization. So there is in fact a whole continuum of climate sensitivities….
But I guess stating the sensitivity in that way would bring things to close to math, which has the tendency to constrain ones conclusions, so, jettison that!
↧
Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by Craig Loehle
One of the problems with understanding risk is that people can be irrational about risk.
1) People tend to believe risk is low when they feel in control. Riding a bike is an example. Pedestrians feel quite safe but thousands are killed by cars every year.
2) Invisible and hard to understand risks are weighted more heavily. This is moreso when the outcome is gruesome. So if you think vaccines will give your kids autism (horrible outcome) and a vaccine works by magic means, it is risky. If you think your food is being poisoned by invisible chemicals, you both don’t have control and the outcome is horrible (being poisoned). Shopping for organic food restores the sense of control.
3) People in safe, wealthy environments become more fearful of danger compared to those who actually face daily hazards in the third world. They become more risk-averse. Activities like hunting, building your own house, making things, all build confidence that one can overcome adversity. Safe urban jobs do not. The more snow an area sees the less snow matters because everyone learns to deal with it.
Switching the claim from “global warming” to “climate disruption” works in this context by feeding off the amorphous fear of disruption and trouble. When people are prone to believe in tiny dangers being something worth changing behavior for (organic food, per above) then it is easy to imagine that an undefined future climate disruption is obviously urgent and must immediately be responded to.
A further complication is that people in conceptual jobs (the media, education, government) have no experience with physics and nature savagely contradicting one’s concepts. Ideas rule for them. But claimed solutions like solar power have very real limitations that good intentions and symbolism can’t overcome.
↧
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by vukcevic
Indeed, ranking of the warmest and the coldest years is another important point. Since not all years are up at an equal amount even a tiniest of change may make a difference.
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Rud Istvan
KF, an excellent post. You might want to look at essay Sensitive Uncertainty. It delves into this topic a bit, with emphasis on the empirical rather than the CMIP5 derivations, the differences between TCR and ECS, and even some ECS/TCR implications. Plenty of footnotes to source materials.
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by nickels
I’m not getting in any climate model that gets more than 3 feet off the ground….
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Group of physicists
R Gates: If you wish to debate us regarding the physics <a href="http://climate-change-theory.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> feel free to do so, but note the 'Evidence' page which supports what we say.
↧
↧
Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by poitsplace
The problem is that the whole debate has been going wrong since some time back in the 70s. Resources are not limited to oil, coal, and gas verses wind and solar. While that was going on, many were busy vilifying nuclear, inadvertently loading the dice for the AGW fears. Then we had a burst of “global warming”, for 20 years which people assumed would continue (and ramp up exponentially)
This is the reality. Renewable energy is effectively a lie. The cost of all resources is in harvesting them…wind/solar are no different. Solar is currently too expensive. Wind is currently competitive on the surface, but still doesn’t work in reality because all value for energy is in its on-demand nature…and we do not need hours of buffering for wind/solar, we need weeks or months, a prohibitively difficult problem to solve.
Nuclear is the ONLY clear answer, if the believers truly cared about stopping CO2 emissions, anyway…and fracking is the best short term stop-gap for both producing base load until nuclear is built and for peaking once the nuclear plants were built. Even if someone wants to talk about storage technology, nuclear is still the clear winner because nuclear TRULY only needs hours of buffering…requiring about half the daily difference between base and peak load. The plant would provide something like 75% of needed power and the storage would hold excess energy until peaking was needed.
Once you realize nuclear is the only reasonable alternative, you’re hit by the reality, renewable energy is a complete waste of time, quite probably for the rest of our lifetimes. Simply put, there is enough nuclear fuel to provide the entire population of the planet at per capita consumption rates of the US for TEN THOUSAND YEARS…wow.
BTW, a while back I did a little thought experiment…I thought to myself, let’s assume renewables are viable. I started crunching the numbers, then just to make sure I wasn’t missing something, I looked into materials….my god the materials. To provide the world (and remember, the developing world will need energy before we’re done too) with energy from wind power…would take the entire world output of concrete and steel for about 10 years. Solar-thermal is even worse.
Oh well, this is getting a bit long winded…I’ll cut it off there. As I’ve always said, if the greens cared, they’d be BEGGING for fracking and nuclear power. They don’t care. What they want is a fantasy of wind/solar power that always works
↧
Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by Wagathon
What if the terrible truth about global warming is that it really has nothing at all to do with CO2? What if it’s just a hoax and a scare tactic? What if it’s just a belief — like a belief in aliens — real to the believer but nothing anyone can prove or disprove? What if it’s government policy and government is evil? That’s the way is was in Germany, no so long ago.
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by RiHo08
AK
I see not only military leaders are students of history. Thank you.
I enjoy learning more about the past in spite of the reconstructions performed to fit a current popular narrative. The more I read different perspectives, I can see the similarities to the present.
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Dr. Page, I would think “not computable” is a stretch, you might not get the precision you like but you could get a reasonable ballpark.
However, when you miss the tropical absolute temperature by that much, you are choking your chicken as far as productivity goes.
↧
↧
Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by Steven Mosher
they have. reader harder
↧
Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by Steven Mosher
“The hypothesis is that more CO2 in the atmosphere will warm the planet – all other things being equal.”
This leads to two questions.
1. How much will it warm.
2. Given that we can’t hold other things equal, how do we estimate #1
↧
Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by Keitho
Great post. Thanks.
↧
Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by Don Monfort
We spend a lot of money on a multitude of models, run em, toon em, run em, toon em, run em…and when we end up with a ball of spaghetti we take the average and that’s the answer we are going with.
↧
↧
Comment on Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm by Dr Norman Page
Captdallas With such a large number of variables you can get compensating errors producing the same outcome so that there is no means of knowing what a reasonable outcome is from the model outcomes themselves. It is well worth the time to watch the Essex presentation linked in Section2 which says
“The modelling approach is also inherently of no value for predicting future temperature with any calculable certainty because of the difficulty of specifying the initial conditions of a sufficiently fine grained spatio-temporal grid of a large number of variables with sufficient precision prior to multiple iterations. For a complete discussion of this see Essex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvhipLNeda4
Models are often tuned by running them backwards against several decades of observation, this is much too short a period to correlate outputs with observation when the controlling natural quasi-periodicities of most interest are in the centennial and especially in the key millennial range. Tuning to these longer periodicities is beyond any computing capacity when using reductionist models with a large number of variables unless these long wave natural periodicities are somehow built into the model structure ab initio.”
↧
Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by Steven Mosher
“Even one of the Warmist priests believes there’s only about one chance in three that 2014 was warmer than 2013.”
WRONG.
↧
Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by Steven Mosher
crazy republicans. believing in AGW …
http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/288082601.html
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
