And irrelevant.
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by aaron
↧
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
irreverent might be closer. Belief rather than science.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by Don Monfort
I think Flynn may be pretending not to get it. Let’s test the little rascal:
“Warmists confuse a reduction in the rate of cooling, with an increase in temperature. An example might be to place a warm object in a vacuum flask. The object will cool much more slowly than without the insulation. It will never increase its temperature. Even filling the flask with CO2 will not cause the temperature of the object to rise.”
Give the warm object a constant source of warming energy. We can call it the sun, or whatever. Measure temp of warm object in vacuum flask. Suspend the vacuum flask in the center of a flask filled with CO2. Will the temp of the warm object?:
A) stay the same
B) go down
C) rise
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by Mike Flynn
Don Monfort,
You wrote –
“Give the warm object a constant source of warming energy. We can call it the sun, or whatever.” You may do as you wish. Typical Warmist response – deny my original statement by substituting your own, divert the audience by throwing red herrings around, and obscure your lack of knowledge by trying to fly off at a tangent.
Of course if you heat something, supplying more energy than it radiates, its temperature will increase. This is called warming. If an object radiates more energ than it receives, its temperature will decrease. This is called cooling. It doesn’t matter how much CO2 you surround a cooling object with, it cools. Its temperature drops.
This explains why the temperature drops at night. It also explains why the surface doesn’t warm unless it absorbs more energy than it it is emitting. The surface of the Moon demonstrates how much faster things happen in the absence of any atmosphere to speak of. Less CO2, both higher and lower temperatures result.
If you read what I wrote, rather than what you wish I had written, unless you’re totally delusional, you will agree that a reduced rate of cooling does not result in a rise in temperature. That is why it’s called cooling, in case you didn’t know.
Warmists appear to think that the fact that the Earth’s surface heats up during the day is due to the magical powers of CO2. I suppose they also think that the surface cools at night due to the magical powers of CO2.
The Earth has a few internal heat sources. The surface has still managed to cool after four and a half billion years of sunlight, CO2, H2O, and all the other so called greenhouse gases.
Back to your foolish thought experiment. Suspend the initial molten Earth in a vacuum (see, you don’t even need a flask). Heat it with the Sun. Surround it with a mixture of gases containing CO2.
Wait for four and a half billion years.
Has the Earth :
a) warmed
b) cooled
c) stayed the same?
Hmmm. Hard question. I’ll look at my feet. No molten surface there! I believe the Earth has cooled. You may think what you like. I’m right, you’re wrong. Agree?
Cheers.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by Don Monfort
flynnie, flynn, flin
Stop the clowning. I said constant source of warming energy.
You are either not very bright, or you are very dishonest. That’s all the time I have for your foolishness.
↧
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
C# being a class based language doesn’t suffer from that sort of error, the compiler catches if for you.
Still many ways to ‘lose’ memory though. People are very inventive.
Or did you want a snappier reply?
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
That greenhouse mind picture could do with some modification to be closer to the ‘real truth’.
Mine would be one with a badly fitting ‘roof’ with no side walls.
Fits reality quite well and stops that ‘enclosed feeling’.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by Mike Flynn
Don Monfort,
You wrote –
“Stop the clowning. I said constant source of warming energy.”
I thought the Sun would be good enough for you. After all, it was you who wrote – “Give the warm object a constant source of warming energy. We can call it the sun, or whatever.” I did as you asked. I called it the Sun.
Now the Woeful Woebegone Warmist complains bitterly I complied with his request. Another redefinition called for, perhaps? It’s all a bit confusing. The constant source of warming energy you called the Sun, is apparently not a constant source of energy called the Sun.
More Warmist nonsense. Wriggly wriggly Wamist Wormism! Thanks for your unsolicited demand that I stop clowning. I wasn’t, so I hope you don’t mind if I join the vast majority of the world’s population who take no notice of your demands.
No CO2 induced global warming. No global warming of any sort, over the long term. If you want some warming, generate some heat. Burning lots of fossil fuel will help.
Cheers.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
Not struggling at all. Just new to it that’s all. Usually takes a few months at least to pick up a new language. Thanks for the support. Got any contracts you would like to offer. I’m a sort of ‘Harry’ seeking retirement work.
Happy New Year.
↧
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by Mike Flynn
RichardLH,
I call it the atmosphere. Mainly gas, with variable amounts of solid and liquid water mixed in. Even solid CO2 in the Antarctic. Also unknown and variable amounts of particulate matter of varying types. Some large enough to settle, some small enough to remain in Brownian suspension, dependant on temperature.
Not all that well understood. Climatologists might claim the science is settled, but I would be surprised if they did.
Cheers.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
“But then we would all know that the AMO was the”natural variability’.
And we both know it is not.”
I am not sure you can dismiss the natural input into the AMO this seems to imply.
There must be something in the data that shows the varying energy flows from the Atlantic to the North Pole. the AMO seems likely to be the logical choice.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
“Until a way is found to accurately and confidently separate natural variation from “forced” variation of climate”
Going to need much bigger computers to get close to that sort of confidence.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
P.S. you can look at the quality of my simple R if you like. Anything you think I could have better or are the comments unclear? The link is on my ‘Moved to dropbox’ page. Thanks in advance for you help.
↧
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
Steve: Do you have a copy of your CV online somewhere? (You can post me a copy though Judith or Lucia if you like). I just need to assess your qualifications when discussing computing work.
Did you study it as a primary course or was it just a bolt-on to the Stats course you obviously did. Just trying to gauge your knowledge in this particular discipline, that’s all.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
Hi Mike:
Yes I know what it is.
It is just the ‘mind picture’ presented is stacked to the end that was trying to be achieved. A real feeling for the forcing’s which isn’t strictly accurate in Greenhouse alone. Just trying to make it more ‘science’ than propaganda.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
I suppose my biggest sadness is how the Climate Science world is so ready to dismiss a view from outside their own discipline.
No matter than scientific engineers and engineers who fashion the instruments they reply on rather do understand what the problems are with what they have built, its limitations and uncertainties.
Me, I’m from one of the more recent sciences, computing. I’ve spent a working lifetime trying to figure out why what I or others thought I/they had told a machine wasn’t what the machine thought I/they said.
An often boring and incredibly detailed task on try to balance in your head why this little virtual clockwork engine that had been carefully constructed, always fell apart on wet Wednesdays.
A trained Logician. A training like we probably have not seen since the Greeks.
I am the ‘Harry’ you call in, exactly like he was, to do ‘job for hire’ Implementation tasks instead of a Systems Design one you really need.
Have multiple languages at my command, though don’t ask me to look at Fortran or R. One I mostly forgot many years ago, but, if you have the need, I can polish that up real quick if you have a job in mind you’ll pay me for. The R I’m still learning and so, although most Consultancy work is getting experience at the expense of clients, I’m too old to play that game anymore.
My training teaches that one of the most important tasks you undertake is to try and see what, if any, assumptions have been made. They are bad, very, very bad. That’s GIGO immediately.
Then onto DIGO. Working out why the data you supplied did not provide the results expected.
That little virtual clockwork engine again. With tools and hints along the way as to where the problem lies. On multiple machines hooked up in an occasional connected networking world.
A living, breathing space, with many dynamic unknowns. That may never be fully known.
So detailed and careful also is my approach to climate science. Start from the basics and work from there.
See what the overall effects are on the data supplied. Here it is likely to be uncertain or wrong.
Working from experience that goes from remembering when weather charts were b/w cartoons of what we thought would happen tomorrow. Paper temperature records because that was all there was.
And the watching the sciences based on our collective computing work spring into glorious life.
So I think I have a right to be here. With serious question about was is being done. Expecting serious consideration instead of a servant like dismissal.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by Mike Flynn
RichardLH,
You wrote –
“Yes I know what it is.”
Sorry, certainly no offense intended, and I hope none taken. I apologise for appearing to challenge your visualisation. I agree with it. I’ve learnt here that some people will engage in the battle of the analogies, hoping to deny, divert, and obscure, so from time to time I try to point out that reality is a little more complicated than an amateurish computer model can probably represent.
My sense of humour is a bit odd, I know. My remarks were addressed to a wider audience, who occasionally over simplify things just a tad – in my view anyway.
Happy new year to you! I better go and libate a little. See? I can’t help myself! Humorous to me, maybe not to others. Oh well.
Cheers.
↧
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
Steve: Whilst we at it can you please stop with the ‘drive by shooting’ style of delivery? I know you probably think of it as ‘august Don walking down the University corridors throwing tit-bits into student conversations and then sailing on down the corridor’. It may not come across as that.
Alice in Wonderland is but a step away. Are you playing the Rabbit as well?
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by Mike Jonas
The question whether CO2 warms or cools the planet is interesting. If all radiation were equal, then CO2 could cool the planet by reducing the amount of solar radiation reaching it. But all radiation is not equal. Only part (around half?) of the radiation reaching Earth from the sun is IR, but virtually all of the radiation re-emitted is IR. Obviously, temperatures and radiation fluctuate, but overall Earth’s temperature is stable when incoming and outgoing radiation match. The temperature is therefore stable when the outgoing IR is much higher than (roughly double?) the incoming IR. NB. the reflected radiation does not affect this equation.
Atmospheric CO2 traps a certain proportion of the IR in both directions, sending some to Earth and some to space, thus reducing IR in both directions. But because of the different levels of outgoing and incoming IR, an increased concentration of atmospheric CO2 reduces the outgoing radiation by a greater absolute amount than it reduces the incoming radiation. Consequently Earth then warms, until balance is restored.
OK, some more detail is needed to establish concrete figures, but the above explanation is sufficient to explain why CO2 does warm the planet.
Earth’s surface being molten initially is irrelevant – obviously a molten surface is going to emit vastly more radiation than it can get from the sun, and therefore it cools regardless of anything that CO2 may do.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
Mike: No offense taken. It is just the Politician in me that wants to set the agenda fairly. So far is appears to be stacked, propaganda style, in only one direction.
Just trying to give a push into a more upright state of affairs.
Have a good New Year.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
