I suspect that you [Judith] would be best described as a luke warmist with both sceptic and warmist leanings.
Judith thinks that climate sensitivity is anywhere between 1-6 degrees to the 66% confidence level.
So we can be only ~17% confident of her being a luke-warmist.
Maybe ~17% confident that she’s a super-warmist?
But we can be much more confident that she’s actually a moderate warmist in the same way as the IPCC could be described.
“And finally, you say It does not balance temperature of gases, but it does balance heat of gases indicating that you don’t understand the true physical definition of “heat.” Gases contain energy and only the kinetic energy component of the total energy gives rise to a temperature measurement. The word “heat” refers to when thermal energy is transferred from one object to another, thus “heating” it. “”
Yes.
So if you have gas in gravity well and if the gas is warm- all the liquids or solids it collides is not colder than the gas- the gas will have an adiabatic lapse rate. Meaning gas will be warmer [higher temperature] lower in elevation where the gas is under higher pressure from the gravity [weight of gases above the lower gases] and the gases higher in elevation will have lower temperature.
But in this “stable state” you will not have a flow heat from higher temperature gas molecules at the bottom to the lower temperature gas above it.
Or *a molecule* could travel from top to bottom and not gain heat- though that is bit crazy because a molecule never gains or loses heat, because heat is the mass of molecules as a mass moving in kinetic fashion that *IS* the heat of the gas.
But in the sense whether a molecule will emit [or absorb] energy, going up or down in column of air, doesn’t cause a molecule to emit [or absorb] a photon.
“The standard unit for the rate of heat transferred is the watt (W), defined as joules per second.” (from Wiki) Note the words “per second.” So what on Earth or Venus do you mean by “balance heat” ???? You just don’t talk the language of physics.”
The scientific term is adiabatic.
And adiabatic lapse rate means change in temperature, but not a change heat of the gas.
This occurs in a gravity well.
I would guess it should work with gases in similar fashion in magnetic field.
Though that sort of opposite, isn’t it?
One could have it in acceleration, of course.
But I can’t think where else you get it.
But if you change gravity [not easy:)]
but if you change acceleration, what happens?
It seems to me any effect from the change acceleration would depend the temperature and pressure of the gas- I suppose, thin cold air would tend to fall more. But not sure.
Poor little Chief Larrikin having the spotlight shown on his non-stop pranking.
My comment was clearly about the process of science, rather than the content. About which you clearly understand as little as why-should-I-show-you-my-data Jones (and those who won’t criticise him for it) do. Which is of course why you just ducked it.
Perhaps you’d care to regale us on exactly how abuse (“contact” in your propaganda-speak) advances the cause of knowledge ? Leavened with humour it could. But that is way, way beyond your pay grade.
So AJ left a huge floater. He has no response to the data I plotted.
And the Larrikin helplessly whines in the background.
P. Solar says: Since the spreadsheet provided is hard-coded with 2.98 C / doubling
This may not be correct. The panel states this as the first assumption of the model but the text suggests is it a least squares result. Unclear.
@gg: Don’t you have Excel to try this yourself?
Yes, but if I find nothing (as I expect) people will just say “confirmation bias.” The search for sawtooth waveforms needs to be done by those claiming there’s lots of them in random data.
@gg: the saw tooth model is totally arbitrary anyway.
Not totally arbitrary. If stress accumulates at a boundary between the inviscid mantle and either the crust or the core, any resulting seismic event will cause a sudden temperature change followed by a slow return to equilibrium. This sequence creates a sawtooth. How is that “arbitrary?”
@gg: Since the spreadsheet provided is hard-coded with 2.98 C / doubling
News to me. Is there a specific climate sensitivity cell containing 2.98? The default value for CS is 2.83, but the slider is there to make it very easy to try other values, which I certainly wouldn’t call “hard-coded.”
@gg: One caveat will be that Vaughan has pre-selected some of the model parameters to fit the data. He explains this in one of his replies above.
It’s more than just that. I’m claiming that this selection of the nine parameters is a local minimum. I put the sliders in to make it easy for people to play around with this.
As I said earlier I don’t claim it’s a global minimum. In fact I rather doubt this after looking around a lot. Although a Hansen delay of 15 years did look like the minimum value possible, I’m starting to think it’s more like 9 or 10 years. It seems to me the whole question of global minima is up for grabs. Measuring Hansen delay from just HadCRUT3 is a more delicate operation than I’d originally given it credit for.
Problems so far with this poster presentation.
1. Headline claim of “within a millikelvin” is false.
2. The range of residual is of the order of 10mK comapared to +/-0.5 in the data. This is about 1% residual. Shouting about millikelvins gives the false impression that the result amazingly accurate. “Within 1%” would not have the same effect. Excuses about ” I really meant SD” will not change this.
3. Claims that the fitted frequencies correspond to oceanic oscillations is totally without foundation. Another false claim.
4. References to a mythical “Arrhenius-Hoffmann-Hansen Law”. This is an ad hoc formula, not an established “law”. Calling this a law gives the false impression it is a well-established and accepted relationship. Misrepresentation.
5. False accounting in the number of parameters used. Pre-fitting some of the params , which VP has clearly stated above he did as a first step, then “locking” them does mean they are not fitted params. It is just done is two steps.
6. Dismissing the deviation at the end as being a “filter” problem is misleading. The real reason for the divergence is that the DATA for the last 15 years DOES NOT FIT a model dominated by a 3 C / doubling model. This is a well known problem and such models have grossly failed to capture climate variation. Trying to sweep this under the carpet by pretending it is a filter artefact is disingenuous and misleading.
There’s more, but I think that is enough to show that this poster is not more than that, a poster.
Who is P. Solar, and what panel contains 2.98?
Greg,
My statement is close enough to full truth to fit here. I have actually written several more nuanced comments on the same issue before – and you may perhaps see from the answer of David that he remembers those comments but chose to make his own statement while he cannot contradict the message.
There’s practically always more IR emission from the thin layer than absorption (in exceptional cases the air might be so warm that the opposite is true). Both emission and absorption occurs for all wavelengths at an average depth of at least thousand molecular distances from the surface and for most LWIR at depths of tens of thousands molecules. The molecules at the surface are very much more likely to receive the energy needed for breaking the hydrogen bond from neighboring molecules than directly from the radiation. The energy spectrum of the DWIR is also similar to the energy spectrum of the molecular kinetic energy.
“Diatomic molecules such as oxygen and nitrogen don’t absorb significant amounts of radiation either from the Sun or Earth’s surface. They get warm by acquiring kinetic energy through diffusion which involves molecular collisions with the surface and other air molecules. ”
Yes.
So the vast majority of gases in Earth atmosphere are Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon. And the only way to heat up these gases is by acquiring KE from molecular collisions and with the surface. Or a surface.
Or from other gases or from solids and liquids.
So 99% of atmosphere are not directly warmed by radiation. Correct?
So I could say we are 99% towards getting to the point.
The kinetic energy (KE) is divided equally between six degrees of freedom – three translational DOF’s, 2 rotational DOF’s and one vibrational DOF as per the Equipartition Theorem. Temperature is affected by the mean KE, not the total KE in a region, so density has nothing to do with it.
This is interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipartition_theorem
It’s mostly about quantifying specific heat of compounds. And it says:
“More generally, in an ideal gas, the total energy consists purely of (translational) kinetic energy: by assumption, the particles have no internal degrees of freedom and move independently of one another. Equipartition therefore predicts that the average total energy of an ideal gas of N particles is (3/2) N kB T. ”
And to repeat:
“More generally, in an ideal gas, the total energy consists purely of (translational) kinetic energy: by assumption, the particles have no internal degrees of freedom and move independently of one another. ”
What is ideal gas?
“At normal conditions such as standard temperature and pressure, most real gases behave qualitatively like an ideal gas. Many gases such as air, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, noble gases, and some heavier gases like carbon dioxide can be treated like ideal gases within reasonable tolerances.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas
One can treat CO2 as ideal gas, I believe in terms conditions in Earth Atmosphere, we remove the qualifier of “within reasonable tolerances”,
but maybe I am wrong. But what isn’t a ideal gas in our atmosphere is H2O gas.
So I going assume as generally assumed that all gases in Earth Atmosphere, except H20 are ideal gas, and that with ideal gases “the particles have no internal degrees of freedom and move independently of one another. ”
Now we know, H20 affects the atmosphere’s lapse. We have Dry adiabatic lapse rate and Saturated adiabatic lapse rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate
If H2O was a ideal gas, we would not have the terms, Dry adiabatic lapse rate and Saturated adiabatic lapse rate. But we live on water planet, with water everywhere, so we need them.
So seems to me handled the CO2 part of the atmosphere, but it tiny part of the missing 1 percent: .04 %.
So other than water, the reference you gave says:
“More generally, in an ideal gas, the total energy consists purely of (translational) kinetic energy”
“Physics / General Physics) the energy of motion of a body, equal to the work it would do if it were brought to rest. The translational kinetic energy depends on motion through space, and for a rigid body of constant mass is equal to the product of half the mass times the square of the speed. ”
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Translational+energy
One major problem with trying to suggest the climate is dominated by human CO2 emissions is that period of most rapid 20th c.growth was precisely the period when global temperatures fell !
http://i50.tinypic.com/2n83l1d.png
If we increase the Hansen frig factor to 30ys to fix this we see the coming 30 years will be “dominated” by a rate of increase that “causes” global cooling as was seen in the post WWII period.
A more reasonable approach would be to freely fit all the parameters and the result of that has already been established in the literature by N. Scafetta.
Notably , his model has proved remarkably good in predicting the last decade. In contrast , models such as this one, dominated by CO2 totally fail (unless you pretend that failure is a filter artefact).
Dr Pratt performed the experiment I suggested. The result [which I extracted from the spreadsheet he kindly provided] is here: http://www.leif.org/research/Pratt-Experiment.png
Some comments:
1) that the Sunspot Number SSN shows a ’22-year cycle’ is not surprising as high and low cycles often alternate [we don't quite know why]. That creates power at twice the cycle length
2) that the Heliospheric Magnetic Field HMF shows the same cycles as the SSN is not surprising as the SSN is the source of the HMF. There is a good correlation HMF nT = 4 + 0.29*SQRT(SSN) which is understood theoretically
3) the CET temperature shows weak 22-yr cycles not correlated with the solar ones
4) the HadCRUT3 temperature shows weak 22-yr cycles not correlated with any of the above
But that deviation is just a few millikelvins. How is such a tiny deviation relevant to anything?
Earth and Venus have about the same lapse rate, namely around ten degrees per km for a dry atmosphere. Lapse rate is due to the cooling effect of expansion (and warming effect of compression). When a parcel of air rises it expands and thereby cools. This is why the surface is hotter than at high altitudes.
In the absence of convection there is no such rising. In this case temperatures diffuse (via Ficke’s Law of diffusion) until the entire column of atmosphere is isothermal. This will never be observed in practice since diffusion is too slow to observe, and also because convection is too hard to prevent.
You are clearly pretty skilled in dsp and filter design and fully aware windowing issues. I asked earlier how you were running the BoxFilter up to the end of the data. There is no legitimate was to pad the data window at the end of convolution filter. Each filter shortend the dataset. The filters you used should crop 25 y off each end as I already pointed out.
I asked what filling technique you were using. You failed to comment on that.
I’ve just dug into the spreadsheet coding and you are simply running off the end hence effectively padding zeros !!
So your comment on figure 3 is correct. It is your incorrect use of the box filter that is creating the down turn. However, this turns out to be quite convenient for your model. Since the data _really does_ flatten off in quite a similar fashion. As we see in figure 2.
Thought the filter is similarly misused, in this case, by chance, is not too far from following the actual data.
Despite this fortuitous “correction” of the defective exponential by the misused filter, figure 6 still shows deviations to be greatest at the end of the series.
BBD,
It’s really quite simple.
* Almost all climate science is goverment-funded.
* Goverment has a massive vested interest in CAGW being believed
It would thus be nothing less that a miracle if there was NOT a bias in favour of alarmism. No secret planning needed, just those who allocate the funds giving it to those people and projects that seem to offer the most benefits for their employer. Government knows all too well what is good for government. In fact it would need a conspiracy for this to NOT happen.
Your pious belief that the truth will out, at least in the short to medium term, is naive to the point of being moronic. Just follow the money.
Indeed Vaughan, you are doing what I call AGW science, or in Kuhnian terms normal science based on assuming the AGW paradigm. Most climate science being done now is AGW science.
If the bumps are meaningless then so is earlier the lack of bumps. In which case why did you include this graph ?!
