Simple Question About AGW

[Dr. Imago]

The point you make about the graphic is precisely my main criticism of the contrarians. There is no data that supports their claims.

Get this concept in your head: "contrarians" are not making claims! I've spoken extensively about this. Members of the pro-AGW camp are the one making claims. It is well-within the realm of the scientific process to review and criticize of the merits of those claims, as well as offer possible alternate interpretations of how those data were collated and the validity of the conclusions based on those data.

This is a juvenile scientific discipline. The ability to handle criticism and effectively counter-argue will bolster the credibility of the claims being made. Producing sophomoric graphics only politicizes the process and creates animosity. No one wants to be wrong, and people are becoming far too emotionally invested in this discussion. Time, cool heads, better science, proof-of-principle, appropriate validation of methodologies, and more data will ultimately show who's right and who's mistaken. Divorcing oneself from the emotive parts of the argument, and willingness to admit if/when you're wrong, will better serve the ultimate pursuit of the truth.

People, on both sides, are sadly so deeply entrenched in their positions already that it is becoming more like a WWF match than it is a scientific pursuit.

-Dr. Imago

 

[TrueSceptic]

I was originally trying to demonstrate that the high pressure on Venus is contributive to the temperature. Now, I've been tarred with predicting the surface of the Earth would be 8 K because it is so similar to Venus. One can't win with people who refuse to listen.

But I think you are wrong about Venus's atmo pressure contributing to the temperature.

Why is the gas cyl at room temp until you release the valve?

Why is a stationary inflated car tyre at ambient temp?

 

[Round Robin]

But, as you guys would have it, the issue is resolved. Man-made CO2 is forcing the climate to change. We are beyond all shadow of doubt responsible. We've amassed enough data. We understand everything we need to know at this point in time about what drives the climate change. And, we'd better start acting before we cause irrevocable damage to the planet.

How hubristic.

I'm a layperson in this debate, but I'd like to think that I'm scientifically minded. I don't perform research, nor am I qualified to evaluate the vast literature out there regarding the topics of GW and AGW; for that, I rely on experts in the field.

I don't hold any "belief" that AGW is real, but I accept it as probable because the predominant relevant scientific organizations (NAS, AAAS, IPCC, etc.) have come to a consensus after decades of thrashing of the facts.

I do not accept AGW because the NAS, etc. says it's true; rather, I think that the consensus formed because it is probably true. And if the consensus changes, my view will change in turn, neither willingly nor reluctantly. Who am I--a layperson--to question a well formed scientific consensus, assuming that the scientific method didn't somehow break down in this one case?

This is not, in my opinion, an argument from authority; that would be saying AGW is real because Al Gore, James Hanson, or any one scientist says it is. Individuals are quirky, but the scientific method is supposed to even out the quirkiness and come to a reliable consensus as a field of study matures. As this field has matured, a consensus formed, and I am not qualified to argue against it.

I expect that my philosophy is not unique. How is it hubristic?

 

[varwoche]

Get this concept in your head: "contrarians" are not making claims! I've spoken extensively about this.

This is nonsense of course. (Maybe you should put the 2nd sentence in your sig, since it seems to be the standard blurb that accompanies the nonsense you post.)

For instance, here you claim that the entire field of science is corrupt and/or that there's a conspiracy afoot:

It's quite clear to everyone who's paying attention that they've hung their hat on carbon dioxide. What is not clear - or proven - is that this is the correct place to do so. But, everything from this point forward is geared at bolstering that assertion and making any observations fit that premise, instead of considering alternate possibilities. I've talked about this extensively already. No need to rehash now.

 

[TrueSceptic]

I'm a layperson in this debate, but I'd like to think that I'm scientifically minded. I don't perform research, nor am I qualified to evaluate the vast literature out there regarding the topics of GW and AGW; for that, I rely on experts in the field.

I don't hold any "belief" that AGW is real, but I accept it as probable because the predominant relevant scientific organizations (NAS, AAAS, IPCC, etc.) have come to a consensus after decades of thrashing of the facts.

I do not accept AGW because the NAS, etc. says it's true; rather, I think that the consensus formed because it is probably true. And if the consensus changes, my view will change in turn, neither willingly nor reluctantly. Who am I--a layperson--to question a well formed scientific consensus, assuming that the scientific method didn't somehow break down in this one case?

This is not, in my opinion, an argument from authority; that would be saying AGW is real because Al Gore, James Hanson, or any one scientist says it is. Individuals are quirky, but the scientific method is supposed to even out the quirkiness and come to a reliable consensus as a field of study matures. As this field has matured, a consensus formed, and I am not qualified to argue against it.

I expect that my philosophy is not unique. How is it hubristic?

RR, your view is very much like mine. How are we to judge the actual science unless we are specialists working in those fields?

What you find is that GWS are unwilling to accept this. If there is an AGW consensus then there must be a conspiracy: a conspiracy to claim a consensus when there isn't one, or to create one.

As for hubris, what could be more hubristic than thinking we can do what we like to the planet and have no effect?

 

[Slimething]

Heat radiates, so for the temperature of Venus to be constantly high because of pressure, then we need to find an external force that is applying pressure (increasing kinetic energy of the gas) by adding mechanical energy (such as pushing a piston into a cylinder), or we need to find a constant source of increasing n. n is not increasing to my knowledge, and Venus and its atmosphere is not getting smaller. So, there is no external force that is increasing pressure and balancing the heat radiating away from Venus.

However, Venus does have an external source of heat: the sun. Therefore, there is an external force that can provide heat energy. If the greenhouse gas theory is correct, the composition of Venus' atmosphere (primarily greenhouse gases) and the incident radiation should cause a high temperature. The temperature of the gas is a measure of its kinetic energy, and its high kinetic energy results in high pressure. This is what we observe.

So, given the available external forces, it seems to me that the high temperature is caused by the greenhouse effect, and the high pressure follows due to the physics of gases. I do not think that there is a mechanism in place where the high stable temperature is the result of high pressure.

Yup. I see what you're saying. I think I made a logical mistake in assuming that the pressure being exerted primarily by the mass of the gas (heh, heh). I didn't take into account that, because Venus' atmosphere is itself a warming agent, the pressure could also be caused by kinetics. So, the difference in P from 92 atm to 1 atm would not be representative of hydraulic pressure but also of a chemical change.

Damn! I thought I was onto something.

 

[Slimething]

But I think you are wrong about Venus's atmo pressure contributing to the temperature.

Why is the gas cyl at room temp until you release the valve?

Why is a stationary inflated car tyre at ambient temp?

Yup. You're right. I was reaching too far and forgot the basics.

 

[Dr. Imago]

This is nonsense of course. (Maybe you should put the 2nd sentence in your sig, since it seems to be the standard blurb that accompanies the nonsense you post.)

I stand by what I said. It is a valid point. Your inability to see it as anything other than "nonsense" is your intellectual limitation, not mine.

For instance, here you claim that the entire field of science is corrupt and/or that there's a conspiracy afoot:

Where did I ever say that? More putting words in my mouth. Or, you are just (possibly intentionally) trying to misrepresent or misinterpret what I said.

There is a lot of well-intentioned "bad science" out there that is either conducted inappropriately or irrelevant. Some of it is intentionally misleading or misrepresentative, as has been pointed out on numerous occassions (see any of the copious criticisms on Hansen's methodologies). It is well within any scientists purview to point that out. You don't need to be an expert in a particular field if you understand process.

-Dr. Imago

 

[David Rodale]

Why? I'm sure he knows.


Really? From what I've seen it is your "side" that is first with the insults. Perhaps you have a few examples?


Claimed? Why not look at the figures? They are easily available.


You could try reading this.


Just how simple do you imagine this is?

Truesceptic,
If you're going to use blogs as your go-to source for information, at least have the foresight to research whether they are accurate or are propagandizing.

For instance, I have long ago read the blog entry in your link
It uses a quote from John Christy, out of context of course. Rather than go on about your propaganda blogs that leave out facts such as the "error" in UAH of .035 deg was within the margin of error, we could talk about the recent RSS error of .1 deg, which Mears gives credit to......John Christy and Roy Spencer
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/data/readme_jan_2008.txt

I digress. A recent peer reviewed article is in press. Read about that here
Abstract:

“Limited Time Period (LTP) running trends are created from various Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) difference time series between the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) and Remote Sensing System (RSS) group’s lower troposphere (LT) and mid troposphere to lower stratosphere (MT) channels. This is accomplished in an effort to determine the causes of the greatest discrepancies between the two data sets.
Results indicate the greatest discrepancies were over time periods where NOAA-11 through NOAA-15 adjustments were applied to the raw LT data over land. Discrepancies in the LT channel are shown to be dominated by differences in diurnal correction methods due to orbital drift; however, discrepancies from target parameter differences are also present.
Comparison of MSU data with the a reduce RATPAC radiosonde dataset indicates that RSS’s method (use of climate model) of determining diurnal effects is likely overestimating the correction in the LT channel. Diurnal correction signatures still exist in the RSS LT time series and are likely affecting the long term trend with a warm bias. Our findings enhance the importance of understanding temporal changes in the atmospheric temperature trend profile and their implications on current climate studies.”

Pielke's summary:

While both UAH and RSS are outstanding research groups, with respect to the assessment of multi-decadal tropospheric temperature trends, the independent comparison reported in Randall and Herman indicates that the trend values of the UAH group are more accurate.

So Truesceptic, if you're going to rely on AGW scripted websites, make sure you've investigated it thoroughly first. Maybe you should have them update their information so other easily impressionable folks won't be misinformed.

How much warmer should the troposphere be trending compared to the surface? What are the observations?

Why aren't the oceans continuing to warm?


As for insults, someone should go back in time and tally up the posts to satisfy your need to know just which side has been the shrills. Be careful what you ask for

 

[Alric]

Truesceptic,
If you're going to use blogs as your go-to source for information, at least have the foresight to research whether they are accurate or are propagandizing.

Or you can put things in context. They are talking about what the overall effect of a correction is. No one is arguing there isn't warming they are arguing about the degree. This is what the raw corrected data looks like:

 

[TrueSceptic]

Yup. You're right. I was reaching too far and forgot the basics.

Thanks. Admission appreciated.

It is easy to get this stuff confused, isn't it?

 

[Megalodon]

Truesceptic,
Why aren't the oceans continuing to warm?

always the same...

 

[Round Robin]

Yup. I see what you're saying. I think I made a logical mistake in assuming that the pressure being exerted primarily by the mass of the gas (heh, heh). I didn't take into account that, because Venus' atmosphere is itself a warming agent, the pressure could also be caused by kinetics. So, the difference in P from 92 atm to 1 atm would not be representative of hydraulic pressure but also of a chemical change.

Damn! I thought I was onto something.

Oh, come out of that box; I imagine we all learned something by you posing the question and us all working it out.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Truesceptic,
If you're going to use blogs as your go-to source for information, at least have the foresight to research whether they are accurate or are propagandizing.

Nothing wrong with blogs if they have references. Or perhaps we should ban all references to Climate Audit?

For instance, I have long ago read the blog entry in your link
It uses a quote from John Christy, out of context of course. Rather than go on about your propaganda blogs that leave out facts such as the "error" in UAH of .035 deg was within the margin of error, we could talk about the recent RSS error of .1 deg, which Mears gives credit to......John Christy and Roy Spencer
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/data/readme_jan_2008.txt

You claim it is out of context. That is something that GWS never do is it?

I digress. A recent peer reviewed article is in press. Read about that here
Abstract:

Pielke's summary:

So Truesceptic, if you're going to rely on AGW scripted websites, make sure you've investigated it thoroughly first. Maybe you should have them update their information so other easily impressionable folks won't be misinformed.

"AGW scripted"? I you say so. No GWS ever posts any GWS propaganda, of course!

How much warmer should the troposphere be trending compared to the surface? What are the observations?

Why aren't the oceans continuing to warm?


As for insults, someone should go back in time and tally up the posts to satisfy your need to know just which side has been the shrills. Be careful what you ask for

Yeah, maybe someone should. When I've got nothing better to do, I'll look at responses to my messages!

 

[fsol]

Yup. You're right. I was reaching too far and forgot the basics.

This is why I like you as a poster. You are willing to stick your hand up and admit a mistake. More people should be like this.

 

[CapelDodger]

That's not the point! You really are thicker than a brick! When you compress a gas, not all the heat goes away a work. The pressure heats the surface. Get that through your skull, if you possibly can. There is heat from pressure. Got it? The pressure is doing work on the planet's surface. Just like the Earth's atmosphere is doing work on your body right now. If that pressure goes away, you would be cooler. The heat has to go somewhere.

That's not at all clear, but I'll try my best with it.

Pressure doesn't do work on the planet's surface. That would violate Conservation of Energy. So pressure does not heat the planetary surface. That's got that out of the way.

When a gas is compressed it heats up, partly because of conservation of the kinetic energy it already contains and partly from the work being done on it. This heating occurs during the process of compression. Once the gas is compressed and is just sitting there it will dissipate the heat into its surroundings just as any body will. Entropy increases.

In the case of the Venusian atmosphere, the compression occurred as the atmosphere was being accumulated. That process was completed long ago, and since then the heat generated by compression has been dissipating into the surroundings. (Which is very cold space.) It's almost all long gone from the Solar System as long-wave radiation.

If we share the same definitino of heat (Q) as being TdS, no. The heat is latent until decompression. Then, TdS is loose. The heat is stored. Hence, if one were to calculate the temperature contributed by the 90 atm, it would be fairly large.

Sorry, I can't make anything out of that. For myself, I regard heat as kinetic energy.

 

[CapelDodger]

Class pay attention. By the way the son of an astronomer was meant as a joke and a reference to a not so popular rock and roll song, so sorry it went over your head.

Dang, now I've got Son of a Preacher Man playing in my head. Time to load up some Alabama 3, that'll flush it out.

 

[CapelDodger]

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_281472eeca0ead83.jpg[/URL]

always the same...

Just when they think it's safe to come out again ...

We need some sort of Bat-Signal so we can alert you .

 

[TrueSceptic]

Dang, now I've got Son of a Preacher Man playing in my head. Time to load up some Alabama 3, that'll flush it out.

Have you seen A3 live? F***ing amazing!

 

[CapelDodger]

Truesceptic,
If you're going to use blogs as your go-to source for information, at least have the foresight to research whether they are accurate or are propagandizing.

For instance, I have long ago read the blog entry in your link
It uses a quote from John Christy, out of context of course.

How so? Firstly it uses an extract from an Executive Summary co-authored by Christy, so it's not quoting him at all. Secondly the extract includes

"... discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved"

and it's precisely these tropical discrepencies that have resurrected this whole thing recently.

Rather than go on about your propaganda blogs that leave out facts such as the "error" in UAH of .035 deg was within the margin of error, we could talk about the recent RSS error of .1 deg, which Mears gives credit to......John Christy and Roy Spencer
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/data/readme_jan_2008.txt

That was very recent, wasn't it? Jan 2008. Christy and Spencer must be commended for their vigilance.

I digress. A recent peer reviewed article is in press. Read about that here
Abstract:


Pielke's summary:

I'll read about it after it's published. Peer-review only weeds out the truly egregious, publication is spotlight-time.

I'm confident of Pielke's conclusion (he has a 100% record) that it's all looking very bad for AGW. Wasn't he saying the same twenty years ago?

So Truesceptic, if you're going to rely on AGW scripted websites, make sure you've investigated it thoroughly first. Maybe you should have them update their information so other easily impressionable folks won't be misinformed.

The paper hasn't been published yet, so you're being a bit previous, aren't you? Let's wait on the paper before any of us start crowing about it.

How much warmer should the troposphere be trending compared to the surface? What are the observations?

You do realise this is all about the tropical troposphere, don't you? As for the rest

"... these data are consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale ..."

(from an Executive Summary co-authored by John Christy).

Why aren't the oceans continuing to warm?

Trick question. They are continuing to warm.

As for insults, someone should go back in time and tally up the posts to satisfy your need to know just which side has been the shrills. Be careful what you ask for

I don't see that "someone" being you.

As for myself, I'm almost unfailingly polite.