CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Klaxons blaring, lights flashing, "Mind the trap. Mind the trap ..." over the public address system ...
I didn't need the heads-up, but thanks anyway
.
Klaxons blaring, lights flashing, "Mind the trap. Mind the trap ..." over the public address system ...
I didn't need the heads-up, but thanks anyway
.mhaze
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 15,718
Among other things, I notice that you've acknowledged that I used the "far extreme" qualifier on the statement that you have gone off the deep end on. If it is your opinion that I considered the IPCC to be on the "far extreme", that is inaccurate. I didn't say that.
Now, you don't like my characterization and brief summarization of their concepts. That's fine. You can consider "most" to be ">50%" instead of a more stringent definition, etc. A lot of such phrases are actually defined in the IPCC documents, but those are typically italicized. However, it does not appear to me that the IPCC 2007 documents can be reasonably construed to mean "somewhere in excess of 50%" was their intent. Here is why:
You will note that basically all the factors equalize out, leaving CO2 very close to the net estimated radiative imbalance. Yes, we can dance around the error bounds, but if you want to do that, I would suggest looking first at how this chart (mid 2006) may need to be revised by more recent reseach and scientific understanding. The bottom line from the chart as published is .....
net radiative imbalance (1.60) = (almost exactly equals) = CO2 forcing (1.66).
To carry this further, calculate the warming that would occur from such and such a radiative imbalance and compare it with the actual warming of the planet over your choice of timeframe. Interesting results.
Regarding your diatribe on my snips of the IPCC:
“90% probable” that the recent warming is “due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”
You've taken exception with this and would apparently prefer some exact quote to include the phrase "90% probable .... mostly", if I understand your long winded diatribe correctly. A minor point.
Looked redundant to me, since "90% probable = mostly". If you want both included, that's fine with me. Put five or six such phrases in each sentence, if you like. Put ten or twelve such phrases in every paragraph, minimum. That's what the IPCC does.
I'm sure you have more complaints, but I am not sure how pertinent to this little derail (on IPCC) given that you understand that I did not say IPCC == "far extreme". You brought them up, incidentally - I only provided some summaries to show the drift in their opinion over the time periods.
TrueSceptic
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,143
Never mind that. Own up and apologise for your dishonesty.
David Rodale
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2006
- Messages
- 680
Really? Making things up again Capdeldodger? You've regurgitated this before, which I knew was malarkey, but waited patiently for verification. It helps to follow the blogs you criticize; know thine enemy.
NASA satellite in disagreement on CO2 "well mixed gas" hypothesis
Ah, validation....that's a nice word isn't it? Is there anything in AGW land of Oz that is validated?
Of course you have evidence for that right? I didn't think so.
Just more speculation. You may wish to look up the absorption coefficient for liquid water in the absorption bands of CO2. Now, figure it out and come back with concrete evidence for how 38 CO2 molecules per 100,000 total atmosphere can possibly warm the oceans. More CO2 AGW fairy tales. Since the oceans are not warming, you've got a slight problem. Read Spencer's peer reviewed articles. It's right in there. I'm not doing your homework for you.
that is a sorta silly claim, no? your argument only supports the idea that downward radiation will travel deeper into water, nothing else. your comment as it stands is evidence for his argument!Of course you have evidence for that right? I didn't think so.
sorry if i missed the aim of your argument; happy to learn what the point of mentioning the absorption coeffiecient was.
David Rodale
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2006
- Messages
- 680
Downward radiation is direct sunlight which obviously does warm the oceans deep by many dozens of meters.
Capeldodger seems to have it all locked up, so he should be able to determine what the penetration depth is for CO2 re-emitting LW IR by knowing the absorption coefficient of liquid water.
If CO2 re-emits IR randomly, can one assume 50% goes up and 50% goes down? You've just lost 1/2 there. But wait! It gets re-emitted again and again? In what direction does heat always struggle to flow? Now maybe the logarithmic function becomes a bit clearer.
Shouldn't the surface be on fire by now if CO2 has such magical heat trapping ability if it is constantly re-emitting IR over and over? Think about it. Does the atmosphere act like a glass greenhouse?
This is why there being no "hot spot" in the tropical troposphere is a conundrum for CO2 AGW no matter how they spin it.
Downward radiation is direct sunlight which obviously does warm the oceans deep by many dozens of meters.
Capeldodger seems to have it all locked up, so he should be able to determine what the penetration depth is for CO2 re-emitting LW IR by knowing the absorption coefficient of liquid water.
If CO2 re-emits IR randomly, can one assume 50% goes up and 50% goes down? You've just lost 1/2 there. But wait! It gets re-emitted again and again? In what direction does heat always struggle to flow? Now maybe the logarithmic function becomes a bit clearer.
Shouldn't the surface be on fire by now if CO2 has such magical heat trapping ability if it is constantly re-emitting IR over and over? Think about it. Does the atmosphere act like a glass greenhouse?
This is why there being no "hot spot" in the tropical troposphere is a conundrum for CO2 AGW no matter how they spin it.
Well duh! Obviously, if the surface isn't on fire that means there is no greenhouse effect due to CO2.
Shouldn't the surface be on fire by now if CO2 has such magical heat trapping ability if it is constantly re-emitting IR over and over? Think about it. Does the atmosphere act like a glass greenhouse?
Does your greenhouse regularly catch fire?
TrueSceptic
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,143
It is rich that the liar Rodale would accuse anyone of lying. Look up DSCOVR before you say another ignorant, insulting word.
Are you, seriously, denying that the GHG effect exists?NASA satellite in disagreement on CO2 "well mixed gas" hypothesis
Ah, validation....that's a nice word isn't it? Is there anything in AGW land of Oz that is validated?
Of course you have evidence for that right? I didn't think so.
The sign of a crackpot: you read only what agrees with your idiot ideas and ignore all else.
TrueSceptic
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,143
Once again: the "hotspot" should be there no matter how warming is caused. It is not specifically a GHG signature.
Stop repeating garbage like a demented parrot.
Last edited:
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
The latest story to do the round of the blogs.
http://landshape.org/stats/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/article.pdf
Now, David Stockwell has an impeccable background in modeling.
http://landshape.org/enm/about/
So I was wondering, just what is this paper claiming? From what I can tell, he has no idea of what he is talking about, but his found his 15 minutes of fame with the climate audit crowd.
http://landshape.org/stats/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/article.pdf
Now, David Stockwell has an impeccable background in modeling.
http://landshape.org/enm/about/
So I was wondering, just what is this paper claiming? From what I can tell, he has no idea of what he is talking about, but his found his 15 minutes of fame with the climate audit crowd.
No, sunlight is "downwards radiation". That does not mean that all downwards radiation is sunlight.
Irrelevant. The fact that the energy is in the Earth and not emitted into space is all that matters. Where the energy actually is affects the details of what the effects are, but does not change the fact that the energy is there.
Of course. Which means that if there's more CO2, the 50% going down is larger. Which is the greenhouse effect.
No. Stupidest thing ever claimed? Quite possibly.
Yes. As your own words demonstrate. I really don't understand what is wrong with global warming deniers. I have no problem with people who honestly look at the science and ask questions about exactly what effects we can expect. What I do have a problem with is people who explain exactly how the greenhouse effect works, agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and then state a conclusion that disagrees with their own arguments. It's painfully obvious that neither you or Mhaze have any interest in debating the actual science and are just trying, and failing rather miserably, to manipulate the science to support your preconcieved opinions.
Lennart Hyland
Muse
I wonder a thing over this graph:
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/2909/ancientco2andtempcp7.gif
As you can see when the CO2 was on a level of 3000ppm the global temperature was around 22 degrees. Now a couple of million years later when the CO2 was down on a level around 1000-1500ppm the global temperature where still on 22 degrees.
Can anyone explain this?
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/2909/ancientco2andtempcp7.gif
As you can see when the CO2 was on a level of 3000ppm the global temperature was around 22 degrees. Now a couple of million years later when the CO2 was down on a level around 1000-1500ppm the global temperature where still on 22 degrees.
Can anyone explain this?
No, you said that the "far extreme" argued that all warming was due to CO2
You then edited the IPCC's statements with the effect that it looked kinda like the IPCC argued that all warming was due to CO2
I realise that the implication it appeared you were trying to make was an invalid syllogism.
Statement 1 - The far extreme argues that all recent warming is due to CO2
and
Statement 2 - The IPCC argues that all recent warming is due to CO2
...would not imply that the IPCC is within the far extreme even setting aside for the moment the fact that your accidental implication of statement 2 has been exposed as just plain wrong. This is because you never explicitly and unambiguously stated that ONLY the far extreme argues that all recent warming is due to CO2 Unfortunately it is typical of denialist tactics to avoid explicitly saying anything so it simply looked to me like you were trying to engineer a conclusion in the readers mind without having pin down what it was that you were saying. I do hope clarification will be forthcoming.
However I'm sure everybody here understands why it seemed that you were suggesting this after you were accused of building a straw man and kept pointing out that your comments related to the far extreme. If you're not now claiming that your comments don't ONLY relate to the far extreme then are we to expect evidence of more mainstream voices making this claim? I only ask because we're still waiting for the evidence that you've read people claiming that all recent warming is due to CO2
If that were accepted as your intent then it would follow that your subsequent rhetoric was intended to convince the unschooled reader that the IPCC was being used as an example of the "far extreme"
This would be behaviour typical of the employer of the straw man argument. So forgive me if I've mistakenly tarred you with the same brush as others with the same pattern of behaviour. I hope you have a reasonable excuse for following this pattern.
As for the possibility that this misrepresentation of the IPCC's statement was not your own work, that you were merely repeating someone else's lie, that boat has sailed. You've admitted that it was you that didn't think the word "most" was relevant which is apparently why you omitted it. Clearly this was an extraordinary mistake that coincidentally happened to fit the pattern of behaviour typically associated with mendacious onanists.
First I will demonstrate why it's relevant with a little demonstration of statistics.
Imagine a population of values that confirm to normal distribution. Adam doesn't know the mean value of this entire population (mp) but he does have a random sample of 16 of these values.
8,9,7,10,11,11,12,8,8,10,12,13,9,12,7,13
He calculates the mean value of this sample (ms) as 10 and the standard deviation of the sample (ss)as 2
Now the population from which this sample comes, may have any average (mp) and any standard deviation (sp). However, of all the possible values of mp and sp, some are more likely than others. It is likely that the random sample is representative and that mp will be close to ms
How likely? How close?
If Adam has remembered his A level stats correctly he can calculate that mmp,the average value for mp is ms which makes sense. His sample is just as likely to be freakishly high as freakishly low and the two possibilities cancel out.
He can also calculate that smp - the standard deviation of the possibilities for mp is the standard deviation of his sample (ss) divided by the square root of the number of values in his sample.
smp = ss / √n
Substituting in known values for ss and n
ss = 2
n = 16
Gives
smp = 2/4 = 0.5
With reference to his normal distribution tables and using the IPCC's adopted definitions for probabilities Adam can say the following.
He's virtually certain (99.74%) that the average value of the population lies between 8.5 and 11.5 or to put it another way (since in a normal distribution the mean and median are identical) he's virtually certain (99.87%) that most (>50%) of the values are below 11.5
It's extremely likely (97.72%) that that most of the values are below 11
It's likely (84.13%) that most of the values are below 10.5
It's more likely than not (50%) that most of the values are below 10
Now if instead Adam wanted to change the criteria and phrase his conclusions as to where almost all (>90%) the values lay we'd get different numbers.
For almost all of the values to be below 11.5 then 11.5 must be at least 1.29 standard deviations above mp That is to say mp is less than 8.92 (11.5 – 2 x 1.29)
Adam can calculate the probability that mp is less than 8.92 as 14.01%
It's unlikely (14.01%) that almost all (>90%) of the values are below 11.5
Similarly..
It's very unlikely (5.71%) that almost all (>90%) of the values are below 11
It's extremely unlikely (1.88%) that almost all (>90%) of the values are below 10.5
And this makes sense. If less than 10% of values are above 10.5 then it'd be extraordinary to pick a random sample of 16 values and find 7 out of sixteen were above 10.5 when you'd expect maybe one or two.
Finally if we change the criteria yet again from almost all to all we find that our formulae are of no help. To say that all values in the population are below a certain amount means that no numbers ever at all, are above that amount. Normal distribution can cater for a vanishingly small probability that there's no values above a certain amount but not zero. "Out of cheese error! Redo from start"
However we don't need the equations. Just looking at the sample we can tell that there's a zero probability that all the values are below 11.5. We've got 7 exceptions that disprove that hypothesis.
So how does this equate to the fine work of the IPCC. Broadly speaking they're doing the same sort of thing, although with far more sophisticated statistical tools capable of processing a wider variety of uncertainties. They have a sample of pre-industrial temperature anomalies. From this they can build an assessment of how likely the occurrence of certain temperature anomalies might be. They need to keep in mind that their sample might, by chance, be unrepresentative. That by chance alone, their sample shows either particularly large or particularly small anomalies. They also have a sample of contemporary temperature anomalies. Natural variation may account for some, a little or all of the contemporary anomalies.
It looks at first glance like the current anomalies are far larger than the average natural variation. But what about the maximum natural variation we might reasonably expect as not outlandishly improbable given the precedent of the pre industrial sample.
They ask themselves what's the probability that an unusually large natural variation could account for at least half of the contemporary variation. Their statistical methods tell them that for this to happen, the sample upon which they based their estimates of the range for natural variation must be improbably unrepresentative of what natural variation is capable of. They calculate a less than 10% chance that this is the case.
If they asked themselves a different question: what's the probability that natural variations could only account for less than 25% of the contemporary change, then they've moved the goal posts and would get a far lower probability. This is for the same reasons that Adam saw above.
He looked at the probability that most (>50%) of the values in the sampled population were under 10.5 and found it to be likely. Then he looked at the probability that almost all (>90%) of the values in the sample population were under 10.5 and found it to be extremely unlikely.
Finally if they asked themselves the question: what's the probability that natural variation couldn't account for any of the contemporary change then they wouldn't get any sensible answer at all. They'd essentially be asking themselves the question: what's the probability that natural variation doesn't exist at all given that we've got clear evidence that it does?
As a side issue, lets mention the case of Brenda who's independently examining the same population of values as Adam, except she has a larger sample.
12,12,8,9,7,8,9,7,10,12,11,11,10,7,13,10,13,13,12,8,12,11,12,7,11,13,9,9,9,13,11,10,12,7,13,8,12,11,8,12,13,10,11,8,9,7,12,8,8,10,7,12,9,11,10,12,8,7,8,9,8,8,13,10
Brenda also calculates the mean value of this sample (ms) as 10 and the standard deviation of the sample (ss) as 2
She also calculates that the average value in the population is most likely to be 10 but since he has more data to work with she's far more certain about it.
When Brenda calculates smp - the standard deviation of the possibilities for mp she also knows that it's the standard deviation of her sample (ss) divided by the square root of the number of values in her sample. However as her sample is four times the size of Adam's she gets a different answer
smp = ss / √n
ss = 2
n = 64
gives
smp = 2/8 = 0.25
So where Adam could only say it's likely (84.13%) that most of the values are below 10.5 Brenda can say it's extremely likely (97.72%) that most of the values are below 10.5
More data means more certainty. The same is true of the IPCC's increasing certainty in subsequent iterations of their reports. Firstly they obviously have more contemporary data to work with meaning that what could just be a blip of a few years of warming becomes less likely to be a blip when the trend is sustained for 5 more years. They also have access to newer research carried out to reconstruct preindustrial temperature anomalies reducing the uncertainty there.
Side issue over...
So the relevance of the word "most" that you omitted from the IPCC's statement is that it defines the question to which >90% certainty is the answer. Without that word the question is undefined and the answer therefore meaningless. The implications that the question was: "what is the probability that all warming was due to CO2" would transform the statement into meaning that the IPCC faced with historical data of natural climate variability concluded that there was a 10% chance that natural climate variability didn't exist !!11eleventy!
Now I'm sorry that the meaning and relevance of the word "most" was not understood by you. It's seems that all that time you spent reading and attempting to comprehend the IPCC report yielded very little in the way of understanding it's methods and conclusions. If that's what you thought it's conclusions were then it's no wonder you objected to them. I hope you find the actual conclusions more palatable.
I do understand that some people use that word to indicate a far more substantial proportion. Perhaps I was lucky in that the reporting I've encountered made it very clear that "most" should be taken to mean >50% However comprehending the technical summary should make it absolutely unambiguous. It should be obvious however that it doesn't mean all.
However now that I've explained the vital relevance of the word perhaps you can explain why you omitted the word even though you thought it was redundant. It's obvious why someone who did understand the relevance of the word might omit it for the purposes of deception, but why would you, unaware though you tragically were of it's importance, go to the extra effort of reorganising the IPCC's statement. The clear unambiguous statement is just a matter of copy and paste and it's there just as the IPCC intended it. What purpose did you think altering it would serve?
Last edited:
I think so, it's a red herring isn't it?
Conditions in the Silirian and Devonian bear little or no relavence to the present debate.
The Devonian marked the begining to extensive land colonisation by plants. This may have something to do with the drop in CO2 levels. One would expect that this would effect temperatures. However unless you can suggest a way that the whatever compensated for the drop in CO2 (perhaps change in albedo due to the land colonisation of vegetation) would affect us here then it's not relevent.
It certainly doesn't refute the fact that increasing CO2 levels will tend to force temperatures up. It merely highlights the possibility that other factors may also be in play. Since, that's something we already knew, Red Herring.
Are you passing on the query because you're genuinely interested or simply to muddly the waters and derail the thread? No offense meant just a genuine enquiry?
David Rodale
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2006
- Messages
- 680
The pot calling the kettle black
It’s like the uncle at the family reunion who embellishes stories, with each time repeating it, makes it more interesting. Little children make things up too; they have imaginary friends and really believe they exist. Poor Capeldodger either just can’t get his stories straight, or really believes in his imaginary claims. However, if you wish to call him as a liar, that is your area of expertise.
Coining the phrase, spitting on the sidewalk has the same effect as CO2 on temperature. You have not provided one shred of direct evidence for CO2 having any net effect on surface temperature.
I support sound research, preferably the latest available using the scientific method, don't you? If you disagree with Spencer's research, state your case. Are you saying NASA satellite data is for crackpots? I’m interested in the latest research with accurate/precise data. If that qualifies one to be a crackpot, count me in.
Lomiller calls Spencer’s peer reviewed research “speculation”. Do you agree with that? How is it speculation and why did two IPCC authors agree with him? How do you refute empirical evidence?
Spencer followed the scientific method to the letter. Notice the crux of all his research is based on observational data from NASA satellites. That appears to be the bane of AGW.
1. Observations from satellite data showing cloud dynamics behave exactly opposite that of GCM
2. Formed the theoretical basis for his argument. Piers Forster and Isaac Held agreed with his analysis, however not quantified. Despite RealClimate’s SOP ad hominem attacks and cannibalizing their own IPCC authors (no surprise there), the peer reviewed article stands on its own merits.
3. The observations (experimentation) supporting his theoretical argument from #2 is now submitted for publication. This is the dagger through the heart of high climate sensitivity.
It doesn’t matter how many times you cut-and-paste unreferenced drivel, the facts remain; all GCM’s used in IPCC AR4 predict this “hot spot”. Or are we back to IPCC doesn’t make predictions?
Where is the missing heat?
As soon as you can locate in IPCC AR4 or even back to Hansen 1988 where it states “the “hotspot” should be there no matter how warming is caused”, the better off we all will be. Until then, you are posting unreferenced warmer scripted responses , but we both know where those musings originated from don’t we?
Now, are you ever going to support your statements with hard evidence or will we be treated to more of the same psycho-babble?
Why don't warmers proudly display IPCC
No comments on the NASA AIRS project disagreeing with the "well mixed gases" hypothesis? Hmm.
Lennart Hyland
Muse
Thanks alot for the information. I never knew that about the Devonian time frame.
Well I'm certainly is very interested in the subject. But only on a layman level.
First I was very negative on the whole GW thing. I accepted that there is a GW but I'm very unsure about how mankind is affecting it.
I'm trying to understand the concept and the question around this problem, by asking questions
It sure is hard to keep up with you guys in the discussion. Its very complex for me as an amature in this subject. Though I hope I'm not gonna spoil the atmosphere
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Messages
- 13,208
To expand on this a little, there are a number of things that effect global climate over very long periods that cannot have any effect over short periods of time. The period in question here in some 200 million years and in that time the continents moved, mountains arose & fell oceans shifted, air and ocean chemistry changes, the plant life on earth changed completely, wind patterns changes, ocean currents changes and the sun warmed up by some 5%.
This changes just about everything in the climate picture so much that there is no common reference to determine the effect CO2 is having.
TrueSceptic
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,143
Where have I ever lied here, unlike you who does it habitually? Where I have been mistaken, I have immediately apologised, a concept clearly alien to you.The pot calling the kettle black
What mendacious drivel that is. Own up that you falsely accused CD of fictional claims.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
The Triana satellite, aka the Deep Space Climate Observatory.
["Since our results are at variance with what is commonly accepted by the scientific community, we must work especially hard to validate them.
We have just had a paper accepted by Geophysical Research Letters that
will be published in 6-8 weeks, and are preparing a validation paper. "/QUOTE]
So are it and the "validation paper" out yet? And does it say what Watts (a notorious idiot) and you (ditto) think it says?
Of course you have evidence for that right? I didn't think so.
What do you think happens to the long-wave radiation that goes into the oceans? Does it go all the way down to the bottom and reflect back up? Or does its energy just vanish? People would like to know.
From which I infer that it's not in there and that you're spouting from your fundament yet again.