Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth or Real ?

[CapelDodger]

Considering that a hundred examples can be easily made to the efficacy of one dimensional models in physical systems, and another hundred of the needless complexity of the general category of 3D models in given situations, your argument is flat incorrect. Seems like an odd leap to lump a use of the virial theorum with "one dimensional" , to boot.

What you've left out of your comment and which misrepresents the two means of looking at phenomena is the restrictions and/or limitations placed on the utility of the results by those making (whichever) respective argument.

Thus your critique as phrased may be considered laughable nonsense. I suspect that Miskolczi discussion is quite beyond JREF, it is quite technical.

I nominate that as the moment that mhaze finally cracked, like spring-ice on a river.

Even from mhaze that is remarkable.

 

[fsol]

Considering that a hundred examples can be easily made to the efficacy of one dimensional models in physical systems, and another hundred of the needless complexity of the general category of 3D models in given situations, your argument is flat incorrect. Seems like an odd leap to lump a use of the virial theorum with "one dimensional" , to boot.

What you've left out of your comment and which misrepresents the two means of looking at phenomena is the restrictions and/or limitations placed on the utility of the results by those making (whichever) respective argument.

Thus your critique as phrased may be considered laughable nonsense. I suspect that Miskolczi discussion is quite beyond JREF, it is quite technical.

off you go then.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Considering that a hundred examples can be easily made to the efficacy of one dimensional models in physical systems, and another hundred of the needless complexity of the general category of 3D models in given situations, your argument is flat incorrect. Seems like an odd leap to lump a use of the virial theorum with "one dimensional" , to boot.

What you've left out of your comment and which misrepresents the two means of looking at phenomena is the restrictions and/or limitations placed on the utility of the results by those making (whichever) respective argument.

So, the mhaze collective switches from naughty child mode to authentic gibberish mode.

Thus your critique as phrased may be considered laughable nonsense. I suspect that Miskolczi discussion is quite beyond JREF, it is quite technical.

Oh dear. You just don't understand this stuff, do you?

 

[TrueSceptic]

So, the mhaze collective switches from naughty child mode to authentic gibberish mode.

Oh dear. You just don't understand this stuff, do you?

I meant to add: is mhaze becoming Munchkinesque?

 

[Spud1k]

Considering that a hundred examples can be easily made to the efficacy of one dimensional models in physical systems, and another hundred of the needless complexity of the general category of 3D models in given situations, your argument is flat incorrect.

Care to be more specific? Are any of these systems the atmosphere? If not, explain how they apply in this instance.

The atmosphere is both 3D and dynamic and generally speaking, history has taught us that the more detailed you can make model, the better. This applies to climate, weather prediction, air quality forecasts, whatever.

Seems like an odd leap to lump a use of the virial theorum with "one dimensional" , to boot.

I didn't just dream that you know. This is taken from the paper:

In this paper we derive purely theoretical relationships between the above quantities by using a simplified one dimensional atmospheric radiative transfer model.

What you've left out of your comment and which misrepresents the two means of looking at phenomena is the restrictions and/or limitations placed on the utility of the results by those making (whichever) respective argument.

Perhaps you'd like to comment then, and explain why a 1D model is so much more suitable for this system?

Thus your critique as phrased may be considered laughable nonsense.

I'm sure you have that opinion. I have my own about what you've just said as well.

I suspect that Miskolczi discussion is quite beyond JREF, it is quite technical.

It also seems to be quite beyond most high-profile journals as well. Why exactly was such groundbreaking research published in such an obscure journal? No disrespect to the Hungarian Meteorological Service but IDŐJÁRÁS isn't exactly Nature.

But hey, the floor is yours. Educate us. Explain why Miskolczi's model gets it right while all the others fail.

ETA: I might add that this is something that Miskolczi didn't do; all he did was effectively say, "here's my model, which should work. It replicates some real-world data, therefore it must work", which isn't a closure or validation by any stretch.

 

[a_unique_person]

 

[CapelDodger]

Unwarranted optimism, apparently. Spud's up for it, but mhaze isn't.

There's something very revealing in mhazes's "I suspect that Miskolczi discussion is quite beyond JREF, it is quite technical", with the desperate implication that it's not beyond him. Which it obviously is. mhaze's attachment to Miskolczi is based purely on recommendation.

 

[CapelDodger]

It also seems to be quite beyond most high-profile journals as well. Why exactly was such groundbreaking research published in such an obscure journal? No disrespect to the Hungarian Meteorological Service but IDŐJÁRÁS isn't exactly Nature.

A question that begs an answer.

But hey, the floor is yours. Educate us. Explain why Miskolczi's model gets it right while all the others fail.

I think I can explain why mhaze believes that. And it's not even technical.

I'm as eager as anybody else to watch mhaze trying to defend Miskolczi's model.

 

[TrueSceptic]

A question that begs an answer.

I think I can explain why mhaze believes that. And it's not even technical.

I'm as eager as anybody else to watch mhaze trying to defend Miskolczi's model.

(Waits while the collective formulates a reply...)

 

[a_unique_person]

I don't think there will be a response.

I suspect that Miskolczi discussion is quite beyond JREF, it is quite technical.

 

[a_unique_person]

Meanwhile, Monckton is clearly delusional. Read the introduction of his "Open Letter" to John McCain, and see if you can't hold back the laughter.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/Letter_to_McCain.pdf

Deltoid goes over the fantasist at work here.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/10/monckton_has_a_gold_nobel_priz.php

 

[Spud1k]

Meanwhile, Monckton is clearly delusional. Read the introduction of his "Open Letter" to John McCain, and see if you can't hold back the laughter.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/Letter_to_McCain.pdf

Deltoid goes over the fantasist at work here.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/10/monckton_has_a_gold_nobel_priz.php

Lol. Thanks for the link. Monckton's credentials never fail to raise a laugh with me. If it's not daft enough that he parades his aristocratic status around in the hope of impressing the scientific community, but waving it around when trying to influence the US executive of all people? Someone should maybe let him know that they left the empire a while back. I also find his 'science adviser to Margaret Thatcher' cringeworthy as well. Most people in the UK would probably think that a bad thing.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Meanwhile, Monckton is clearly delusional. Read the introduction of his "Open Letter" to John McCain, and see if you can't hold back the laughter.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/Letter_to_McCain.pdf

Deltoid goes over the fantasist at work here.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/10/monckton_has_a_gold_nobel_priz.php

Indeed, and I linked to Munchkin's letter over in the CT section. This upper class twit is beyond parody.

 

[CapelDodger]

Lol. Thanks for the link. Monckton's credentials never fail to raise a laugh with me. If it's not daft enough that he parades his aristocratic status around in the hope of impressing the scientific community, but waving it around when trying to influence the US executive of all people? Someone should maybe let him know that they left the empire a while back. I also find his 'science adviser to Margaret Thatcher' cringeworthy as well. Most people in the UK would probably think that a bad thing.

Munchkin lives in an alternative space-time bubble (or "weirdsphere") in which he features enormously. He must be creaming his jeans over all this attention he's finally getting.

Firing off Open Letters to the great and good is a long-recognised symptom of, shall we say, "over-enthusiasm". As a third-generation ponce (earlier Monckton's were mere panderers) I imagine Munchkin would expect to be called "eccentric" rather than potty, but he'll appreciate non compos mentis.

And yet he gets all this attention, within the weirdsphere and from those like us who observe it (and occasionally experiment on it). It speaks volumes that this guy's in their first-team (or "First XI" as His Limpship would put it).

 

[CapelDodger]

Indeed, and I linked to Munchkin's letter over in the CT section. This upper class twit is beyond parody.

I'm reminded of Tom Lehrer's comment that he was giving up satire because Kissinger got the Peace Prize. There's no room left for satire or parody to work in.

No parody could be more locked onto the Red Threat than Munchkin explicitly is. No parody could be more verbose and clunkingly faux-Classicist. No parody could be more self-basting. No parody could make a more laughable scientific case in all seriousness.

Real people can, of course. Miskolczi is in contention, and Douglass and Christy have just appeared in E'n'E with a show-stopper of a paper which everybody has to address before climate science can possibly move on. It is sad, despairing stuff to which nobody of note pays any attention.

The right is pulling its people and funds out of AGW. They've lost that. They need to concentrate on why the financial crisis is not the fault of the markets but of governments, and Bill Clinton in particular. Notice how quiet it's gone on this front since early September? Even mhaze is just phoning it in; I had to bring up the Douglass and Christy thing myself.

 

[DogB]

He does include a bibliography, http://www.aip.org/history/climate/bib.htm if you want to go the source documents. Much of it is historical, but a lot of it is the basic science.

It is an excellent bibliography. It's the one part of that document I refer to most often.

 

[DogB]

What do you mean by the "current state of play"? The basic science hasn't changed, just the arguments used by "sceptics" (even if they're old arguments being recycled).

To assume the basic science is complete is risky. The document in question has an unfortunate tendency to skip quickly past those areas where the current models are poorest.

An example - the treatment of Lindzen's work on tropical cloud formation.

 

[DogB]

This is my understanding, though I'm not an expert so I could be wrong:

Following the initial warming trigger, the positive feedback as the oceans and permafrost warm and release CO2 accelerates the warming until an equilibrium is reached. In the absence of any new external warming trigger no further warming then occurs, the CO2 level and the temperature remain constant.

If whatever caused the initial warming trigger then reverses cooling begins. As the oceans and permafrost cool they reabsorb the CO2 they previously gave up, which accelerates the cooling. So a positive feedback during a positive external forcing becomes a negative feedback during a negative external forcing.

This makes perfect sense to me and directly infers that the trigger event for the cooling has a greater influence of temperature than the CO2 level. Yes?

 

[DogB]

Where you are going wrong is your understanding of how feedback operates. Positive feedback cuts both ways, it enhances a cooling effect as much as it enhances a warming effect. The easiest way to look at positive feedback is as an amplifier, whatever forcing occurs is made larger it takes a small positive forcing and makes into a big positive forcing, or it takes a small negative forcing and turns it into a big negative forcing.

Because climate is not a linear system there is hysteresis thrown in the mix, which means there will be a tipping point on the way up and on the way down that needs to be reached before the system moves rapidly towards another stable equilibrium. Just as in the case of positive feedback this applies equally in both directions.

But how does the trigger overcome all the positive feedbacks. The world is set to 'hot'.There's little arctic ice and snow to reflect the sunlight, there's heaps of CO2 and methane to trap the heat.

These are powerful effects. Any trigger event must be massively powerful to overcome them - correct?

 

[DogB]

You misunderstand what a positive feedback is. It isn't a warming feedback, it's a feedback which amplifies the forcing.

As the oceans cool they absorb CO2, thus amplifying the Milankovich cooling by removing it from the atmosphere.

Don’t they remain warming feedbacks until the cooling begins?

The oceans have to cool. They have to cool while the CO2 is still in the atmosphere, while the methane is as well, while the Arctic remains ice free.

That requires a cooling forcing to be able to overcome all of the positive feedbacks.

If a change in Milankovich phase is sufficient to trigger a cooling even in spite of all the forcings opposing, why isn’t a Milankovich phase change sufficient to cause all of the warming phase without the influence of CO2 at all?

No need to be a stranger .

I intend to hang about until I’ve either been convinced (which may be closer than you may think), or until I’ve exhausted your patience.

Other than that I lurk more than I post, but I’ll be around.