Conservatives and climate change

[mhaze]

What are the effects of this?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/...ding-spots-signal-big-drop-in-solar-activity/

Remember....the math is easy .....

I note none of the "math is easy" folks wanted to take this one up.

Please do. I'm sure you can show us what the effect of these solar phenomena is on the Earth's climate. After all the math is easy.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAA!

Wait....let's take a look at "JREF Climate Science Math".

Humans = Bad.

Humans.

BAD!!!!

Yep. Thaaaat's Eaassssy.

Yessir.

Absolutely.

I see the LIGHT NOW!

Hallelujah.

Glory be to Gaia.

Almost like there's an unwillingness to accept the actual optical properties of CO2, isn't it?

Hmmm....indeed, in a gaseous sphere with a gas mixture including co2 and water vapor, why, we'd likely need to use the virial theorem to find the result of modification of any partial pressure on temperature, total gas enthalpy, etc. Let us know about that "easy math" the shows the result in terms of distribution between potential and kinetic energy.

Wait...I could just BELIEVE!

Yes.

I see the light!

 

[BenBurch]

The maths needed to grasp the basics of climate science are learned by tens of millions of high school students each and every year. I would consider this level of mathematical understanding and prowess to be fairly simple and basic.

I don't think we are talking with somebody who has beyond basic maths, so I can understand being mystified. I had a hard time with calculus at first, mostly because it was presented without any concrete examples whatsoever, and my mind needed a few of those up front to get a sense of what was being talked about.

(As an aside, I think that first years of the calculus and classical mechanics should be taught in a unified course. They make a lot more sense together.)

 

[mhaze]

Yes, we could describe the performance of your prius (and why many other hybrid cars do not perform so well) with a selected group of 15-20 equations, and optimize.

Similarly with aircraft or rocket performance.

Why then we should be able to do that with climate!

We are pretty smart fellas here.

So the relevant 15-20 variables and the resulting equations are...

Uh.....

 

[lomiller]

I note none of the "math is easy" folks wanted to take this one up.

Please do. I'm sure you can show us what the effect of these solar phenomena is on the Earth's climate. After all the math is easy.

Yawn, any high school physics student can quickly analyze this for relevance quite easily. All you need to know is

-E=P*T
-The suns power output over a solar cycle varies by about 0.1%, a little over 1W/m^2
-the length of typical solar cycle is
-The Specific heat of water
-The surface area of a sphere and the surface area of a circle.
-How much of the earths surface is covered by water.



The “oddball” facts you need are:
-Ocean mixing is typically confined to the top 100m-200m for decadal time scales.
-Positive feedback amplification from water vapor is typically calculated at ~2X – 4X
-The earth’s atmosphere has about the same mass the top 10m of the earth’s oceans.


From this you can pretty easily calculate a reasonable approximation just how much a “missed” solar cycle would cool the earth, and the math is quite easy.

 

[mhaze]

Yawn, any high school physics student can quickly analyze this for relevance quite easily. All you need to know is

-E=P*T
-The suns power output over a solar cycle varies by about 0.1%, a little over 1W/m^2
-the length of typical solar cycle is
-The Specific heat of water
-The surface area of a sphere and the surface area of a circle.
-How much of the earths surface is covered by water.



The “oddball” facts you need are:
-Ocean mixing is typically confined to the top 100m-200m for decadal time scales.
-Positive feedback amplification from water vapor is typically calculated at ~2X – 4X
-The earth’s atmosphere has about the same mass the top 10m of the earth’s oceans.


From this you can pretty easily calculate a reasonable approximation just how much a “missed” solar cycle would cool the earth, and the math is quite easy.

Thanks. You've reframed the question so as to be able to answer it in a relatively simple manner.

The Actual Question was different. It was about three lines of research that point to likely no sunspots for several decades. (Side note: The math in those three lines of research, of course, is not easy. Well, I guess Climate Science can ignore all that... )

Now, do we understand solar dynamics and physics well enough to know the effect on output? This implies understanding mechanisms and modeling them. Otherwise, you are considering a historical record which excludes the phenomena in question, as predictive of the phenomena.

I'd comment that your reframed question is improperly done. If that is so as to be able to substantiate the assertion that "climate math is easy", then you've got a giant FAIL there.

 

[leftysergeant]

It's even more strange when one considers that the U.S. has been buying more goods from other nations than it has been selling to them for an awful long time now.

But we are selling raw materials and coal.

(Wait. Isn't this a remake of a movie we saw before, set in some other country?)

 

[mhaze]

The maths needed to grasp the basics of climate science are learned by tens of millions of high school students each and every year. I would consider this level of mathematical understanding and prowess to be fairly simple and basic.

This statement needs a bit of correction so here goes:

The maths liberal dogma needed to grasp the basics of climate science are learned by tens of millions of high school students each and every year. I would consider this level of mathematical understanding religious education and prowess testing of faith driven behavior to be fairly simple and basic.

Glory Be!

 

[Trakar]

This statement needs a bit of correction so here goes:

The maths liberal dogma needed to grasp the basics of climate science are learned by tens of millions of high school students each and every year. I would consider this level of mathematical understanding religious education and prowess testing of faith driven behavior to be fairly simple and basic.

Glory Be!

Your strawman fantasy, your choice.

 

[jj]

This statement needs a bit of correction so here goes:

The maths liberal dogma needed to grasp the basics of climate science are learned by tens of millions of high school students each and every year. I would consider this level of mathematical understanding religious education and prowess testing of faith driven behavior to be fairly simple and basic.

Glory Be!

Oh, look, another anti-science screed that falsely tries to equivocate the testable and verifiable with a belief held by faith.

Such attempts are typical when a claimant has no evidence to support their allegations, in my experience.

 

[AlBell]

The maths needed to grasp the basics of climate science are learned by tens of millions of high school students each and every year. I would consider this level of mathematical understanding and prowess to be fairly simple and basic.

Setting up including boundary conditions and solving (most often numerically) complicated systems of partial differential equations is 'simple and basic' for tens of millions of high school students?

For US students I doubt that very much; in fact most who do not major in math couldn't do so after 4 years of college. Masters level in math/science for most, and if one actually understands the math, a PhD and post-doc efforts.

 

[Trakar]

I note none of the "math is easy" folks wanted to take this one up.

You couldn't pay me to visit that delusional ex-weatherman's pseudoscience political advocacy blog. Looking at your questioning statements however, reveal that you seem to have little idea about what consititutes the types of mathematics required for basic climate understandings.

Solar dynamics are irrelevent to basic climate understandings. For basic climate understandings, the type and amount of energy entering the Earth's environment is important, relevent information. The history of how that energy came to be and how it may change over time is not important to basic level understandings.

All basic climate understandings require is the ability to follow energy's general path through the Earth's environment with the understanding that the longer the energy which enters the Earth's environment lingers, or is retarded from leaving the Earth's environment, the warmer the planet will become.

 

[Trakar]

Setting up including boundary conditions and solving (most often numerically) complicated systems of partial differential equations is 'simple and basic' for tens of millions of high school students?

none of which is essential to basic climate science understanding.

For US students I doubt that very much; in fact most who do not major in math couldn't do so after 4 years of college. Masters level in math/science for most, and if one actually understands the math, a PhD and post-doc efforts.

Amazingly you simultaneously vastly over-estimate the level of detail understanding and complication of basic climate science while vastly underestimating the educational systems in the US, HS and Higher. Regardless, basic maths and algebra will easily carry an individual through almost the entirety of basic climate understandings and calculations.

 

[AlBell]

I'd say you underestimate the problem ... if you want models.

http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/climate-models-irreducibly-imprecise

 

[BenBurch]

OK, down to brass tacks.

Why, oh great conservative super-geniuses, is the earth not a snowball? If you compute the temperature the earth would be if it were a black body, it would be quite cold. What is the conservative dogmatic reason that the earth is warm enough for life which you set in opposition to the reason that science suggests?

 

[mhaze]

You couldn't pay me to visit that delusional ex-weatherman's pseudoscience political advocacy blog. Looking at your questioning statements however, reveal that you seem to have little idea about what consititutes the types of mathematics required for basic climate understandings. ......

Then you have no qualifications or understanding to answer that issue or address it. So we'll move on.

....Solar dynamics are irrelevent to basic climate understandings. For basic climate understandings, the type and amount of energy entering the Earth's environment is important, relevent information. The history of how that energy came to be and how it may change over time is not important to basic level understandings.

All basic climate understandings require is the ability to follow energy's general path through the Earth's environment with the understanding that the longer the energy which enters the Earth's environment lingers, or is retarded from leaving the Earth's environment, the warmer the planet will become.

Now we see in the bolded sections about your attempt to reframe the conversation from Travis's initial direct and simple statement:

"Climate math is easy".

...to something that can even be argued among reasonably sane people. Oh...that fourth item I bolded....I'm SURE it has some relevance, but where? Hmm...

Yes! I agree with you! We CAN redefine "basic climate understandings" to be something frikking kindegraders can understand. Or 8th graders. Or 12th graders.

Wow!

That's absolutely brilliant.

Uhh...no, it's not. Why not just come clean and agree that "Climate math ain't easy" then we can move on. Otherwise, this discussion is pretty hilarious. In fact, since it's likely to get stricken from the public records by the mods, I'm saving a copy right now.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Let me correct one thing and clarify another.

1. I'm laughing too, at "field string". I have NO IDEA out of which drunken stupor that arose. Meant to say "field strength".

2. My intent, if it may not have been clear, was along the lines of of "do the Navier Stokes equations apply, and if so, with what simplifications and initial presumptions, etc, etc, etc....will enable them to yield useful results in the field (actually specified sub sub set of ...) "climate science".

Ordinarily I would accept mhaze's drunken stupors as an acceptable explanation for his use of bold face to emphasize that his question was simply "Does Navier Stokes apply?" when he was really trying to ask a more intelligent question.

Unfortunately, mhaze went on write this in a subsequent post:

And Clinger's ad homs, reframing and mis direction are classic True Believer tactics.

Is mhaze trying to reframe/redirect our conversation by inviting readers to search his posts and mine for "True Believer tactics" such as "ad homs, reframing and mis direction" ?

I think someone with one semester of CFM wouldn't be competent in the least at "climate science math". Some one with a Pdh in the subject, yes.

Apparently some here think that a PdD in engineering or math is "easy".

What's CFM? What's a Pdh? What's a PdD?

 

[TimCallahan]

This statement needs a bit of correction so here goes:

The maths liberal dogma needed to grasp the basics of climate science are learned by tens of millions of high school students each and every year. I would consider this level of mathematical understanding religious education and prowess testing of faith driven behavior to be fairly simple and basic.

Glory Be!

So, you're saying that the guy referred to in the OP is a liberal?

 

[mhaze]

Setting up including boundary conditions and solving (most often numerically) complicated systems of partial differential equations is 'simple and basic' for tens of millions of high school students?

For US students I doubt that very much; in fact most who do not major in math couldn't do so after 4 years of college. Masters level in math/science for most, and if one actually understands the math, a PhD and post-doc efforts.

I'm willing to conceptualize the loose phrases in this fashion:

Easy = high school or typical college math thru 2nd year

Hard = Phd level math or math as used by Phd candidates in earth science disciplines

Incidentally, even with the current "college level" high school math, I'm not aware of any except true prodigies who could demonstrate competence at a 15-20 variable partial differential equation set at the high school level. I can't say I've met any such high school students and would be pleasantly surprised to do so. Tens of millions! More good comedy.

The problem, then is in my opinion that the huge simplifications required to make the "math easy" in and of themselves contain aspects of "belief sets". This is demonstrable. Much better to be honest and not oversimplify Bohr-atom style. Matter of fact, I seem to recall Cuddles came up with a "8th grade explanation of climate science" a year or two ago. Didn't stand up too well, of course.

 

[mhaze]

Your strawman fantasy, your choice.

Gee I don't know. You had a pretty good strawman fantasy there.

But I had a pretty good one to.

Heads or tails maybe?

...What's CFM? What's a Pdh? What's a PdD?

Computational fluid mechanics. What's a Pdh? It's a mis spelling. Etc, etc.

Want the prize for picking nits?

So, you're saying that the guy referred to in the OP is a liberal?

Look, do me, or us all, a giant favor in the direction of honest conversation by not putting words in other peoples' mouths.

It's clear that when "So you're saying<<followed by totally unrelated stuff>>" is a disingenuous method of making a comment or forcing a defense of a position not made or adopted.

Like I said, I'm saving a copy of this thread which is rapidly headed for abandon-all-hope as it embarrasses the very concept of critical thinking.

 

[citizenzen]

Want the prize for picking nits?

Dude. You are the one who has pursued post after post the (IMO) off-topic issue of exactly who is capable of understanding the math behind Climate Change.

Right now the prize for nit picking is in your hands.

I think it may even be a lifetime achievement award.