PPRuNe Forums


Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 1st Dec 2011, 04:38   #9361 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 55
Posts: 26
Anybody wants to see how many times these guys used " fudge factors " in their science? See below

Science at work: “Tuning may be a way to fudge the physics” | Watts Up With That?
rvv500 is online now  
Old 1st Dec 2011, 06:14   #9362 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 659
rh200,
Quote:
There seems to be a small knee at the start of the 20 century to present, but at the moment it looks way smaller than recent deviations in both amplitude and temporaly.
Now, to be fair, I have made a small mistake, the years should start around 1900, not 1920 as is shown on that graph. For some reason I started the from 2009

Also, these are from samples from central Greenland. There is no surface record of the region. But if we take the surface temperature record that does exist from the coast, some of the longer term stations do indicate greater rate of warming than is shown on the graph since the last 5000 years.

However, comparing coastal climate with inland climate from is not going to be realistically possible. So we have no way of comparing that graph to actual observations. Even if it were, I presume the ice cores represent temperatures at the coldest point of the year, if so any comparison would have limit the scope of the observations anyway.

All that withstanding, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the climate is not stable nor has ever been so and that the rate of warming observed so far may not be unusual at all (if you believe the temperature record is accurate anyway).

rvv500
Quote:
And none of these are warmer than 1998. And 1934 was warmer than 1998 until GISS decided to " adjust " 1934 temperature downwards in the 21st century. So what's the big deal with today's temperatures then? There've been hot years and cold years throughout earth's history naturally.
I agree. However, 1934 was the US record year. not global as 1998 is.

I would just like to point out Climate Applications - Welcome to Climate Applications as an excellent view of the global temperature data. The KML files imported into Google Earth are fantastic.
Sciolistes is online now  
Old 1st Dec 2011, 06:20   #9363 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 250
Quote:
If the claim is that thirteen of the last fifteen years have been the hottest ever then, yes, I'd dispute it. The ice core records seem to show cycles with the temperature reaching higher levels than just now.
I presumed that Solid Rust Twotter was referring to the commonly made claim that 12 of the last 15 years have been the hottest on record, with the record stretching back for around 140 years.

Quote:
Global Mean Temperature? 12/15? Worth a look, but what is your point?
Dunno, you'll have to ask Solid Rust Twotter what his point was; I was responding to him.

Quote:
And if you don't do mystical calculations, the raw data tells a different story.
What story is that?
Also, you'd just average the raw temperature data without any other considerations? Add up all the values then divide by the number of stations? How'd that work? How would you deal with the variation in the number of stations? Variation in the location of stations? The heat island effect? The areas of the globe sparsely populated with stations?
It might tell a different story, but it's a story without any meaning whatsoever.

Quote:
You mean this Greenland record? Complete the MWP too!
That plot is meaningless. What are on the axes? What core is it from? How'd they compute the sample ages? What're the uncertainties on both axes?

Also, from the link you posted a bit later I can see that this data is smoothed - it's probably best to plot graphs with the un-smoothed data.

(edit) Reading that back I sound kinda angry in this post. That's not my intention, it's simply a lack of morning coffee
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2011, 06:32   #9364 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 250
Quote:
So I guess if there has been large recent deviations, what where they caused by, and how can we attribute the current trend to CO2 and not other factors we may not yet understand?
I think we'd have much more trouble if we were experiencing those large variations now. CO2 wouldn't be responsible for such dramatic changes, at least in the amounts we're pumping out, so there'd have to be another factor. The recent changes we've seen are, on a long term scale, fairly small - and well within what we'd expect CO2 (and other G.H.gases) to be capable of.

Quote:
But this is where I had a "hang on an effing minute" moment. This is the land of the alleged hole in the ozone layer we are talking about, an alleged hole that was created by our pollution. Now it's the "cleanest" air on the entire planet. How can this be, since if one pollutant we let loose has travelled all the way to the south pole then surely the rest must too, so where has it gone, where is the super high levels of "greenhouse gases" and other pollutants that must have come from the northern hemisphere to Antarctica? Is it too cold down there for anything other than CFC's to survive, and, if so, then why is there not a corresponding "hole" above the Arctic since it's just as cold up there so the CFC's would be just as happy (maybe they're scared the polar bears will eat them)?
In this case they don't just mean gaseous pollutants - they also mean things like soot, dust and other particulate matter. That tends to fall back out the atmosphere before it reaches the antarctic.
As for the ozone hole, we've discussed it at least twice before. The CFCs are present most places in the atmosphere - but the antarctic differs in that it receives many months of complete darkness. This forms a polar vortex - trapping supercold air above the continent and forming stratospheric ice clouds. The CFCs mix with these ice clouds and form other compounds (I forget what, chemistry bores me) that then float around inside this vortex until the Sun arrives in spring. The Sun heats the ice clouds and releases the compounds- where they're free to bind with ozone and remove it from the atmosphere.
Hence the lack of Ozone over the Antarctic. There's also a small hole over the Arctic, but there's no polar vortex up there and so it's less of a problem. You also get mini-holes forming at other locations around the globe, but that's dependant upon weather and (probably) some other factors too.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2011, 06:52   #9365 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 659
Simonpro,
Quote:
Also, from the link you posted a bit later I can see that this data is smoothed - it's probably best to plot graphs with the un-smoothed data.
It is all that is available. I regard it as evidence that and not fact.
Quote:
It might tell a different story, but it's a story without any meaning whatsoever.
Well, that is my point. It is not rationally possible to draw any solid conclusions from any temperature data that currently exists (adjusted or not).
Quote:
(edit) Reading that back I sound kinda angry in this post. That's not my intention, it's simply a lack of morning coffee
No problem.
Sciolistes is online now  
Old 1st Dec 2011, 12:32   #9366 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 49
Posts: 798
Yes, Simon, but what about the gases we pump out which they claim are causing agw? Surely they would also be in higher levels in Antarctica, like the cfc's, but we have never heard anyone making that claim.

Why not?
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2011, 13:55   #9367 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Planet Tharg
Posts: 2,472
My point is that focusing on the last 140 odd years to the exclusion of all else and trying to draw meaningful conclusions from it is like looking at an elephant's toenail and deciding the entire beast is made from keratin. Other posters made that point far more eloquently than I.

That was a minor detail in the wall of horror and despair emanating from the talks via the media. Looking over the shoulders of the po faced reporters, the usual political suspects are very much in evidence. Any doubts that this is a political rather than a scientific issue disappear when you see who is attending.
Solid Rust Twotter is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2011, 15:20   #9368 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,123
I have a longstanding question that has as yet been unanswered, if there is an answer.

With a steady increase in CO2, it would seem some other gas is victim of CO2's growing pangs.

There is but limited room in the volume we call atmosphere. What poor gas is being edged out?

Is there a foundation collecting funds for this poor fella? Are there grants? Is there e-mail? If it's Radon, good on ya, but if O2, we have a new problem.

What's a mother to do?

Since H2O vapor is a marginal player in Temperature, (per Warmistas) maybe it is only drought we must fear.

The FEAR Budget is stretched yet again? Is there FEAR enough to go around to fill everyone's coffers? Woe betide.
Lyman is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2011, 16:35   #9369 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 250
Quote:
Well, that is my point. It is not rationally possible to draw any solid conclusions from any temperature data that currently exists (adjusted or not).
I disagree - it simply means that you have to draw very careful conclusions
The station data matches with fairly good accuracy (i.e: within the sensor uncertainty) to satellite data, so the station temperature data must be at least partially correct. The only part which is troubling is the historical record, how do we know that the temperature from, say, 1903 is representative of the true global average?
I don't know the answer, unfortunately.

Quote:
Yes, Simon, but what about the gases we pump out which they claim are causing agw? Surely they would also be in higher levels in Antarctica, like the cfc's, but we have never heard anyone making that claim.

Why not?
Because CO2 does not get frozen into polar stratospheric clouds like CFCs do. Both CFCs and CO2 are distributed more or less evenly in the stratosphere. The difference at the South Pole is that certain climatic conditions, which are not possible at mid latitudes, are met that enable the CFCs to do their nasty work. It's got very little to do with their spatial distribution.

Quote:
My point is that focusing on the last 140 odd years to the exclusion of all else and trying to draw meaningful conclusions from it is like looking at an elephant's toenail and deciding the entire beast is made from keratin. Other posters made that point far more eloquently than I.
Why? I think it's a terrible argument to say that previous extreme climatic events mean we cannot attempt to understand current climatic events. We need to keep them in consideration, yes, but that doesn't stop us from attempting to understand why the climate currently appears to be getting warmer.

Quote:
That was a minor detail in the wall of horror and despair emanating from the talks via the media. Looking over the shoulders of the po faced reporters, the usual political suspects are very much in evidence. Any doubts that this is a political rather than a scientific issue disappear when you see who is attending.
Is that COP16 or whatever it's called? It's a political event. Why would scientists be there? You can't do much research if you're at a political event. Try going to one of the geoscience conferences (the biggest, AGU, is in a couple of weeks) and you'll find some actual scientists.

Quote:
There is but limited room in the volume we call atmosphere. What poor gas is being edged out?
There is not limited room.

Quote:
Since H2O vapor is a marginal player in Temperature, (per Warmistas) maybe it is only drought we must fear.
No-one says that H20 is a marginal player. It's a major contributor to radiative forcing and widely recognised as such. The IPCC report, as far as I remember, has an entire section devoted to it.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2011, 19:56   #9370 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 659
Simonpro,
Quote:
The station data matches with fairly good accuracy (i.e: within the sensor uncertainty) to satellite data, so the station temperature data must be at least partially correct.
I disagree. Station data does not match the satellite record that well, espeically when we are considering less that one degree of warming. However, just look at regional data. We have stations with 5deg/century warming right next to a station with 3deg/century cooling. Africa has only a short term record, China is cooling whilst its neighbours are warming. Europe is warming, but much of the data comes from cities and airports. Russia is a totally unknown quantity. The distribution of stations has changed and the quantity significantly reduced over the last decades! Just look at the US, it has been cooling steadily. Now the US, arguably has the best temperature record of all. Sorry, but I think it is evident that even careful conclusions remain elusive.
Quote:
Why? I think it's a terrible argument to say that previous extreme climatic events mean we cannot attempt to understand current climatic events.
I sort of agree. We should be able to understand these things. But right now it is absolutely clear that we do not have a friggin' cluse what is going on. All we can say is what our data shows us, but the data is still so very incomplete and misleading.
Sciolistes is online now  
Old 1st Dec 2011, 20:51   #9371 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,123
Simonpro, please, don't be so tedious.

CO2 is measured in parts per million. The Million is a representative sample of the atmosphere. CO2 increases at the expense of the presence of other molecules. Literally, there are ~390 molecules of CO2 in a sample of Atmosphere that contains one million.

You did not really "not get it", did you? Also, you are coy if you think H2O is not downplayed.......
Lyman is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2011, 03:25   #9372 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 69
Posts: 1,543
Still at it, I see...

Interesting takes on science here. Adding carbon dioxide must 'force out' something else, you think? What, as in 'change the chemical composition of the rest of the atmosphere,' like sending in a substitute in a football match? I like that one!

How about a big pot of water that you add salt to, increasing the PPM of salt? Did doing that 'force out' something else? Durrr...

I have abjured the practice of science for now, choosing to live a 'chem-free' life in a treehouse, studying literature. Anyone here want to tell me something useful about Absalom, Absalom?
chuks is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2011, 06:30   #9373 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 250
Quote:
I disagree. Station data does not match the satellite record that well, espeically when we are considering less that one degree of warming.
The typical difference between the two is 0.2-0.4K - but is fairly well understood so it's not like there's a randomised 0.2K temperature difference. That compares very well to the satellite uncertainty, which is typically 0.4-0.6K. It's by no means perfect, but it's the best we've got and is, in my view, good enough to draw some basic conclusions. The problem arises when people start talking about <0.1C temperature changes year-on-year. I'm not sure I trust those so much.

Quote:
CO2 is measured in parts per million. The Million is a representative sample of the atmosphere. CO2 increases at the expense of the presence of other molecules. Literally, there are ~390 molecules of CO2 in a sample of Atmosphere that contains one million.
It's not at the expense of other particles. If the atmosphere consisted of, let's say, one billion particles and CO2 was at 100ppm then there'd be a total of 100000 CO2 molecules in the atmosphere* and 999.9 million molecules of everything else.
Now, let's double the CO2 to 200000 molecules floating around in the atmosphere. BUT there's still 999.9 million other molecules - so the total number in the atmosphere has increased to 1.0001 billion. CO2 concentration is therefore almost doubled: 199.98ppm. Nothing has left the atmosphere, there's just more stuff in it.

As long as we're only dealing with small quantities then there's no problem. The atmosphere can handle having some extra CO2 without losing something else.

Also, as an aside, if you think the atmosphere is of finite size then what happens with the wind? That's moving stuff around. Or what happens at nighttime? The atmosphere shrinks at night.


*Assuming my early morning math is right.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2011, 07:52   #9374 (permalink)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Brighton
Age: 63
Posts: 8,558
May I suggest you buy this week's Spectator and read the lead article, "The sea level scam - The rise and rise of a global scare story".

The article is by a past president of INQUA and chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Change, and states that the claims of sea level rise as a deliberate deception which is a scandal so large it should be called "Sealevelgate"
ORAC is online now  
Old 2nd Dec 2011, 08:11   #9375 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 659
Orac,

Not this chap by any chance?
Sciolistes is online now  
Old 2nd Dec 2011, 13:54   #9376 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 49
Posts: 798
Then may I point y'all to a study by a certain Matthew Huber (and colleagues) who have found out that the Antarctic ice sheet was formed at a time when COČ levels were over 1.5 times the level they are now, meaning that it would take at least a century to actually lift our current 390ppm to the level where the ice sheet actually formed and then a hell of a long time (we're talking about over 1000 years) to get the COČ levels up high enough to actually melt the ice sheet.

Since the Antarctic ice has actually been INCREASING over the last 40 years, it shows what a load of codswallop the hysteria from the so-called scientists screaming that we are all doomed actually is.....
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2011, 15:22   #9377 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: orbital
Posts: 189
Quote:
If it's Radon, good on ya, but if O2, we have a new problem.
O2 is indeed being depleted.

Quote:
We are losing three oxygen molecules in our atmosphere for each carbon dioxide molecule that is produced when we burn fossil fuels.
Quote:
It is roughly true that the oxygen depletion is equivalent to a displacement by carbon dioxide. But it is not exactly true. First, some of the carbon dioxide produced has been absorbed by the oceans. This process involves inorganic chemical reactions which have no effect on O2. Second, the O2:C combustion ratio of a fossil-fuel depends on the hydrogen content. The ratio varies from about 1.2 for coal, 1.45 for liquid fuels, and 2.0 for natural gas. Taking these factors together, we are losing nearly three O2 molecules for each CO2 molecule that accumulates in the air.

Read more: Atmospheric Oxygen Levels Fall As Carbon Dioxide Rises - Blogcritics Sci/Tech
Re-entry is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2011, 16:14   #9378 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 250
Quote:
Since the Antarctic ice has actually been INCREASING over the last 40 years, it shows what a load of codswallop the hysteria from the so-called scientists screaming that we are all doomed actually is.....
Increasing by area or by volume?
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2011, 16:38   #9379 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 49
Posts: 798
Area, 100,000 square kilometers (38,610 square miles) per decade.


Volume? Well, I have a nice pdf in front of me that shows the elevation of the Antarctic ice cap was RISING between 1992 and 2003, and since the conclusion of the study is that the level of the ice is RISING then that, along with the growth in area, means that the actual volume of Antarctic ice is also rising.


Which ain't bad when you consider that the "hole" was supposed to bugger things up and now our current 390ppm of COČ in the atmosphere (around two thirds of the 600ppm that was in the atmosphere when the ice cap actually, well, froze) meant that the Antarctic ice cap was supposed to have been irreversibly melting which would lead to the massive rises in sea level which haven't happened either..........
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2011, 16:49   #9380 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 250
Quote:
Volume? Well, I have a nice pdf in front of me that shows the elevation of the Antarctic ice cap was RISING between 1992 and 2003, and since the conclusion of the study is that the level of the ice is RISING then that, along with the growth in area, means that the actual volume of Antarctic ice is also rising.
I just googled to find which paper that could be, and if it's the Royal Society one then they're using model data for estimating snowfall amount. They are not, based on my quick skim, actually calculating the mass balance from first order data.
GRACE, on the other hand, calculates mass balance more directly (based on gravitational field changes) and that indicates a loss of mass over the past 6 years.

Quote:
Which ain't bad when you consider that the "hole" was supposed to bugger things up
Please do some research before posting stuff like this. The ozone hole is actually expected to cool the stratosphere, as is CO2.

Quote:
(around two thirds of the 600ppm that was in the atmosphere when the ice cap actually, well, froze)
I thought you said that the ice cap was still in the process of freezing...
Nemrytter is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 08:10.


© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1