Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #710549 > unrolled thread

Analysis of climate models

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-31 10:22 -0700
    UsedCar salesman cite facts. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-10-31 12:37 -0700
    Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-31 14:49 -0500
      Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 13:00 -0700
    Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-31 18:32 -0400
      Re: Analysis of climate models Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-01 06:32 +0100
        Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 02:06 -0400
          Re: Analysis of climate models Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-01 07:33 +0100
            Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 10:08 -0400
              Re: Analysis of climate models Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-01 15:33 +0100
              Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 13:22 -0700
                Re: Analysis of climate models Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-11-14 00:28 -0500
                  Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 16:47 -0800
            Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-01 10:16 -0500
      Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 13:16 -0700
      Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 16:02 -0700
        Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-02 20:19 -0500
        Re: Analysis of climate models James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 12:56 -0800
          Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 08:39 -0800
            Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-05 12:59 -0600
            Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 14:45 -0500
              Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-13 13:07 -0800
            Re: Analysis of climate models Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 12:34 -0800
              Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-13 13:09 -0800
                Re: Analysis of climate models Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-11-16 09:50 -0800
          Re: Analysis of climate models pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-11-05 19:17 -0800
            Re: Analysis of climate models Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 07:16 -0800
    Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-01 21:23 +0000
    Re: Analysis of climate models Boris Mohar <borism_void_@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-02 05:21 -0400
      Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 08:04 -0800
    Re: Analysis of climate models Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-11-02 08:31 -0400
      Re: Analysis of climate models Dan Riley <dan131riley@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 17:15 -0400
        Re: Analysis of climate models Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 12:40 -0800
          Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-13 13:13 -0800
            Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-18 17:22 -0600
              Re: Analysis of climate models James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-11-18 17:48 -0800
              Re: Analysis of climate models Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-19 05:05 +0100
                Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-18 22:46 -0600
                  Re: Analysis of climate models Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-19 06:59 +0100
                  Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 07:42 -0800
                    Re: Analysis of climate models James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 08:58 -0800
                      Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 19:17 -0500
                    Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 12:22 -0500
                      Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-20 21:02 -0600
              Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-19 11:01 -0500
                Re: Analysis of climate models Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-11-19 12:58 -0800
                  Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 08:10 -0800
                    Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 12:04 -0500
                      Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-20 22:02 -0600
        Re: Analysis of climate models Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-11-19 07:00 -0500
          Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 08:00 -0800
            Re: Analysis of climate models Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-11-20 21:28 -0500
              Re: Analysis of climate models James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-11-21 10:38 -0800
              Re: Analysis of climate models Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-11-25 00:53 -0500
      Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 08:21 -0800
    Re: Analysis of climate models Dan Riley <dan131riley@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 17:08 -0400
      Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 08:23 -0800
        Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-05 13:00 -0600
          Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-05 13:04 -0600
            Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 14:51 -0500
              Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-05 13:59 -0600
    Re: Analysis of climate models Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-11-19 07:27 -0500
      Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 08:06 -0800
        Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 11:59 -0500

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#710549 — Analysis of climate models

In response to sergio's comments and my own goal of trying to
talk about physics in this group, I am starting this thread.

So the goal is to investigate the limits of climate models.

This link has some references maybe for a start
https://globalchange.mit.edu/publications/peer-reviewed

I'll have to read them from teh library (I do not have
subscription or school access to any journals.)

Or if you find peer reviewed articles that can be shared
please post a link in this thread.

Please NO news sources, we are looking for scientific
publications.

Lets see who is serious about this.
   Ed

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#710567 — UsedCar salesman cite facts.

> Analysis of climate models

UsedCar salesman cite facts.

Time marches forward, (climate) change happens.
Plants want _ more warmth and carbon dioxide.

56 million years ago (PETM), the Arctic was tropical, not icy;
then and there, us primates first appeared; 3 million years later,
we were most everywhere; 22 million years later, the poles froze.

4.5 billion years ago, the surface of earth was molten.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710568

On 10/31/2018 12:22 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> In response to sergio's comments and my own goal of trying to
> talk about physics in this group, I am starting this thread.
> 
> So the goal is to investigate the limits of climate models.
> 
> This link has some references maybe for a start
> https://globalchange.mit.edu/publications/peer-reviewed
> 
> I'll have to read them from teh library (I do not have
> subscription or school access to any journals.)
> 
> Or if you find peer reviewed articles that can be shared
> please post a link in this thread.
> 
> Please NO news sources, we are looking for scientific
> publications.
> 
> Lets see who is serious about this.
>    Ed
> 

[as an example of uphill climb this is, I googled "error analysis of
climate models"  and got this link is from Stanford University, the
Hoover Institution, but is not a peer reviewed, article, but written by
two professors (2017) It shows concern for assumptions and processing
areas, and models;
https://www.hoover.org/research/flawed-climate-models ]


this following paper is interesting, I think they are compairing a much
finer grain spacial model which shows more terrain influence, than
ANUSPLIN. the first few paragraphs are great. AND the result is the two
models are within 3% to 8% (or disagree by) and the RMS error is 0.3 C
over 30 year span(?)

one of their measurments is 10cm Soil Temperature (air is too varable,
soil is a longer term average, 10cm down may be a 6 mo(?) average ) And
the front end says theyused data from 1971 to 2000 from ANUSPLIN V4.3 is
that another climate model? I notice they are generating SNR  not sure
what that means.

https://www.niwa.co.nz/sites/niwa.co.nz/files/import/attachments/Climate_Maps_Error_Analysis.pdf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710824

On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 3:49:25 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote:
> On 10/31/2018 12:22 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > In response to sergio's comments and my own goal of trying to
> > talk about physics in this group, I am starting this thread.
> > 
> > So the goal is to investigate the limits of climate models.
> > 
> > This link has some references maybe for a start
> > https://globalchange.mit.edu/publications/peer-reviewed
> > 
> > I'll have to read them from teh library (I do not have
> > subscription or school access to any journals.)
> > 
> > Or if you find peer reviewed articles that can be shared
> > please post a link in this thread.
> > 
> > Please NO news sources, we are looking for scientific
> > publications.
> > 
> > Lets see who is serious about this.
> >    Ed
> > 
> 
> [as an example of uphill climb this is, I googled "error analysis of
> climate models"  and got this link is from Stanford University, the
> Hoover Institution, but is not a peer reviewed, article, but written by
> two professors (2017) It shows concern for assumptions and processing
> areas, and models;
> https://www.hoover.org/research/flawed-climate-models ]
> 
> 
> this following paper is interesting, I think they are compairing a much
> finer grain spacial model which shows more terrain influence, than
> ANUSPLIN. the first few paragraphs are great. AND the result is the two
> models are within 3% to 8% (or disagree by) and the RMS error is 0.3 C
> over 30 year span(?)
> 
> one of their measurments is 10cm Soil Temperature (air is too varable,
> soil is a longer term average, 10cm down may be a 6 mo(?) average ) And
> the front end says theyused data from 1971 to 2000 from ANUSPLIN V4.3 is
> that another climate model? I notice they are generating SNR  not sure
> what that means.
> 
> https://www.niwa.co.nz/sites/niwa.co.nz/files/import/attachments/Climate_Maps_Error_Analysis.pdf

Cool. Thanks.
  Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710603

On 10/31/2018 1:22 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> In response to sergio's comments and my own goal of trying to
> talk about physics in this group, I am starting this thread.
> 
> So the goal is to investigate the limits of climate models.
> 
> This link has some references maybe for a start
> https://globalchange.mit.edu/publications/peer-reviewed
> 
> I'll have to read them from teh library (I do not have
> subscription or school access to any journals.)
> 
> Or if you find peer reviewed articles that can be shared
> please post a link in this thread.
> 
> Please NO news sources, we are looking for scientific
> publications.
> 
> Lets see who is serious about this.
>     Ed

Sure Ed, how about this one:

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf

Lessee. This shows CO2 is a MINOR greenhouse gas with other gasses being 
of even less effect. Estimate is that CO2 is really only 15-20% of the 
greenhouse effect. Water vapor/clouds are major contributor. Please not 
that the Human generated CO2 is a minor portion of that already minor 
fraction something like 4% of the 15%. This makes the "anthropogenic" 
part of global warming something with some serious proof of the theory 
needed.

Aside: Let me also note as an aside that given the sell-out of many 
executives of science trade organizations which includes a capture of 
many publishing executives who control what gets in major journals. This 
means that any contrary data is relegated to minor secondary journals 
where it can be easily dismissed as irrelevant based upon where it is 
published rather than if the data presented is actually true. Cute.

As a Nobel prize winner asserted that he was told if the continued 
talking about climate truth, he'd never publish anything in Nature 
again! He replied Nature doesn't publish his stuff anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710686

benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> On 10/31/2018 1:22 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>> In response to sergio's comments and my own goal of trying to
>> talk about physics in this group, I am starting this thread.
>> 
>> So the goal is to investigate the limits of climate models.
>> 
>> This link has some references maybe for a start
>> https://globalchange.mit.edu/publications/peer-reviewed
>> 
>> I'll have to read them from teh library (I do not have
>> subscription or school access to any journals.)
>> 
>> Or if you find peer reviewed articles that can be shared
>> please post a link in this thread.
>> 
>> Please NO news sources, we are looking for scientific
>> publications.
>> 
>> Lets see who is serious about this.
>>     Ed
> 
> Sure Ed, how about this one:
> 
> http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf
> 
> Lessee. This shows CO2 is a MINOR greenhouse gas with other gasses being 
> of even less effect. Estimate is that CO2 is really only 15-20% of the 
> greenhouse effect. Water vapor/clouds are major contributor. Please not 
> that the Human generated CO2 is a minor portion of that already minor 
> fraction something like 4% of the 15%. This makes the "anthropogenic" 
> part of global warming something with some serious proof of the theory 
> needed.
> 
20 % is still major component.
1% would be minor.

This 20% makes about 6 deg C
From the total cca 30 deg C of GH effect.

The 0.01 % increase if CO2 makes about 1.5 Deg C difference of
 global average temperature difference.

0.01% CO2 is equivalent of cca 20 tons of carbon per a person, cca
 130 kg per person And year during 150 years. Let consider lower
 AVG people count during the era, so let say 365 kg per person and
 year, 1 kg per person and day.

Just by breathing, people population 
contribution is comparable to total CO2 increase,  not counting
 burning fossil fuels and forests, which is much more.


-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710696

On 11/1/2018 1:32 AM, Libor Striz wrote:
> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> On 10/31/2018 1:22 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>> In response to sergio's comments and my own goal of trying to
>>> talk about physics in this group, I am starting this thread.
>>>
>>> So the goal is to investigate the limits of climate models.
>>>
>>> This link has some references maybe for a start
>>> https://globalchange.mit.edu/publications/peer-reviewed
>>>
>>> I'll have to read them from teh library (I do not have
>>> subscription or school access to any journals.)
>>>
>>> Or if you find peer reviewed articles that can be shared
>>> please post a link in this thread.
>>>
>>> Please NO news sources, we are looking for scientific
>>> publications.
>>>
>>> Lets see who is serious about this.
>>>      Ed
>>
>> Sure Ed, how about this one:
>>
>> http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf
>>
>> Lessee. This shows CO2 is a MINOR greenhouse gas with other gasses being
>> of even less effect. Estimate is that CO2 is really only 15-20% of the
>> greenhouse effect. Water vapor/clouds are major contributor. Please not
>> that the Human generated CO2 is a minor portion of that already minor
>> fraction something like 4% of the 15%. This makes the "anthropogenic"
>> part of global warming something with some serious proof of the theory
>> needed.
>>
> 20 % is still major component.
> 1% would be minor.

And you just made up this dividing line yourself, right?
more then 50% is major, 15-20% is minor. Water Vapor is major. Co2 is 
minor.


> This 20% makes about 6 deg C
>  From the total cca 30 deg C of GH effect.

And the 30 degrees is imaginary I take it. There is no demonstrated 
causaltiy between CO2 and average temperature. Proof. Temperature 
anamoaly 1940-1970 when CO2 went up and climate went DOWN.

> The 0.01 % increase if CO2 makes about 1.5 Deg C difference of
>   global average temperature difference.

Can you or any organism tell the difference between 1 degree?
Will one degree end the planet? How much temperatrue difference between 
deserts and poles? Total temperature increase 1889-now less than one 
degree.


> 0.01% CO2 is equivalent of cca 20 tons of carbon per a person, cca
>   130 kg per person And year during 150 years. Let consider lower
>   AVG people count during the era, so let say 365 kg per person and
>   year, 1 kg per person and day.

Which is what part of the CO2 cycle?

> Just by breathing, people population
> contribution is comparable to total CO2 increase,  not counting
>   burning fossil fuels and forests, which is much more.

So your theory is that all of the INCREASE in CO2 levels is due entirely 
and only because of man/animal/fuel generated CO2. Got any peer reviewed 
papers that support that theory? We are not discussing journalist 
non-science here.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710698

benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> On 11/1/2018 1:32 AM, Libor Striz wrote:
>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>> On 10/31/2018 1:22 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>> In response to sergio's comments and my own goal of trying to
>>>> talk about physics in this group, I am starting this thread.
>>>>
>>>> So the goal is to investigate the limits of climate models.
>>>>
>>>> This link has some references maybe for a start
>>>> https://globalchange.mit.edu/publications/peer-reviewed
>>>>
>>>> I'll have to read them from teh library (I do not have
>>>> subscription or school access to any journals.)
>>>>
>>>> Or if you find peer reviewed articles that can be shared
>>>> please post a link in this thread.
>>>>
>>>> Please NO news sources, we are looking for scientific
>>>> publications.
>>>>
>>>> Lets see who is serious about this.
>>>>      Ed
>>>
>>> Sure Ed, how about this one:
>>>
>>> http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf
>>>
>>> Lessee. This shows CO2 is a MINOR greenhouse gas with other gasses being
>>> of even less effect. Estimate is that CO2 is really only 15-20% of the
>>> greenhouse effect. Water vapor/clouds are major contributor. Please not
>>> that the Human generated CO2 is a minor portion of that already minor
>>> fraction something like 4% of the 15%. This makes the "anthropogenic"
>>> part of global warming something with some serious proof of the theory
>>> needed.
>>>
>> 20 % is still major component.
>> 1% would be minor.
> 
> And you just made up this dividing line yourself, right?
> more then 50% is major, 15-20% is minor. Water Vapor is major. Co2 is 
> minor.

Wrong. Major components are  component with significant
 contribution, it does not limit itself  to  the components with
 the biggest contribution.

> 
> 
>> This 20% makes about 6 deg C
>>  From the total cca 30 deg C of GH effect.
> 
> And the 30 degrees is imaginary I take it. There is no demonstrated 
> causaltiy between CO2 and average temperature. Proof. Temperature 
> anamoaly 1940-1970 when CO2 went up and climate went DOWN.

No, it can be easily calculated for Earth radiation balance not
 considering GH effect.

There is direct physical causality between ANY IR absorbing
 component and average temperature, as such a component
affects Earth-soace radiation balance.

That "proof" only says that signs of total differential  and
 partial derivative need not to agree.

When your salary increase, it does not mean your savings
 accumulation rate increase as well. It may as well decrease for
 some periods.

> 
>> The 0.01 % increase if CO2 makes about 1.5 Deg C difference of
>>   global average temperature difference.
> 
> Can you or any organism tell the difference between 1 degree?

Of course they can.
Subtropical species spread to regions not seen there before,
the same for spreading species toward higher altitudes.

> Will one degree end the planet?

For some species, it will not matter anymore.

 How much temperatrue difference between 
> deserts and poles? Total temperature increase 1889-now less than one 
> degree.

Irrelevant parameter.
> 
> 
>> 0.01% CO2 is equivalent of cca 20 tons of carbon per a person, cca
>>   130 kg per person And year during 150 years. Let consider lower
>>   AVG people count during the era, so let say 365 kg per person and
>>   year, 1 kg per person and day.
> 
> Which is what part of the CO2 cycle?

Reformulated the question for better sense. I just pointed out 4%
 of human contribution is unjustified.
> 
>> Just by breathing, people population
>> contribution is comparable to total CO2 increase,  not counting
>>   burning fossil fuels and forests, which is much more.
> 
> So your theory is that all of the INCREASE in CO2 levels is due entirely 

Since when are simple calculations a theory ?

> and only because of man/animal/fuel generated CO2.

You imply this, not me, nothing like that was said. 

 Got any peer reviewed 
> papers that support that theory? We are not discussing journalist 
> non-science here.

Since when are simple calculations a theory ? Learn more about
 scientific theories and stop writing until you do.


-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710719

On 11/1/2018 2:33 AM, Libor Striz wrote:
> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> On 11/1/2018 1:32 AM, Libor Striz wrote:
>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>>> On 10/31/2018 1:22 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>>> In response to sergio's comments and my own goal of trying to
>>>>> talk about physics in this group, I am starting this thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> So the goal is to investigate the limits of climate models.
>>>>>
>>>>> This link has some references maybe for a start
>>>>> https://globalchange.mit.edu/publications/peer-reviewed
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll have to read them from teh library (I do not have
>>>>> subscription or school access to any journals.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Or if you find peer reviewed articles that can be shared
>>>>> please post a link in this thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please NO news sources, we are looking for scientific
>>>>> publications.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lets see who is serious about this.
>>>>>       Ed
>>>>
>>>> Sure Ed, how about this one:
>>>>
>>>> http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Lessee. This shows CO2 is a MINOR greenhouse gas with other gasses being
>>>> of even less effect. Estimate is that CO2 is really only 15-20% of the
>>>> greenhouse effect. Water vapor/clouds are major contributor. Please not
>>>> that the Human generated CO2 is a minor portion of that already minor
>>>> fraction something like 4% of the 15%. This makes the "anthropogenic"
>>>> part of global warming something with some serious proof of the theory
>>>> needed.
>>>>
>>> 20 % is still major component.
>>> 1% would be minor.
>>
>> And you just made up this dividing line yourself, right?
>> more then 50% is major, 15-20% is minor. Water Vapor is major. Co2 is
>> minor.
> 
> Wrong. Major components are  component with significant
>   contribution, it does not limit itself  to  the components with
>   the biggest contribution.
> 
>>
>>
>>> This 20% makes about 6 deg C
>>>   From the total cca 30 deg C of GH effect.
>>
>> And the 30 degrees is imaginary I take it. There is no demonstrated
>> causaltiy between CO2 and average temperature. Proof. Temperature
>> anamoaly 1940-1970 when CO2 went up and climate went DOWN.
> 
> No, it can be easily calculated for Earth radiation balance not
>   considering GH effect.
> 
> There is direct physical causality between ANY IR absorbing
>   component and average temperature, as such a component
> affects Earth-soace radiation balance.
> 
> That "proof" only says that signs of total differential  and
>   partial derivative need not to agree.
> 
> When your salary increase, it does not mean your savings
>   accumulation rate increase as well. It may as well decrease for
>   some periods.
> 
>>
>>> The 0.01 % increase if CO2 makes about 1.5 Deg C difference of
>>>    global average temperature difference.
>>
>> Can you or any organism tell the difference between 1 degree?
> 
> Of course they can.
> Subtropical species spread to regions not seen there before,
> the same for spreading species toward higher altitudes.
> 
>> Will one degree end the planet?
> 
> For some species, it will not matter anymore.
> 
>   How much temperatrue difference between
>> deserts and poles? Total temperature increase 1889-now less than one
>> degree.
> 
> Irrelevant parameter.
>>
>>
>>> 0.01% CO2 is equivalent of cca 20 tons of carbon per a person, cca
>>>    130 kg per person And year during 150 years. Let consider lower
>>>    AVG people count during the era, so let say 365 kg per person and
>>>    year, 1 kg per person and day.
>>
>> Which is what part of the CO2 cycle?
> 
> Reformulated the question for better sense. I just pointed out 4%
>   of human contribution is unjustified.
>>
>>> Just by breathing, people population
>>> contribution is comparable to total CO2 increase,  not counting
>>>    burning fossil fuels and forests, which is much more.
>>
>> So your theory is that all of the INCREASE in CO2 levels is due entirely
> 
> Since when are simple calculations a theory ?
> 
>> and only because of man/animal/fuel generated CO2.
> 
> You imply this, not me, nothing like that was said.
> 
>   Got any peer reviewed
>> papers that support that theory? We are not discussing journalist
>> non-science here.
> 
> Since when are simple calculations a theory ? Learn more about
>   scientific theories and stop writing until you do.

obviously you are not about to adhere to Ed's original premise of a 
science discussion and are here only to repeat your propaganda.
'
Plonk.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710733

benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
obviously you are not about to adhere to Ed's original premise of
 a science discussion and are here only to repeat your
 propaganda.'Plonk.

Aritmetics is not propaganda.

As your provided source is just a draft, it may be considered just
 as your propaganda.

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710837

Come on boys, behave.

This is going to take weeks or months.
Suggestion: please respond at most once per day.

Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#712720

On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 13:22:46 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote:

>
>Come on boys, behave.
>
>This is going to take weeks or months.

How many threads with civil discussions go on for months?

>Suggestion: please respond at most once per day.

No one has violated that for more than a week.

But to consolidate to at most once per day:

As I said before:

On Fri, 02 Nov 2018 08:31:17 -0400, Wally W. wrote:
>You might have picked a better subject in a spearhead attempt to get
>momentum for your "goal of trying to talk about physics in this group"

If one wants to talk about climate change, they might try here:
alt.global-warming


On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 13:07:07 -0800 (PST), Edward Prochak wrote:
>On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 2:45:14 PM UTC-5, benj wrote:
>> Typical Lefty change of subject to deflect debate into backwaters.
>
>I am trying to discuss, not debate. Please calm down.

It was calm for more than a week.


On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 13:00:15 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote:
>> > Lets see who is serious about this.
Apparently not kensi. She never showed up.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#712910

On Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 12:28:19 AM UTC-5, Wally W. wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 13:22:46 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote:
> 
> >
> >Come on boys, behave.
> >
> >This is going to take weeks or months.
> 
> How many threads with civil discussions go on for months?
> 
> >Suggestion: please respond at most once per day.
> 
> No one has violated that for more than a week.
> 
> But to consolidate to at most once per day:
> 
> As I said before:
> 
> On Fri, 02 Nov 2018 08:31:17 -0400, Wally W. wrote:
> >You might have picked a better subject in a spearhead attempt to get
> >momentum for your "goal of trying to talk about physics in this group"
> 
> If one wants to talk about climate change, they might try here:
> alt.global-warming
> 
> 
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 13:07:07 -0800 (PST), Edward Prochak wrote:
> >On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 2:45:14 PM UTC-5, benj wrote:
> >> Typical Lefty change of subject to deflect debate into backwaters.
> >
> >I am trying to discuss, not debate. Please calm down.
> 
> It was calm for more than a week.
> 
> 
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 13:00:15 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote:
> >> > Lets see who is serious about this.
> Apparently not kensi. She never showed up.

thanks for your comments Wally. I've been VERY busy so I am quickly
falling behind here, but I look forward to any information on this
topic you might provide.

Enjoy,
  Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710764

On 11/1/2018 1:33 AM, Libor Striz wrote:
> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> On 11/1/2018 1:32 AM, Libor Striz wrote:
>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>>> On 10/31/2018 1:22 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>>> In response to sergio's comments and my own goal of trying to
>>>>> talk about physics in this group, I am starting this thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> So the goal is to investigate the limits of climate models.
>>>>>
>>>>> This link has some references maybe for a start
>>>>> https://globalchange.mit.edu/publications/peer-reviewed
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll have to read them from teh library (I do not have
>>>>> subscription or school access to any journals.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Or if you find peer reviewed articles that can be shared
>>>>> please post a link in this thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please NO news sources, we are looking for scientific
>>>>> publications.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lets see who is serious about this.
>>>>>      Ed
>>>>
>>>> Sure Ed, how about this one:
>>>>
>>>> http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Lessee. This shows CO2 is a MINOR greenhouse gas with other gasses being
>>>> of even less effect. Estimate is that CO2 is really only 15-20% of the
>>>> greenhouse effect. Water vapor/clouds are major contributor. Please not
>>>> that the Human generated CO2 is a minor portion of that already minor
>>>> fraction something like 4% of the 15%. This makes the "anthropogenic"
>>>> part of global warming something with some serious proof of the theory
>>>> needed.
>>>>
>>> 20 % is still major component.
>>> 1% would be minor.
>>
>> And you just made up this dividing line yourself, right?
>> more then 50% is major, 15-20% is minor. Water Vapor is major. Co2 is 
>> minor.
> 
> Wrong. Major components are  component with significant
>  contribution, it does not limit itself  to  the components with
>  the biggest contribution.

the effect of water vapor is both more significant and bigger than CO2,
this is well known, and Man cannot do anything about it.

google " atmospheric absorption bands "or " atmospheric transmission "

this shows the absorption bands
http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/t0355e/T0355E04.gif

this shows the complex process graphiclly;
http://www.everythingweather.com/atmospheric-radiation/absorbreflect.gif

> 
>>
>>
>>> This 20% makes about 6 deg C
>>>  From the total cca 30 deg C of GH effect.
>>
>> And the 30 degrees is imaginary I take it. There is no demonstrated 
>> causaltiy between CO2 and average temperature. Proof. Temperature 
>> anamoaly 1940-1970 when CO2 went up and climate went DOWN.
> 
> No, it can be easily calculated for Earth radiation balance not
>  considering GH effect.

not "easily", how atmospheric gas that absorbes and reradiates is not
that well understood, in 3 dimentional layered space, there are much
research going on that now.

Also the graphs of CO2 concentration vs temperature rise do not directly
corrolate as Al Gore showed in his movie.

> 
> There is direct physical causality between ANY IR absorbing
>  component and average temperature, as such a component
> affects Earth-soace radiation balance.

in simplified models, in simplified cases.
 But realize that Light from the sun is partially converted into IR by
the ground, which re radiates back into the sky,
an IR absorbing gas re radiates in all directions, and the overall
effect depends upon its effective thickness, like thickness of insulation.

CO2 is 0.041%

atmospheric pressure is equivlent to about 30' of water, so the layer of
CO2 is about 0.15 inches thick.

> 
> That "proof" only says that signs of total differential  and
>  partial derivative need not to agree.



> 
> When your salary increase, it does not mean your savings
>  accumulation rate increase as well. It may as well decrease for
>  some periods.
> 
>>
>>> The 0.01 % increase if CO2 makes about 1.5 Deg C difference of
>>>   global average temperature difference.
>>
>> Can you or any organism tell the difference between 1 degree?
> 
> Of course they can.
> Subtropical species spread to regions not seen there before,
> the same for spreading species toward higher altitudes.

wrong, you skipped daily temperature excrsions, which is at least 5 C
near oceans, and up to 30 C DAILY everywhere else.

> 
>> Will one degree end the planet?
> 
> For some species, it will not matter anymore.

it dosent matter at all for all species, when you realize what these
species withstand over a day, and over a year, NOT some meaningless
glowbal average.

> 
>  How much temperatrue difference between 
>> deserts and poles? Total temperature increase 1889-now less than one 
>> degree.
> 
> Irrelevant parameter.

it is relevant, it shows the mistake in relying upon averaging daily and
yearly averages which the glowbal modles do....

>>
>>
>>> 0.01% CO2 is equivalent of cca 20 tons of carbon per a person, cca
>>>   130 kg per person And year during 150 years. Let consider lower
>>>   AVG people count during the era, so let say 365 kg per person and
>>>   year, 1 kg per person and day.
>>
>> Which is what part of the CO2 cycle?
> 
> Reformulated the question for better sense. I just pointed out 4%
>  of human contribution is unjustified.
>>
>>> Just by breathing, people population
>>> contribution is comparable to total CO2 increase,  not counting
>>>   burning fossil fuels and forests, which is much more.
>>
>> So your theory is that all of the INCREASE in CO2 levels is due entirely 
> 
> Since when are simple calculations a theory ?
> 
>> and only because of man/animal/fuel generated CO2.
> 
> You imply this, not me, nothing like that was said. 
> 
>  Got any peer reviewed 
>> papers that support that theory? We are not discussing journalist 
>> non-science here.
> 
> Since when are simple calculations a theory ? Learn more about
>  scientific theories and stop writing until you do.

he's asking for a URL

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710835

On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 6:32:22 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
> On 10/31/2018 1:22 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > In response to sergio's comments and my own goal of trying to
> > talk about physics in this group, I am starting this thread.
> > 
> > So the goal is to investigate the limits of climate models.
> > 
> > This link has some references maybe for a start
> > https://globalchange.mit.edu/publications/peer-reviewed
> > 
> > I'll have to read them from teh library (I do not have
> > subscription or school access to any journals.)
> > 
> > Or if you find peer reviewed articles that can be shared
> > please post a link in this thread.
> > 
> > Please NO news sources, we are looking for scientific
> > publications.
> > 
> > Lets see who is serious about this.
> >     Ed
> 
> Sure Ed, how about this one:
> 
> http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf
> 
> Lessee. This shows CO2 is a MINOR greenhouse gas with other gasses being 
> of even less effect. Estimate is that CO2 is really only 15-20% of the 
> greenhouse effect. Water vapor/clouds are major contributor. Please not 
> that the Human generated CO2 is a minor portion of that already minor 
> fraction something like 4% of the 15%. This makes the "anthropogenic" 
> part of global warming something with some serious proof of the theory 
> needed.

Let me know when it is peer reviewed and published.

> 
> Aside: Let me also note as an aside that given the sell-out of many 
> executives of science trade organizations which includes a capture of 
> many publishing executives who control what gets in major journals. This 
> means that any contrary data is relegated to minor secondary journals 
> where it can be easily dismissed as irrelevant based upon where it is 
> published rather than if the data presented is actually true. Cute.

You moved into Uncertainty. Good for you.
I don't buy your conspiracy theory, but I will still read it.

> 
> As a Nobel prize winner asserted that he was told if the continued 
> talking about climate truth, he'd never publish anything in Nature 
> again! He replied Nature doesn't publish his stuff anyway.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM

Which author on that paper was the Nobel winner?

Nature isn't the only journal. And it appears that paper was submitted
to JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH and is dated 2010. So you may have
your authors mixed up. I cannot tell since you provide no names.

I'll watch the video when I can.

But thanks for your contribution.
  Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710950

On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 6:32:22 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
[]
> 
> As a Nobel prize winner asserted that he was told if the continued 
> talking about climate truth, he'd never publish anything in Nature 
> again! He replied Nature doesn't publish his stuff anyway.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM

He is making some interesting points. But there are some inconsistencies
in his arguments. I'll make a few comments on each point, but I'll reserve
conclusions for the end.

1 He begins with the claim that measuring global temperature
  is "difficult".
true statement.

2 Global warming is not happening, that the temperature is
  "amazingly stable" (0.3%change).
Plausible argument.

3 That CO2 causes the rise shown in the hockey stick graph
  is the Emperor's new clothes.
claimed without support.

4 Population growth and related deforestation and paving
  may be the cause.
Plausible statement.

5 that the APS is making a religious statement when it says
  evidence is "incontrovertible" that global warming is happening.
he goes off on a religious tangent.

6 That APS is wrong to say disruptions may happen with consequences in many
  areas (specific example human health), because "everything is better".
Everything is not better world wide.

7 Year to year comparisons by Oxfam "trying to convince people"
valid point.

This is just about one third of the way through this video.
I'll try to cover more tomorrow. But here are my deeper comments so far:


Point 1 is about the difficulty of measuring global average temperature,
but just because it is hard does not make it impossible. It is true but
not really relevant.

In point 2 he claims that global warming is not happening, but then
in points 3 & 4 his claims alternate causes. Anything can be the cause
of something not happening. He cannot have both no change and change.

On point 5 his argument is a counterexample that the APS does not claim
that the mass of the proton is incontrovertible. That is true, the mass
can be measured more precisely. However, I would expect that the APS
would agree that it is incontrovertible that the mass of the hydrogen
atom is dominated by the mass of the proton (as an example). Or that
it is incontrovertible that massive objects attract. (IOW, that
gravity is "incontrovertible". So his argument is only about the
language used, that it is a religious statement. He follows that
with a claim that the Catholic Church says the earth is not round.
That is totally false and has been false for hundreds of years.
 
In point 6 he claims "everything is better", but this is a conclusion
reached from a sheltered society. Counterexample is farming is not
better in many Equatorial African countries. Droughts have increased
in frequency and severity over that same 150 year period.

A review of droughts on the African continent:
a geospatial and long-term perspective
I. Masih, S. Maskey, F. E. F. Mussá, and P. Trambauer

https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/3635/2014/hess-18-3635-2014.pdf
"A number of inferences are drawn from the analysis of
the available data and scientific evidence reviewed in this paper
(Tables 2 and 3). The frequency, intensity and geospatial
coverage of droughts have significantly increased across
the entire African continent during the second half of the
1900–2013 period."

Point 7 is valid but not relevant. Oxfam is not a scientific organization.
Most people know how to sort advertising hype from regular news. But it
is a valid point when news organizations begin to exaggerate. This has
happened on both sides of the issue. So lets call it a wash.


I have to admit, he is convinced of something, but I don't know what yet.
He says it isn't happening, but offers alternative causes.

I'm open but still concerned.
  Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#711162

On 11/1/2018 6:02 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 6:32:22 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
> []
>>
>> As a Nobel prize winner asserted that he was told if the continued 
>> talking about climate truth, he'd never publish anything in Nature 
>> again! He replied Nature doesn't publish his stuff anyway.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM
> 
> He is making some interesting points. But there are some inconsistencies
> in his arguments. I'll make a few comments on each point, but I'll reserve
> conclusions for the end.
> 
> 1 He begins with the claim that measuring global temperature
>   is "difficult".
> true statement.
> 
> 2 Global warming is not happening, that the temperature is
>   "amazingly stable" (0.3%change).
> Plausible argument.
> 
> 3 That CO2 causes the rise shown in the hockey stick graph
>   is the Emperor's new clothes.
> claimed without support.
> 
> 4 Population growth and related deforestation and paving
>   may be the cause.
> Plausible statement.
> 
> 5 that the APS is making a religious statement when it says
>   evidence is "incontrovertible" that global warming is happening.
> he goes off on a religious tangent.
> 
> 6 That APS is wrong to say disruptions may happen with consequences in many
>   areas (specific example human health), because "everything is better".
> Everything is not better world wide.
> 
> 7 Year to year comparisons by Oxfam "trying to convince people"
> valid point.
> 
> This is just about one third of the way through this video.
> I'll try to cover more tomorrow. But here are my deeper comments so far:
> 
> 
> Point 1 is about the difficulty of measuring global average temperature,
> but just because it is hard does not make it impossible. It is true but
> not really relevant.

well if that is the number that is increasing, it is called global warming.

GAT it is very hard, and depending upon what absolute accuracy is needed
it can be impossible.  One can always come up with a number, but what
are the error bands are on it ?

So what is measured ? Temperature of what ?  Sattilites measure surface
temperature (when visable) using bands in IR which changes with  visable
sun light and makeup of area  and thermometers measure air temperature
about near the surface, out of sunlight loading and wind.

The sunlit ground can easily be 110 F, with the air temperature at 80 F

in 2014 they started calibrating project;

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Taking_Earth_s_temperature

"Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in
various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to
obtain indirect inferences of temperature.[1][2] The resulting
temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to
obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that
have analyzed the satellite data have produced differing temperature
datasets. Among these are the UAH dataset prepared at the University of
Alabama in Huntsville and the RSS dataset prepared by Remote Sensing
Systems.

The satellite time series is not homogeneous. It is constructed from a
series of satellites with similar but not identical sensors. The sensors
also deteriorate over time, and corrections are necessary for orbital
drift and decay.[3][4] Particularly large differences between
reconstructed temperature series occur at the few times when there is
little temporal overlap between successive satellites, making
intercalibration difficult"

 [wiki National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Earth Studies
(2000). "Atmospheric Soundings". Issues in the Integration of Research
and Operational Satellite Systems for Climate Research: Part I. Science
and Design. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. pp. 17–24. ISBN
0-309-51527-0.
Uddstrom, Michael J. (1988). "Retrieval of Atmospheric Profiles from
Satellite Radiance Data by Typical Shape Function Maximum a Posteriori
Simultaneous Retrieval Estimators". Journal of Applied Meteorology. 27
(5): 515–49. Bibcode:1988JApMe..27..515U.
doi:10.1175/1520-0450(1988)027<0515:ROAPFS>2.0.CO;2.]

 [got to get back to work....]
...................
> 
> In point 2 he claims that global warming is not happening, but then
> in points 3 & 4 his claims alternate causes. Anything can be the cause
> of something not happening. He cannot have both no change and change.
> 
> On point 5 his argument is a counterexample that the APS does not claim
> that the mass of the proton is incontrovertible. That is true, the mass
> can be measured more precisely. However, I would expect that the APS
> would agree that it is incontrovertible that the mass of the hydrogen
> atom is dominated by the mass of the proton (as an example). Or that
> it is incontrovertible that massive objects attract. (IOW, that
> gravity is "incontrovertible". So his argument is only about the
> language used, that it is a religious statement. He follows that
> with a claim that the Catholic Church says the earth is not round.
> That is totally false and has been false for hundreds of years.
>  
> In point 6 he claims "everything is better", but this is a conclusion
> reached from a sheltered society. Counterexample is farming is not
> better in many Equatorial African countries. Droughts have increased
> in frequency and severity over that same 150 year period.
> 
> A review of droughts on the African continent:
> a geospatial and long-term perspective
> I. Masih, S. Maskey, F. E. F. Mussá, and P. Trambauer
> 
> https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/3635/2014/hess-18-3635-2014.pdf
> "A number of inferences are drawn from the analysis of
> the available data and scientific evidence reviewed in this paper
> (Tables 2 and 3). The frequency, intensity and geospatial
> coverage of droughts have significantly increased across
> the entire African continent during the second half of the
> 1900–2013 period."
> 
> Point 7 is valid but not relevant. Oxfam is not a scientific organization.
> Most people know how to sort advertising hype from regular news. But it
> is a valid point when news organizations begin to exaggerate. This has
> happened on both sides of the issue. So lets call it a wash.
> 
> 
> I have to admit, he is convinced of something, but I don't know what yet.
> He says it isn't happening, but offers alternative causes.
> 
> I'm open but still concerned.
>   Ed
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#711514

On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 4:02:08 PM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 6:32:22 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
> []
> > 
> > As a Nobel prize winner asserted that he was told if the continued 
> > talking about climate truth, he'd never publish anything in Nature 
> > again! He replied Nature doesn't publish his stuff anyway.
> > 
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM
> 
> He is making some interesting points. But there are some inconsistencies
> in his arguments. I'll make a few comments on each point, but I'll reserve
> conclusions for the end.
> 
> 1 He begins with the claim that measuring global temperature
>   is "difficult".
> true statement.
> 
> 2 Global warming is not happening, that the temperature is
>   "amazingly stable" (0.3%change).
> Plausible argument.
> 
> 3 That CO2 causes the rise shown in the hockey stick graph
>   is the Emperor's new clothes.
> claimed without support.
> 
> 4 Population growth and related deforestation and paving
>   may be the cause.
> Plausible statement.
> 
> 5 that the APS is making a religious statement when it says
>   evidence is "incontrovertible" that global warming is happening.
> he goes off on a religious tangent.
> 
> 6 That APS is wrong to say disruptions may happen with consequences in many
>   areas (specific example human health), because "everything is better".
> Everything is not better world wide.
> 
> 7 Year to year comparisons by Oxfam "trying to convince people"
> valid point.
> 
> This is just about one third of the way through this video.
> I'll try to cover more tomorrow. But here are my deeper comments so far:
> 
> 
> Point 1 is about the difficulty of measuring global average temperature,
> but just because it is hard does not make it impossible. It is true but
> not really relevant.
> 
> In point 2 he claims that global warming is not happening, but then
> in points 3 & 4 his claims alternate causes. Anything can be the cause
> of something not happening. He cannot have both no change and change.
> 
> On point 5 his argument is a counterexample that the APS does not claim
> that the mass of the proton is incontrovertible. That is true, the mass
> can be measured more precisely. However, I would expect that the APS
> would agree that it is incontrovertible that the mass of the hydrogen
> atom is dominated by the mass of the proton (as an example). Or that
> it is incontrovertible that massive objects attract. (IOW, that
> gravity is "incontrovertible". So his argument is only about the
> language used, that it is a religious statement. He follows that
> with a claim that the Catholic Church says the earth is not round.
> That is totally false and has been false for hundreds of years.
>  
> In point 6 he claims "everything is better", but this is a conclusion
> reached from a sheltered society. Counterexample is farming is not
> better in many Equatorial African countries. Droughts have increased
> in frequency and severity over that same 150 year period.
> 
> A review of droughts on the African continent:
> a geospatial and long-term perspective
> I. Masih, S. Maskey, F. E. F. Mussá, and P. Trambauer
> 
> https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/3635/2014/hess-18-3635-2014.pdf
> "A number of inferences are drawn from the analysis of
> the available data and scientific evidence reviewed in this paper
> (Tables 2 and 3). The frequency, intensity and geospatial
> coverage of droughts have significantly increased across
> the entire African continent during the second half of the
> 1900–2013 period."
> 
> Point 7 is valid but not relevant. Oxfam is not a scientific organization.
> Most people know how to sort advertising hype from regular news. But it
> is a valid point when news organizations begin to exaggerate. This has
> happened on both sides of the issue. So lets call it a wash.
> 
> 
> I have to admit, he is convinced of something, but I don't know what yet.
> He says it isn't happening, but offers alternative causes.
> 
> I'm open but still concerned.
>   Ed

Ed, with this post you demonstrate that you are really out of your element in any kind of scientific discussion.  Prof Giaever is not presenting a refutation of the AGW premise. He's trying to demonstrate to the public how a real scientist examines a premise. He is just pointing out that the AGW proponents haven't even come close to meeting the burden of proof. 

In a nutshell, real science involve reproducible experimental evidence. Global warming is about distracting the publics attention from the fact that there is zero reproducible experimental evidence linking CO2 or any other human factor to this imaginary warming.  

Stick with engineering.  You are a church lady.  You believe.  Scientist only allow themselves to believe when the burden of proof is met.

International non-Skeptics Society
goo.gl/8Lr7ax

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#711641

On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 3:56:29 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 4:02:08 PM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 6:32:22 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
> > []
> > > 
> > > As a Nobel prize winner asserted that he was told if the continued 
> > > talking about climate truth, he'd never publish anything in Nature 
> > > again! He replied Nature doesn't publish his stuff anyway.
> > > 
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM
> > 
> > He is making some interesting points. But there are some inconsistencies
> > in his arguments. I'll make a few comments on each point, but I'll reserve
> > conclusions for the end.
> > 
> > 1 He begins with the claim that measuring global temperature
> >   is "difficult".
> > true statement.
> > 
> > 2 Global warming is not happening, that the temperature is
> >   "amazingly stable" (0.3%change).
> > Plausible argument.
> > 
> > 3 That CO2 causes the rise shown in the hockey stick graph
> >   is the Emperor's new clothes.
> > claimed without support.
> > 
> > 4 Population growth and related deforestation and paving
> >   may be the cause.
> > Plausible statement.
> > 
> > 5 that the APS is making a religious statement when it says
> >   evidence is "incontrovertible" that global warming is happening.
> > he goes off on a religious tangent.
> > 
> > 6 That APS is wrong to say disruptions may happen with consequences in many
> >   areas (specific example human health), because "everything is better".
> > Everything is not better world wide.
> > 
> > 7 Year to year comparisons by Oxfam "trying to convince people"
> > valid point.
> > 
> > This is just about one third of the way through this video.
> > I'll try to cover more tomorrow. But here are my deeper comments so far:
> > 
> > 
> > Point 1 is about the difficulty of measuring global average temperature,
> > but just because it is hard does not make it impossible. It is true but
> > not really relevant.
> > 
> > In point 2 he claims that global warming is not happening, but then
> > in points 3 & 4 his claims alternate causes. Anything can be the cause
> > of something not happening. He cannot have both no change and change.
> > 
> > On point 5 his argument is a counterexample that the APS does not claim
> > that the mass of the proton is incontrovertible. That is true, the mass
> > can be measured more precisely. However, I would expect that the APS
> > would agree that it is incontrovertible that the mass of the hydrogen
> > atom is dominated by the mass of the proton (as an example). Or that
> > it is incontrovertible that massive objects attract. (IOW, that
> > gravity is "incontrovertible". So his argument is only about the
> > language used, that it is a religious statement. He follows that
> > with a claim that the Catholic Church says the earth is not round.
> > That is totally false and has been false for hundreds of years.
> >  
> > In point 6 he claims "everything is better", but this is a conclusion
> > reached from a sheltered society. Counterexample is farming is not
> > better in many Equatorial African countries. Droughts have increased
> > in frequency and severity over that same 150 year period.
> > 
> > A review of droughts on the African continent:
> > a geospatial and long-term perspective
> > I. Masih, S. Maskey, F. E. F. Mussá, and P. Trambauer
> > 
> > https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/3635/2014/hess-18-3635-2014.pdf
> > "A number of inferences are drawn from the analysis of
> > the available data and scientific evidence reviewed in this paper
> > (Tables 2 and 3). The frequency, intensity and geospatial
> > coverage of droughts have significantly increased across
> > the entire African continent during the second half of the
> > 1900–2013 period."
> > 
> > Point 7 is valid but not relevant. Oxfam is not a scientific organization.
> > Most people know how to sort advertising hype from regular news. But it
> > is a valid point when news organizations begin to exaggerate. This has
> > happened on both sides of the issue. So lets call it a wash.
> > 
> > 
> > I have to admit, he is convinced of something, but I don't know what yet.
> > He says it isn't happening, but offers alternative causes.
> > 
> > I'm open but still concerned.
> >   Ed
> 
James, please learn to wrap your text properly. Google (which I use also)
does not automatically wrap text. You need to include returns for the end
of each line

> Ed, with this post you demonstrate that you are really out of your element in any kind of scientific discussion.

Please leave the personal comments out of this discussion.

>  Prof Giaever is not presenting a refutation of the AGW premise. He's trying to demonstrate to the public how a real scientist examines a premise. He is just pointing out that the AGW proponents haven't even come close to meeting the burden of proof. 


that's possible. As I said, I have not even viewed the entire video.

> 
> In a nutshell, real science involve reproducible experimental evidence. Global warming is about distracting the publics attention from the fact that there is zero reproducible experimental evidence linking CO2 or any other human factor to this imaginary warming. 

Please note: my focus for this thread is basically,
Do the global warming models provide reasonably reliable predictions?
What do we do about it?

> 
> Stick with engineering.  You are a church lady.  You believe.  Scientist only allow themselves to believe when the burden of proof is met.

Again, leave the politics and personal comments out of this thread,
please.

> 
> International non-Skeptics Society
> goo.gl/[off topic link deleted]
> 
> James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

have a good day.
  Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#711659

On 11/5/2018 10:39 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 3:56:29 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 4:02:08 PM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 6:32:22 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
>>> []
>>>>
>>>> As a Nobel prize winner asserted that he was told if the continued 
>>>> talking about climate truth, he'd never publish anything in Nature 
>>>> again! He replied Nature doesn't publish his stuff anyway.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM
>>>
>>> He is making some interesting points. But there are some inconsistencies
>>> in his arguments. I'll make a few comments on each point, but I'll reserve
>>> conclusions for the end.
>>>
>>> 1 He begins with the claim that measuring global temperature
>>>   is "difficult".
>>> true statement.
>>>
>>> 2 Global warming is not happening, that the temperature is
>>>   "amazingly stable" (0.3%change).
>>> Plausible argument.
>>>
>>> 3 That CO2 causes the rise shown in the hockey stick graph
>>>   is the Emperor's new clothes.
>>> claimed without support.
>>>
>>> 4 Population growth and related deforestation and paving
>>>   may be the cause.
>>> Plausible statement.
>>>
>>> 5 that the APS is making a religious statement when it says
>>>   evidence is "incontrovertible" that global warming is happening.
>>> he goes off on a religious tangent.
>>>
>>> 6 That APS is wrong to say disruptions may happen with consequences in many
>>>   areas (specific example human health), because "everything is better".
>>> Everything is not better world wide.
>>>
>>> 7 Year to year comparisons by Oxfam "trying to convince people"
>>> valid point.
>>>
>>> This is just about one third of the way through this video.
>>> I'll try to cover more tomorrow. But here are my deeper comments so far:
>>>
>>>
>>> Point 1 is about the difficulty of measuring global average temperature,
>>> but just because it is hard does not make it impossible. It is true but
>>> not really relevant.
>>>
>>> In point 2 he claims that global warming is not happening, but then
>>> in points 3 & 4 his claims alternate causes. Anything can be the cause
>>> of something not happening. He cannot have both no change and change.
>>>
>>> On point 5 his argument is a counterexample that the APS does not claim
>>> that the mass of the proton is incontrovertible. That is true, the mass
>>> can be measured more precisely. However, I would expect that the APS
>>> would agree that it is incontrovertible that the mass of the hydrogen
>>> atom is dominated by the mass of the proton (as an example). Or that
>>> it is incontrovertible that massive objects attract. (IOW, that
>>> gravity is "incontrovertible". So his argument is only about the
>>> language used, that it is a religious statement. He follows that
>>> with a claim that the Catholic Church says the earth is not round.
>>> That is totally false and has been false for hundreds of years.
>>>  
>>> In point 6 he claims "everything is better", but this is a conclusion
>>> reached from a sheltered society. Counterexample is farming is not
>>> better in many Equatorial African countries. Droughts have increased
>>> in frequency and severity over that same 150 year period.
>>>
>>> A review of droughts on the African continent:
>>> a geospatial and long-term perspective
>>> I. Masih, S. Maskey, F. E. F. Mussá, and P. Trambauer
>>>
>>> https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/3635/2014/hess-18-3635-2014.pdf
>>> "A number of inferences are drawn from the analysis of
>>> the available data and scientific evidence reviewed in this paper
>>> (Tables 2 and 3). The frequency, intensity and geospatial
>>> coverage of droughts have significantly increased across
>>> the entire African continent during the second half of the
>>> 1900–2013 period."
>>>
>>> Point 7 is valid but not relevant. Oxfam is not a scientific organization.
>>> Most people know how to sort advertising hype from regular news. But it
>>> is a valid point when news organizations begin to exaggerate. This has
>>> happened on both sides of the issue. So lets call it a wash.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have to admit, he is convinced of something, but I don't know what yet.
>>> He says it isn't happening, but offers alternative causes.
>>>
>>> I'm open but still concerned.
>>>   Ed
>>
> James, please learn to wrap your text properly. Google (which I use also)
> does not automatically wrap text. You need to include returns for the end
> of each line
> 
>> Ed, with this post you demonstrate that you are really out of your element in any kind of scientific discussion.
> 
> Please leave the personal comments out of this discussion.
> 
>>  Prof Giaever is not presenting a refutation of the AGW premise. He's trying to demonstrate to the public how a real scientist examines a premise. He is just pointing out that the AGW proponents haven't even come close to meeting the burden of proof. 
> 
> 
> that's possible. As I said, I have not even viewed the entire video.
> 
>>
>> In a nutshell, real science involve reproducible experimental evidence. Global warming is about distracting the publics attention from the fact that there is zero reproducible experimental evidence linking CO2 or any other human factor to this imaginary warming. 
> 
> Please note: my focus for this thread is basically,
> Do the global warming models provide reasonably reliable predictions?
> What do we do about it?
> 
>>
>> Stick with engineering.  You are a church lady.  You believe.  Scientist only allow themselves to believe when the burden of proof is met.
> 
> Again, leave the politics and personal comments out of this thread,
> please.
> 
>>
>> International non-Skeptics Society
>> goo.gl/[off topic link deleted]
>>
>> James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
> 
> have a good day.
>   Ed
> 

another keeper!

McGinn: "Scientist only allow themselves to believe when the burden of
proof is met."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web