Re: Analysis of climate models

From	Sergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: Analysis of climate models
Date	2018-11-02 20:19 -0500
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<prit3f$fhg$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	<c94395fc-09b1-445a-b53c-1f3ad6412a74@googlegroups.com> <prdahg$1iab$1@gioia.aioe.org> <9d747cbd-efb3-4473-aadf-1aa1c548e46b@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

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
>

Thread

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

csiph-web