Solar and GHG effect in vertical temperature of the atmos.

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Postby chrismb » Sat Jan 16, 2010 9:28 pm

flying_eagle wrote:You boys are missing the point of this post which was to get you to consider the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere for clues of what was causing the increased warming, commonly known as Global warming and changes in the lapse rate.

Bottom line is that I am a production engineer (well, one of my 'caps') and I would really like to see some gauge R&R studies on these 'temperature' measurements. I mean, I'd like to see a study which sends out 100 scientists with thermometers who are then told to measure the "average temperature" in a defined 100km2 for a week.

Betcha the SD is more than the stated changes in global temp....

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Postby chrismb » Sat Jan 16, 2010 9:31 pm

flying_eagle wrote:You boys are missing the point of this post which was to get you to consider the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere for clues of what was causing the increased warming?

When you say 'increased warming' are you saying that the warming is increasing, or that there is warming?

It's sloppy definitions like that that "got us in this mess, Stanley".

CaptainBeowulf
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:35 am

Postby CaptainBeowulf » Sat Jan 16, 2010 9:35 pm

Eart þu se Beowulf, se þe wið Brecan wunne?


Hwæt. þu worn fela, wine min Unferð (Alex),
beore druncen ymb Brecan spræce,
sægdest from his siðe. Soð ic talige,
þæt ic merestrengo maran ahte,
earfeþo on yþum, ðonne ænig oþer man.

But unfortunately, years of sitting in front of a computer has done nothing for my physique. Dunno if I could swim for more than 10 minutes now. Dang information age! :roll:

Jccarlton
Posts: 1747
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:14 pm
Location: Southern Ct

Postby Jccarlton » Sat Jan 16, 2010 9:57 pm

flying_eagle wrote:You boys are missing the point of this post which was to get you to consider the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere for clues of what was causing the increased warming, commonly known as Global warming and changes in the lapse rate.

I prefer you use peer reviewed research papers if you are going to argue against any specific point. Your use of wattsupwiththat and Dr. Roy Spencer blogs and power and control references are not any better than me using news articles except some do tend to use published reports and research papers. So instead of giving me the digested version like news reports or people's blogs, and your person opinion about what ever, can you at least stick to science and rely on experts who dedicate themselves to their field of study? Unless you show me your PhD and your journalled and peer reviewed papers, it is a waste of time hearing opinion about science.

Consider that if you are going to speak, back it up with a published reference in science where we all have the chance to read the work and which sites other published work as part of its work.

You see you didn't want to argue the points made in the reports and papers I gave you. Instead, some just wanted to smear the work of the authors because of some tabloid trash articles about climate gate which does not invalidate the science work of thousands and thousands in all related fields of scientific study.

I will consider you smart if you have an hypothesis and you are honest with us about it and are looking for supporting evidence to validate your idea. But ranting about your knowledge or others lack thereof is not helpful. So please can we discuss the topic thread instead of what I'm reading here? It's beginning to look like a waste of time just to read these responses.

Make your point, back it up with research paper and let the next guy do the same. Then I can learn from you and you can learn from me. Deal?

That, unfortunately isn't possible, thanks to the climate cabal. We can't use peer reviewed papers, because the climate cabal suppressed them.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/05/clim ... ervention/
You are using fraudulent data created by people who knew they were committing fraud, did everything in their power to maintain the fraud and in the process essentially wrecked the science of climatology. That being the case you are, at this point only perpetuating the fraud by trying to maintain that the climate cabal and the institutions they control are still relevant in any debate concereing climate. The paper you started this thread with was garbage. GIGO. One look at the authors of the paper told me that. That and about 1000 emails, with yet more to come:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2010/ ... ontroversy
If you want to make a point, please use papers without the names of the climate cabal all over them. Using known liars does nothing for your point. All you are doing is making appeals to a discredited authority.

Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Postby Josh Cryer » Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:03 pm

flying_eagle wrote:I prefer you use peer reviewed research papers if you are going to argue against any specific point. Your use of wattsupwiththat and Dr. Roy Spencer blogs and power and control references are not any better than me using news articles except some do tend to use published reports and research papers.


Or links to obscure websites without citation and claims that data is raw when it's not.

I should start a blog... wonder if I could get paid nearly as much through viewer revenue.
Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is.

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sun Jan 17, 2010 12:25 am

flyingeagle says:

Not really does it fall down, blackbody is the heat emitted where albedo is already taken into effect as less heat is absorbed and re-radiated by the earth.


Mr. Eagle,

You will certainly agree with the modelers who say that water vapor is not well understood and the mathematics/physics of clouds is the least understood part of their models. And worse it is the least well modeled.

The modelers even admit that the sign let alone the magnitude of the total WV system is not definitely known.

If they have that wrong the whole model thing breaks down.

And then we have the case of ocean oscillations which may contribute as much as 50% to the short term (decades) signal. And guess what? Ocean oscillations are just now being included in the models despite being known since 1997. A small oversight to be sure.

Until we get the biggest term (WV) right and the ocean oscillations in the models the models are useless.

I might as well tell you I will burn your finger with a match - it happens - while delivering a stream from a fire hose to your hand.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Postby Josh Cryer » Sun Jan 17, 2010 12:51 am

MSimon wrote:The modelers even admit that the sign let alone the magnitude of the total WV system is not definitely known.


They have good confidence that it is positive.
Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is.

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sun Jan 17, 2010 1:14 am

Josh Cryer wrote:
MSimon wrote:The modelers even admit that the sign let alone the magnitude of the total WV system is not definitely known.


They have good confidence that it is positive.


If it is positive the system is unstable until it reaches a rail.

From the geological record we know the rails are about 5C and 20C. We have been at 10C (more or less) for 10,000 years and based on history are due to head for the 5C rail any time now.

I'd love to see us as the 20C rail. Because if we head for the 5C rail it is going to be hard. We can grow crops in heat. We are not so good at growing them under ice.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sun Jan 17, 2010 3:03 am

Josh Cryer wrote:
flying_eagle wrote:I prefer you use peer reviewed research papers if you are going to argue against any specific point. Your use of wattsupwiththat and Dr. Roy Spencer blogs and power and control references are not any better than me using news articles except some do tend to use published reports and research papers.


Or links to obscure websites without citation and claims that data is raw when it's not.

I should start a blog... wonder if I could get paid nearly as much through viewer revenue.


I blog (Wot? You didn't know?) And the pay is lousy. It covered Christmas gifts for the kids this year plus some computer maintenance items. And it takes a LOT of time to keep reader's interest.

If you are going to do it, do it as a reference project i.e. "I have covered that, here is the url."
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Postby Josh Cryer » Sun Jan 17, 2010 3:19 am

MSimon,

If it is positive the system is unstable until it reaches a rail.


Cite?

From the geological record we know the rails are about 5C and 20C.


Due to the tilt of the globe. Long ways off.

I'd love to see us as the 20C rail. Because if we head for the 5C rail it is going to be hard. We can grow crops in heat. We are not so good at growing them under ice.


We can grow crops as long as we have 1,000W m^2 plus or minus a few hundred watts.

It doesn't matter if it's cold or hot.

20C means massive landmass losses, though. For a few million homosapian that's no issue. For a population that won't taper off until 10 billion, where more than a quarter of which will live by the seas, well, it's something to ponder.

If you are going to do it, do it as a reference project i.e. "I have covered that, here is the url."


Yeah, basically what I was going to do. ;)

If analytics started saying "your blog is worth actual money" then I sell out!
Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is.

Jccarlton
Posts: 1747
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:14 pm
Location: Southern Ct

Postby Jccarlton » Sun Jan 17, 2010 3:38 am

Josh Cryer wrote:
MSimon wrote:The modelers even admit that the sign let alone the magnitude of the total WV system is not definitely known.


They have good confidence that it is positive.

I imagine that Dr. Hansen and his friends have very good confidence in their models doing exactly what they tell them to. That does no mean that the rest of us should have any confidence in those models. The modeling of even simple things like flow in a pipe stresses computers and requires a great deal of assumptions. You are not able to model all the variables thoroughly. You have to live with approximations and averages of things like turbulence. That's why we engineers use factors of safety in our designs and test them before letting them loose. There is also the fact that engineers are interested in resultants and not the exact conditions at any point.
Attempting to model the atmosphere is subject to so many things that cannot be accurately measured and so many things that are not known that those models at best are crude approximations. Anybody who has confidence in a crude approximation is kidding themselves. There just is not the ability to use computer models to make long term predictions. computer models are limited to linear equations and cannot handle chaotic mathematics. The randomness of chaos makes detailed prediction impossible with computer models. Unless the initial conditions are changed the linear computer model will always give the same result. But the real world doesn't work that way.
Doing the the things the climate cabal is doing with their models is nothing less than fraud and deceit. I once saw one of Dr. Hansen's papers where it was obvious that CO2 was related to temperature in such a way that if you knew what you were looking at you could see that the hockey stick was inevitable. In fact the way the model was set up a runaway temperature -CO2 positive feedback loop was inevitable. This was either the most stupid undergrad beginner's mistake or deliberate deceit.

Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Postby Josh Cryer » Sun Jan 17, 2010 3:48 am

Jccarlton,

Attempting to model the atmosphere is subject to so many things that cannot be accurately measured and so many things that are not known that those models at best are crude approximations.


Meet CLARREO.
Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is.

CherryPick
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:39 pm
Location: Finland

Postby CherryPick » Sun Jan 17, 2010 4:30 am

Josh Cryer wrote:Jccarlton,

Attempting to model the atmosphere is subject to so many things that cannot be accurately measured and so many things that are not known that those models at best are crude approximations.


Meet CLARREO.


Image.

This looks were much of a Hockey Stick and as far as Obama is printing more dollars, it will go up. So probably modelers could use this to forecast the (political) climate in 2100 :D
--------------------------------------------------------
CherryPick
Ph.D.
Computer Science, Physics, Applied Mathematics

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:44 am

Re: instability in positive feedback systems.

A study of comparators as used in electronic systems is in order.

As to rails. They seem well illustrated in this graph. Obviously my previous numbers were wrong although the concept was correct.

Image

Another good thing to study in this respect is subcritical multiplication in nuclear reactors and how delayed neutrons keep everything stable until you get into the prompt critical region. Now the climate boys claim "heat in the pipeline" (i.e. heat stored somewhere) keeps the system stable (i.e. acts like delayed neutrons in a reactor with a positive multiplication factor less than 1.0075.

So where is the heat in the pipeline? Climate scientists are still looking for it. If there is no delayed heat and the multiplication factor is above 1 the system is prompt unstable. Which is kina a bad thing. But it would have been noticed.

Control theory. Of which I know one or two things.

In any case stability at multiplication factors greatly over 1 is going to need a lot of explaining. And any multiplication of the 1C expected rise from CO2 doubling (gain = 1) of less than 2 (an additional 1C) is considered not too much of a problem. At least that is what the politicians at Copenhagen said.

And if the multiplication factor is .5 as some think? Very much no problem.

But I'm willing to wait for more data.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:52 am

Josh,

18,000 years ago the Midwest was under ice to about 100 miles south of Chicago.

Do you have a cite (heh) for a paper dealing with the optimum crops that can be grown under ice?

A special strain of wheat perhaps. Or barley.

It is not just temperatures or a two month growing season.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest