 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Astro - Amateur Forum » Good news on the weather front... |
|
Page 6 of 9 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Ken S. Tucker... |
 Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 8:34 am, Chris L Peterson <c... at (no spam) alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
[quote]On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:20:02 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
dynam... at (no spam) vianet.on.ca> wrote:
"really very simple" Chris, what you've done is fixed all variables
to constants, then changed one and announced 'presto' it's all
simple.
Yes, because that effectively describes the actual climate system over
the time scale of concern.
[/quote]
But you've jumped to a conclusion, using a narrow assumption
of your subjective choosing.
[quote]Do you understand partial differentiation, compared to a
total derivative?
I do. And the question seems completely unrelated to the discussion.
[/quote]
Well take a so-called total derivative of GW such as
d(GW)/dt = &A/&t + &B/&t + &C/&t ...
(with '&' being a partial), and A, B, C ... being the factors GW is
a function of, that's why it's related, that is how science done.
Example H2O is a greenhouse gas, therefore irrigation and lawn
sprinklers - via evaporation - contribute to GW, Chris if you use a
water sprinkler on your lawn, calculate the amount of H2O you're
putting into the atmosphere.
Regards
Ken |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Quadibloc... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 9:20 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam... at (no spam) vianet.on.ca> wrote:
[quote]"really very simple" Chris, what you've done is fixed all variables
to constants, then changed one and announced 'presto' it's all
simple. Do you understand partial differentiation, compared to a
total derivative?
[/quote]
Carbon dioxide concentration is changing very rapidly, because human
activity is changing it. The other items are changing very slowly,
because that's the rate at which things change in nature. So, unless
the partial derivative with respect to one of those other factors is
*way* larger than the one with respect to carbon dioxide, since it's
carbon dioxide that's doing the changing, it is its effect that is
important.
If you understood these matters, you would know that, and you would
know that this provided no basis to object to his statements.
John Savard |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ken S. Tucker... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 10:59 am, Quadibloc <jsav... at (no spam) ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 9:20 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam... at (no spam) vianet.on.ca> wrote:
"really very simple" Chris, what you've done is fixed all variables
to constants, then changed one and announced 'presto' it's all
simple. Do you understand partial differentiation, compared to a
total derivative?
Carbon dioxide concentration is changing very rapidly, because human
activity is changing it. The other items are changing very slowly,
because that's the rate at which things change in nature. So, unless
the partial derivative with respect to one of those other factors is
*way* larger than the one with respect to carbon dioxide, since it's
carbon dioxide that's doing the changing, it is its effect that is
important.
If you understood these matters, you would know that, and you would
know that this provided no basis to object to his statements.
John Savard
[/quote]
Perhaps John you are unaware of the quantification of other factors,
as I suspect. Albiebo, solar radiance, H2O need to be accounted
for too.
Ken |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris L Peterson... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 20:18:02 +1100, "Peter Webb"
<webbfamily at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
[quote]Might I also ask why it is that CO2 concentrations are very nearly at their
lowest levels in a billion years, yet temperatures are near their highest
levels for a billion years.
[/quote]
Because climate is a SYSTEM. CO2 is only one part of the system. You
could double the CO2 and be colder by reducing water vapor, for
instance. Or by reducing solar output. Or by moving the landmasses so
that ocean and air currents were different. You could half the CO2 and
it could be warmer, by increasing water vapor, or increasing methane, or
decreasing albedo. All these things happen naturally, over time.
Right now, most of the system is fixed (or only changing very slowly),
and the one variable that is being tweaked hard is CO2 concentration. So
the temperature is rising.
It's really very simple.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| oriel36... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 10:09 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam... at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
.. I was discussing a scientific theory generally known as
[quote]"AGW", which you don't mention at all, and I have no knowledge or interest
in "Newtonian mutations from the original heliocentric blueprints",
[/quote]
Planetary dynamics govern global climate and Newton's empirical agenda
of experiment/predictions rely on an Ra/Dec system that cannot
represent daily rotation or orbital motion -
"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those
motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of
our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which
are the causes and effects of the true motion." Newton
You and your opponents are intellectual lightweights who travel in the
same empirical circles,can't figure out what Newton was on about and
do not know the 'predictive' mess he introduced to astronomy and
specifically planetary dynamics and the effects of these dynamics. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| oriel36... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 3:43 pm, yourmommycalled <mommycal... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 3:09 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam... at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au
wrote:
"yourmommycalled" <mommycal... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:27b1d8dd-d7d8-4258-819a-e946cf7bd6b8 at (no spam) c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 2, 12:01 am, "Peter Webb"
webbfam... at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
"Chris L Peterson" <c... at (no spam) alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in
messagenews:imrse5dbfmur16n7pv7kgbeoqrq2j20ddq at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:56:50 +1100, "Peter Webb"
webbfam... at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
Perhaps if you supplied a list of the specific predictions of AGW that
have
turned out to be true, I would have a little more confidence.
As always, you betray an appalling lack of understanding of this subject
and of science in general. You can't even use the term "AGW" correctly.
And you can't carry on a reasoned discussion, because you use the
pseudoscientist's approach of simply ignoring everything that you can't
respond to and asking the same useless (and already answered questions)
over and over.
No, you keep refusing to answer the same questions. Then you use the lame
excuse that you have already answered them.
No, you haven't.
You have not supplied a list of the specific predictions of AGW that have
turned out to be true, which is my starting point for evaluating the
likely
truth of scientific theories.
Just as Gerald has been provided over and over again with examples of
why his ramblings on how to "untangle the Newtonian mutations from the
original heliocentric blueprints" are nonsense, just as Ajay has been
shown over and over again that he has never had a peer-reviewed paper
and is unable to do 8th grade math, You been provided many times
before with specific instances of specific predictions that have
verified in the form of published research, but you refuse to
acknowledge their existence or their validity. You have no concept of
science/math, how to evaluate the validity of the truth of scientific
theory or very much of anything else. You are not much different than
Gerald or Brad who thinks there is life on Venus or Danny who thinks
the moon landings were impossible.
_________________________
Huh? I don't think the moon landings were a hoax, I don't know anybody
called "Gerald" or "Ajay", and I'm not really interested in why you think
they are wrong. I was discussing a scientific theory generally known as
"AGW", which you don't mention at all, and I have no knowledge or interest
in "Newtonian mutations from the original heliocentric blueprints", which
you do seem to want to talk about. Are you sure you are responding to the
correct post?
Please learn to read. I pointed out your postings have the same
character, tenor, tone and more importantly information content, that
these well known, multiple internet kook award winners have.
[/quote]
That's right,I am the madman who believes the Earth turns through 360
degrees in 24 hours or at a rate of 15 degrees per hour in a forum
that believes otherwise !.
'Global warming' by turning carbon dioxide into a global temperature
dial is nothing compared to the reasoning which give it legs and that
means people who can't reason out basic astronomical principles such
as how the 24 hour value contains all the information of planetary
dimensions and shape organised around the Earth's daily rotation. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ken S. Tucker... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 12:48 pm, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
[quote]Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Nov 4, 10:59 am, Quadibloc <jsav... at (no spam) ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On Nov 4, 9:20 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam... at (no spam) vianet.on.ca> wrote:
"really very simple" Chris, what you've done is fixed all variables
to constants, then changed one and announced 'presto' it's all
simple. Do you understand partial differentiation, compared to a
total derivative?
Only one of the variables is changing very rapidly indeed. The rate of
change of CO2 from burning fossil fuels is high and increasing. We need
to buy time by becoming more energy efficient.
Carbon dioxide concentration is changing very rapidly, because human
activity is changing it. The other items are changing very slowly,
because that's the rate at which things change in nature. So, unless
the partial derivative with respect to one of those other factors is
*way* larger than the one with respect to carbon dioxide, since it's
carbon dioxide that's doing the changing, it is its effect that is
important.
If you understood these matters, you would know that, and you would
know that this provided no basis to object to his statements.
John Savard
Perhaps John you are unaware of the quantification of other factors,
as I suspect. Albiebo, solar radiance, H2O need to be accounted
for too.
You mean albedo. Solar radiance is satellite monitored over the past
four decades so you cannot claim that the sun magically got brighter.
Even sceptical scientists concede that it is impossible to balance the
Earth's energy budget after the 1970's without including GHG forcing.
[/quote]
Ya-ya, you're jumping to conclusions, the albedo has been varied.
Cities, de-forestration, our company even figures in oil slicks.
Ken
[quote]Atmospheric H2O responds to changes in temperature caused by the input
of additional CO2, CH4 and other GHGs.
You can still find professional deniers for hire. Some of them have an
excellent track record working for tobacco companies to keep people
smoking. The tricks of their trade are plausible lies to keep the public
from ever understanding the scientific evidence. Sadly the US education
system it so horribly broken that it works all too well.
Until AGW really starts to hurt American interests I don't see much hope
of anything being done about it. And without America and China on board
the ROW cannot sensibly do anything that will make a difference.
Copenhagen will be all words and no action.
Regards,
Martin Brown[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris L Peterson... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:20:02 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
<dynamics at (no spam) vianet.on.ca> wrote:
[quote]"really very simple" Chris, what you've done is fixed all variables
to constants, then changed one and announced 'presto' it's all
simple.
[/quote]
Yes, because that effectively describes the actual climate system over
the time scale of concern.
[quote]Do you understand partial differentiation, compared to a
total derivative?
[/quote]
I do. And the question seems completely unrelated to the discussion.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Martin Brown... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 10:59 am, Quadibloc <jsav... at (no spam) ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On Nov 4, 9:20 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam... at (no spam) vianet.on.ca> wrote:
"really very simple" Chris, what you've done is fixed all variables
to constants, then changed one and announced 'presto' it's all
simple. Do you understand partial differentiation, compared to a
total derivative?
[/quote]
Only one of the variables is changing very rapidly indeed. The rate of
change of CO2 from burning fossil fuels is high and increasing. We need
to buy time by becoming more energy efficient.
[quote]Carbon dioxide concentration is changing very rapidly, because human
activity is changing it. The other items are changing very slowly,
because that's the rate at which things change in nature. So, unless
the partial derivative with respect to one of those other factors is
*way* larger than the one with respect to carbon dioxide, since it's
carbon dioxide that's doing the changing, it is its effect that is
important.
If you understood these matters, you would know that, and you would
know that this provided no basis to object to his statements.
John Savard
Perhaps John you are unaware of the quantification of other factors,
as I suspect. Albiebo, solar radiance, H2O need to be accounted
for too.
[/quote]
You mean albedo. Solar radiance is satellite monitored over the past
four decades so you cannot claim that the sun magically got brighter.
Even sceptical scientists concede that it is impossible to balance the
Earth's energy budget after the 1970's without including GHG forcing.
Atmospheric H2O responds to changes in temperature caused by the input
of additional CO2, CH4 and other GHGs.
You can still find professional deniers for hire. Some of them have an
excellent track record working for tobacco companies to keep people
smoking. The tricks of their trade are plausible lies to keep the public
from ever understanding the scientific evidence. Sadly the US education
system it so horribly broken that it works all too well.
Until AGW really starts to hurt American interests I don't see much hope
of anything being done about it. And without America and China on board
the ROW cannot sensibly do anything that will make a difference.
Copenhagen will be all words and no action.
Regards,
Martin Brown |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Webb... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Chris L Peterson" <clp at (no spam) alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:lr33f5h94mmbq167b92mdrhcqfb5p4sacc at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 20:18:02 +1100, "Peter Webb"
webbfamily at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
Might I also ask why it is that CO2 concentrations are very nearly at
their
lowest levels in a billion years, yet temperatures are near their highest
levels for a billion years.
Because climate is a SYSTEM. CO2 is only one part of the system. You
could double the CO2 and be colder by reducing water vapor, for
instance. Or by reducing solar output. Or by moving the landmasses so
that ocean and air currents were different. You could half the CO2 and
it could be warmer, by increasing water vapor, or increasing methane, or
decreasing albedo. All these things happen naturally, over time.
[/quote]
The question was what is the AGW explanation for why CO2 concentrations are
historically low levels, but temperatures are at historically high levels.
As I understand it, you are saying their is something very unusual or unique
about the current period, quite independent of CO2 levels.
This additional factor(s) are so strong they completely dominate and reverse
the expected positive correlation of temperature and CO2 levels - extremely
low CO2 levels but high temperatures.
Whatever this thing is, it isn't anthropogenic, it isn't CO2, it is an
extremely important determinant of temperature (warming the earth when CO2
levels are at their lowest), and its comparatively recent - its only been
evident for the last 10,000 years.
So, according to AGW, what is it? Why is it only now that low CO2 levels are
associated with high temperatures?
[quote]Right now, most of the system is fixed (or only changing very slowly),
[/quote]
Really. Which of the things you listed (eg changes to landmass positions)
are changing more slowly than in the past, and why do you think this is the
case?
Why does a low rate of change of these variables (eg landmass position)
imply higher temperatures rather than lower temperatures? What is the causal
mechanism between the *rate* of change of environmental variables such as
albedo and the absolute temperature (I can see a rate of change of external
variables affecting the rate of change of temperature, but not the absolute
temperature directly).
[quote]and the one variable that is being tweaked hard is CO2 concentration. So
the temperature is rising.
[/quote]
Well, no, the temperature has been rising since well before CO2
concentrations started to recently rise. Furthermore, we are experiencing
the exact opposite of what AGW would seem to imply - low CO2 but high
tempertures. You can't simply say no other variables matter, they obviously
do. And its very difficult for me to believe that increasing CO2 leads to
increased temperatures when, as I say, we have the lowest CO2 levels in a
billion years but the highest temperatures. This is a massive
counter-example to the AGW hypothesis and it will take more than some hand
waving and reassurance that the model is right if it is to be taken
seriously.
The simple fact is that AGW predicts that as we have extremely low CO2
levels we should have low temperatures. But we have the lowest CO2 levels in
history but the highest temperatures, the exact opposite of AGW predictions.
AGW must have an explanantion, surely?
What is it, exactly?
[quote]
It's really very simple.
_________________________________________________
[/quote]
Great. I am looking forward to some simple answers.
[quote]
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Webb... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"yourmommycalled" <mommycalled at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ef6ff2dc-bfb3-4c24-b23c-3e80457c6be4 at (no spam) n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 4, 3:18 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam... at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
[quote]Might I also ask why it is that CO2 concentrations are very nearly at
their
lowest levels in a billion years, yet temperatures are near their highest
levels for a billion years.
How do the AGW models explain this huge discrepancy between theory and
observation?
[/quote]
You might try reading something other than "The Australian" (which is
right up there with the National Inquirer in terms of accuracy) and
Ian Pilmer.
Quoting from Science (Oct 8, 2009)
The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they
are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures
were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea
level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no
permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica
and Greenland,"
_______________________________
So obviously CO2 is not the principle driver of earth's temperature. How
does AGW explain that the temperature is 10 degrees lower today than the
last time CO2 levels were this high? And how does it explain that we had ice
ages during periods when CO2 levels were 3 or 4 times current concentration?
Simply pointing out that temperature does not appear correlated with CO2
levels - as you have done - is hardly evidence AGW is a valid theory!
But that is only the most recent work.Try a google search to see just
how stupid your comment is.
____________________________________
What did I say, exactly, that you think is "stupid", and why? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris L Peterson... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:31:08 +1100, "Peter Webb"
<webbfamily at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
[quote]The question was what is the AGW explanation for why CO2 concentrations are
historically low levels, but temperatures are at historically high levels.
[/quote]
CO2 levels are at historically high levels. For as far back as we can
make direct measurements (primarily using ice cores, a few hundred
thousand years) the CO2 levels have been much lower than today. It is
believed they were much higher if you go back 50 million or more years,
but the entire atmospheric system was different then, and the estimates
are based on models derived from secondary measurements. The climate
models being used today to study short term change (not more than a few
hundred years) don't even attempt to describe what was going on in the
distant past. There are too many variables for which no estimates at all
are available.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter Webb wrote:
[quote]
The question was what is the AGW explanation for why CO2 concentrations
are historically low levels, but temperatures are at historically high
levels.
As I understand it, you are saying their is something very unusual or
unique about the current period, quite independent of CO2 levels.
This additional factor(s) are so strong they completely dominate and
reverse the expected positive correlation of temperature and CO2 levels
- extremely low CO2 levels but high temperatures.
[/quote]
Peter, you have no scientific evidence for your assertion. You are
simply wrong! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter Webb wrote:
[quote]
Quoting from Science (Oct 8, 2009)
The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they
are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures
were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea
level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no
permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica
and Greenland,"
[/quote]
You didn't expect that all to happen overnight did you, Peter? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
oriel36 wrote:
[quote]
Planetary dynamics govern global climate and Newton's empirical agenda
of experiment/predictions rely on an Ra/Dec system that cannot
represent daily rotation or orbital motion -
[/quote]
So, Gerald, why do Venus, Earth and Mars have such different climates.
Distance from the Sun is not sufficient to account for those differences. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:58 pm
|
|