@TMTisFree

Quote:

A thorough discussion of the planetary heat transfer problem in the framework of theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics leads to the following results:

I love the anti-gw crowd claiming the Gerlich paper shows once and for all there's no GW effect. Again where are the experiments supporting or not supporting the claims of a paper. Do anti-gw think they should be exempt from peer review?

There are clearly problems. Greenhouse effect of the planet is clearly not the same as a terrium green house. Definitely a poor selection of naming. A greenhouse is a closed system that prevents convection from occuring. I doubt the scientists make this claim. However, the 'Greenhouse' effect is real. The atmosphere emits radiation. The surface of the earth is warmed from both the sun and the atmosphere. Actually the atmosphere warms the planet more so than the sun.

@BrianK

And in any case, I for one don't want the planet to end up like this:
http://dusteye.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/shell-nigeria.jpg

Hot or cold I can deal with. Oily and dead I can not. Seems the environment debate has complete lost track of the important issue recently. Now it's all about man-made warming or not. It used to be about the environment.

Pollution is bad. There's just no other way to twist it.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@BrianK

Quote:

love the anti-gw crowd claiming the Gerlich paper shows once and for all there's no GW effect. Again where are the experiments supporting or not supporting the claims of a paper. Do anti-gw think they should be exempt from peer review?

Where is "the rare bird that demands the GW and the anti-GW claims both to provide proof of their claims."? It does not need to be peer reviewed. Gerlich is not presenting a theory. He is simply reviewing whether the greenhouse theories conform with the - amply peer-reviewed - laws of physics.

That people have a blind belief in something not demonstrable, one calls that faith.
That people stand on irrational belief in face of the experimental, physical, mathematical evidences, one calls that cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957). This phenomenon has been recently demonstrated on capucin monkeys (Egan, 2007).

Below is what J. Sacherman said:
American and British history is riddled with examples of valid research and inventions which have been suppressed and derogated by the conventional science community. This has been of great cost to society and to individual scientists. Rather than furthering the pursuit of new scientific frontiers, the structure of British and American scientific institutions leads to conformity and furthers consensus-seeking.(J. Sacherman, 1997)

Quote:

Actually the atmosphere warms the planet more so than the sun.

The 2 physicists demonstrate with laws of Physic, that convection is the main component involved, not radiation.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@olegil

Quote:

Now it's all about man-made warming or not. It used to be about the environment. Pollution is bad. There's just no other way to twist it.

That is pleasant to hear.

This kind of shift usually occurred when some smart individual discovers that it can be easy to raise power/control/money by the mean of irrationality. The History is full of examples (E pur si muove, Galileo).

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Today, a founder of the International Journal of Forecasting, Journal of Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, and International Symposium on Forecasting, and the author of Long-range Forecasting (1978, 1985), the Principles of Forecasting Handbook, and over 70 papers on forecasting, Dr J. Scott Armstrong, tabled a statement declaring that the forecasting process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lacks a scientific basis:

Quote:

...We conducted an audit of the procedures described in the IPCC report and found that they clearly violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting (Green and Armstrong 2008). (No justification was provided for any of these violations.) For important forecasts, we can see no reason why any principle should be violated. We draw analogies to flying an aircraft or building a bridge or performing heart surgery—given the potential cost of errors, it is not permissible to violate principles...

Full news here.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Where is "the rare bird that demands the GW and the anti-GW claims both to provide proof of their claims."? It does not need to be peer reviewed. Gerlich is not presenting a theory. He is simply reviewing whether the greenhouse theories conform with the - amply peer-reviewed - laws of physics.

Sorry yes it still needs to be peer-reviewed for accuracy and acceptability. In the whole Anti-GW or Pro-GW debate there seems to me to be quite a few arguements made ad ignorantiam. IF we are to understand this issue we need to keep working on the planet. Claiming some unproved paper, like many anti-GW do with Gerlich's work, establishes anything other than some points of research is ... well wrong.

Quote:

That people have a blind belief in something not demonstrable, one calls that faith.

You're exactly right. The undemonstrated unverified Gerlich paper being held up as the golden chalis by the anti-gw crowd shows us how they are willing to run on such a faith and fail to wait for review.

Quote:

Below is what J. Sacherman said:...the structure of British and American scientific institutions leads to conformity

Science is an endeavor by man. Anything done by man can get political. We know in the annuals of science there's been attempts at supression. Semmelweiss, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein are a few off the top of my head. Though this is definitely not 100% true there have been exciting discoveries in the US and England in the last decade. These happen when people break away from the herd. And that's the point of science.

Last edited by BrianK on 29-Jan-2009 at 01:02 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

Sorry yes it still needs to be peer-reviewed for accuracy and acceptability. In the whole Anti-GW or Pro-GW debate there seems to me to be quite a few arguements made ad ignorantiam. IF we are to understand this issue we need to keep working on the planet. Claiming some unproved paper, like many anti-GW do with Gerlich's work, establishes anything other than some points of research is ... well wrong.

The authors themselves already replied:
"Indeed, this is a great advantange for the whole discussion, both scientifically and politically. It is a presupposition for to have a fresh look at the topic. We (Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner) are unbiased totally independent theoretical physicists, familar with stochastic description of nature and quantum field theory, respectively, and last but not least familar with the physics lab and software engineering. Of course, we have published our papers in peer-reviewed journals, and on topics that belong to science, not to science fiction as the computer games of global climatology do. We are physicists, not climatologists. Our paper is a brand new preprint submitted for publication. You are allowed to cite it in your future work according to the arXiv conventions."

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@tmtisfree

Btw, you do not need to be a physicist to qualitatively understand, or at least appreciate, a problem and its limits.

In simple words:

1/ the weather/climate system depends on highly non-linear coupled differential equations. This is what is meant by its being called 'chaotic'.

2/ the GCM* used by climatologists are gridded, ie modelers divide the Earth in large squares (called grid). This logic of grid depends on assuming linear approximations to the highly non linear coupled differential equations of 1/.

3/ the solutions of equations of 1/ are highly divergent because their first terms do not describe them. As a consequence, after a low number of time steps, reality diverge fast with a vengeance from the assumed approximations of 2/. This happens for weather models in a few days, for climate in a few years.

"Mathematically, even within the most simplified models you cannot predict anything, because all these ones crudely approximate non-linear partial differential equations with unknown boundary conditions. There is simply no physical foundation of the computer models with and without CO²."

"From then on everything is models, and refutation of models can only come from data, which is happening. If the data invalidates the models, it means that the physics principles have been used wrongly within them, but it is hard to pin point exactly what, within the models, there is such a confusion of physics in the assumptions they are built on: thermodynamics, mechanics, statistical mechanics and quantum statistical mechanics are in there in a pot pourri according to the taste of the modeller."

GCM: General Climate Model

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @BrianK And in any case, I for one don't want the planet to end up like this: http://dusteye.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/shell-nigeria.jpg Hot or cold I can deal with. Oily and dead I can not. Seems the environment debate has complete lost track of the important issue recently. Now it's all about man-made warming or not. It used to be about the environment. Pollution is bad. There's just no other way to twist it.

Yeah. toxic waste, deforesting, overfishing, over population and so on is more important issue in my opinion.
Even banning regular light bulbs will lead to more toxic waste finding the way to our food chain, as the alternative is full of mercury and other chemicals.

Whatever happened to the rain forests anyways? In the 90s it was a big thing you would see in media often, but now they dont even bother writing about it.

@Tomas

The noble cause of ecology has been devolved by ecologism, driven by tax-racketeers under the economy of (t)errors.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

An interesting paper about pollution reduction over last 30 years correlating with a warm trend in Europe:

Quote:

Surface solar radiation has undergone decadal variations since the middle of the twentieth century, producing global 'dimming' and 'brightening' effects. These variations presumably result from changes in aerosol burden and clouds, but the detailed processes involved have yet to be determined. Over Europe, the marked solar radiation increase since the 1980s is thought to have contributed to the observed large continental warming, but this contribution has not been quantified. Here we analyse multidecadal data of horizontal visibility, and find that the frequency of low-visibility conditions such as fog, mist and haze has declined in Europe over the past 30 years, for all seasons and all visibility ranges between distances of 0 and 8 km. This decline is spatially and temporally correlated with trends in sulphur dioxide emissions, suggesting a significant contribution of air-quality improvements. Statistically linking local visibility changes with temperature variations, we estimate that the reduction in low-visibility conditions could have contributed on average to about 10–20% of Europe's recent daytime warming and to about 50% of eastern European warming. Large improvements in air quality and visibility already achieved in Europe over the past decades may mean that future reductions in the frequency of low-visibility events will be limited, possibly leading to less rapid regional warming.

Vautard R., Yiou P. et van Oldenborgh G.J., Decline of fog, mist and haze in Europe over the past 30 years, Nature Geoscience 10.1038/NGEO414 (2009)

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

The noble cause of ecology has been devolved by ecologism, driven by tax-racketeers under the economy of (t)errors.

^^^^^^^
THIS

_________________
******************************************
I dont suffer from Insanity - I enjoy it

******************************************

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Our paper is a brand new preprint submitted for publication. You are allowed to cite it in your future work according to the arXiv conventions

Seemingly the authors show they know what's going on. Too bad the anti-agw crowd grasps hold of a paper that's yet to be supported by peer review and attempts to declare it the holy grail of answers to why they must be right. Typical behavior in this discussion alas.

Last edited by BrianK on 30-Jan-2009 at 09:12 PM.

@BrianK

Too bad the typical behavior of the AGW believers is to rely on the messenger rather than on the message.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK
I think you should google milankovich cycles and read all you can if you havent already.
I am pretty convinced that this + solar variations are the main reason for the warming we see now.
If you look at the past history of warming/cycles you will see that it pretty much matches perfectly with these cycles.

The data they base these climate models on are for a very short timespan only, so it will of course look like we are experiencing global warming. The warming trend started way before the industrial age anyways.


It all makes more sense than blaming it on co2...

@Tomas

Quote:

Whatever happened to the rain forests anyways? In the 90s it was a big thing you would see in media often, but now they dont even bother writing about it.

Nah you just need to read more. Impact of Cattle grazing on the Rainforest

The simple reason why we don't hear of deforestation. The News outlets feel that it won't sell more of their product so they don't bother.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Too bad the typical behavior of the AGW believers is to rely on the messenger rather than on the message.

Just like my other complaint on both sides I see this behavior on both sides too.

@Tomas

Quote:

I think you should google milankovich cycles and read all you can if you havent already. I am pretty convinced that this + solar variations are the main reason for the warming we see now. If you look at the past history of warming/cycles you will see that it pretty much matches perfectly with these cycles.

As a new one to the Milankovich cycles I've read a bit I'm sure there are more out there to read and understand.

Looking at the Milankovich cyclic graphs it seems that we are not in a hot point but a median/cooler point? Right now the sun activity is at a low which is predicted to end sometime later in 2009. Comparing the recent years with similar periods of solar activity and Milankovich cycles it seems we're hotter than predicted by those 2 events. Now this isn't to say the Milankovich cycle might not have an impact. It well may. It just seems to me it may itself not be the full reason for the temps. Could Milankovich be 'a factor' but not necessarily be 'all factors'?

@BrianK

Quote:

Just like my other complaint on both sides I see this behavior on both sides too.

That is the typical behavior of environmentalists : complaining.

1/ CO² is the feed for the vegetables: CO² is a pollutant.
2/ Nuclear energy does not emit CO² and can be almost proper: nuclear energy is the evil in person.
3/ Ground wind energy does not emit CO² and is proper: wind plants disturb the birds
4/ Sea wind energy does not emit CO² and is proper: fishes are indisposed by sea wind plants.
5/ Solar energy is free and does not emit CO²: environmental impact of solar farm is too big.

etc, etc.

The environmentalists live in the dream of a Universe not driven by the Laws of the Thermodynamic. They try to build a society not by defining its needs in energy and standing (growing energy demand, conserving modernity) but by the control over it by the government/State, who will define pollution and consumption, the penalties for both, and how you may be spared if you comply, relying on a public relations campaign to ensure the public’s collaboration. Tax money subsidising markets for political gain paying no attention whatsoever to the realities on the ground experience by ordinary people, entirely caught up in their own ideas and rhetoric so fully that to them everyone else seems “a bit odd” if not downright insane.
From a political and historical perspective, there is almost no difference between environmentalism and communism. Both want to use the power of the State to shape the way people live not according to individual freedom of choice, but according to the guidelines of a pre-planned philosophy that must be obeyed to the letter by everyone who is not on top.
This kind of political society had be tried out on a grand stage, and failed.

"And it seems to me perfectly in the cards that there will be within the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing … a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda, brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods."
Aldous Huxley, 1959.

The "rare bird" appears as what he is: a common species.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 31-Jan-2009 at 09:26 AM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

1/ CO² is the feed for the vegetables: CO² is a pollutant.

Definitional disagreement really. CO2 certainly is used by plants. The question is what impact it is having on a planet. If it's causing the planet to warm and that warming is causings other harm then indirectly CO2 is harmful. Also plants aren't the only life on the planet. 1-2% CO2 in the air and you will start feeling tired. 5% CO2 in the air and you will die. So saying that CO2 is perfectly fine is untrue. It can cause harm and death to living things.

Quote:

Nuclear energy does not emit CO² and can be almost proper: nuclear energy is the evil in person.

(Looking at plants in production in the US) Of course CO2 is contributed in a lifecycle of a nuke plant. Perhaps you should think about how that happens. Sure it's less then other power plants. We have radioactive fuel and waste which must be protected against theft or bombings. We have a high cost of insurance. That and other factors make Nukes the most expensive electricity to produce. Hey and there's abiotic oil why not use the limitless fuel?


I won't go on I think you get why most of these are wrong. Most environmentalists realize we live in a society that demands power and want to see renewable sources - wind, earth, water, sun - used compared to the more highly polluting types currently in production. The way you've classified environmentalists here is overly simply. You used the fringe environmentalists and classified that is all environmentals. It's not true as you presented it.


Quote:

who will define pollution and consumption, the penalties for both, and how you may be spared if you comply,

Last 8+ years in US history shows this exactly wrong here. Instead under the Bush administration we had oil and coal companies writing their own laws and reducing environmental protection statements. 'Clear skies' initiative lets them produce more air pollution. Afterall politicans like monies who has more than the oil industry? This side is caught up in profits at the behest of the planet. If it weren't for environmental activity these companies would do little to nothing to protect the planet. We need both sides.


Quote:

Both want to use the power of the State to shape the way people live not according to individual freedom of choice

If by freedom of individual choice you mean you want the right to pollute the ground water that you and your neighbor share because it's in aquifer under the soil and on both your land then NO. The right to harm others is something against a civil society. Man is a social animal and working to have clean water, air, ground improves the conditions not only of man but other beings that share the planet with us.

Quote:

This kind of political society had be tried out on a grand stage, and failed.

Sweden argues and strongly for environmental concerns and green items. So much even other Europeans find them annoying. Yet there are also towards or on top on nearly every quality of life measure. So environmenalism has been tried and can be successful.