@BrianK

About your Quote:

IPCC researchers

Dr William Schlesinger acknowledges that 80% of IPCC members have no "dealing with climate":Quote:

During the question and answer session of last week's William Schlesinger/John Christy global warming debate, Schlesinger was asked how many members of United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were actual climate scientists. It is well known that many if not most of its members are not scientists at all. Its president for example is an economist. This question came after Schlesinger had cited the IPCC as an authority for his position. His answer was quite telling. First he broadened it to include not just climate scientists but also those who have had "some dealing with the climate." His complete answer was that he thought, "something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate." In other words, even IPCC worshiper William Schlesinger is now acknowledging that 80 percent of the IPCC membership have had absolutely no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies.

(bold/underline by me)

Just in time.

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".

@NoelFuller

Quote:

Should vegans get carbon credits? :))

my major worry is that of Choice being thrown out the window….

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@TMTisFree

For the French people.

At 22h30 today there is a documentary on the main public TV channel France2 titled: "Les prêcheurs de l'apocalypse: quand l'écologie perd la raison". English: "The apocalypse prophets: when ecology is losing its mind".

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:

"something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate."

This is somewhat meaningless without a context. You use it to imply incompetance in keeping with your attachment to the notion that anthropogenic global warming is a fiction. The proper context would be a picture of what the IPCC is supposed to do, preferably from the IPCC itself, the restrictions and responsibilities placed upon it.

The whole business of the IPCC requires an interdisciplinary approach and is directed toward interfacing the sciences involved with the politicians who must or may do something about it. That the chief is an economist makes good sense to me though I doubt that is as important as an ability to integrate the contribution from a wide range of scientists and bring it to the polititians.

Perhaps a case in point that I have just considered is Chris Fields of the Carnegie Institute's Department of Global Ecology. He is co-chairman of the IPCC's working group 2 and will oversee that group's part of the 2014 report. He is an ecologist. I would be concerned if ecologists, and the representatives of many other sciences, were not working with the IPCC.

Here is a summation of what Chris Fields had to say about current developments with respect to IPCC work on climate change at a symposium "What Is New and Surprising since the IPCC Fourth Assessment?".

Quote:

"The data now show that greenhouse gas emissions are accelerating much faster than we thought," says Field. "Over the last decade developing countries such as China and India have increased their electric power generation by burning more coal. Economies in the developing world are becoming more, not less carbon-intensive. We are definitely in unexplored terrain with the trajectory of climate change, in the region with forcing, and very likely impacts, much worse than predicted in the fourth assessment."

This link provides his own description of what he does as an ecologist in which his response to the second to last question is the most relevant.

Quote:

One issue all members of the Department are working on is the global carbon economy, and the way that interfaces with climate change. The main heat-trapping gas is carbon dioxide, which is also exchanged by the oceans and taken up by plants when they grow and released when they decompose. We are working to understand how, over the next century, the land and oceans will exchange carbon in a way that either makes the carbon-exchange problem worse or better than in the absence of these influences. We're optimistic that in the next 10 years we will have a very clear understanding of the way the land and the ocean will interact with climate change to control the future atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. This is an extremely important contribution. Uncertainty in the carbon budget is one of the core issues in understanding the impact of climate change. I feel if we can bring a high level of uncertainty reduction to the carbon cycle, if we can narrow the uncertainty, it will make it much easier to have a rational discussion of climate change and of approaches to limiting climate change and climate-change impacts.

I find his contribution entirely credible and he is part of the IPCC.

Noel

Last edited by NoelFuller on 19-Feb-2009 at 09:26 PM.

@NoelFuller

Quote:

This is somewhat meaningless without a context.

I provided the link in which the context appears. No need to put an external foreign element (IPCC) to the story.

Quote:

The proper context would be a picture of what the IPCC is supposed to do, preferably from the IPCC itself, the restrictions and responsibilities placed upon it.

Judge and party. Another beautiful case of circular logic.

Quote:

"The data now show that greenhouse gas emissions are accelerating much faster than we thought,"

On what data is based this claim? CO² data from Mauna Loa show no such acceleration as the trend is linear:

In addition to be not supported by real world data, what this claim implicitly suggests (that temperature will rise accordingly) is also not supported by laws of radiation physics. Specifically, there is no additional heat [ie infrared (IR) radiations emitted from ground] absorbed by CO² because all the possible heat radiated by Earth is already entirely trapped by a small part of the current CO². That means that the current CO² in atmosphere is far from being saturated by heat radiated back from ground. As an analogy if you use a blind over a window on a sunny day, adding more blinds will not make the room any darker. This also means that this is the sun which drives the current level of heat that is back-radiated by Earth.
The only thing that happens, is the more CO² is added, the more probable the back-radiated IR is trapped by CO² near the ground. But as 99.6% of the IR is trapped within the first 10m above the ground, that does not change anything that IR is trapped at a height of 3m or 2,5m. In addition, the probability that radiation-less energy transfer (kinetic energy through molecular collisions) occurs is many order of magnitude higher that re-radiation of a photon by CO² molecules. Moreover the extremely low part of this re-radiation (50% downwards, 50% upwards) will always be exactly the same (it is a characteristic of the gas), irrespective of the total number of CO² molecules, the total of energy and the height of the atmosphere (because atmosphere is transparent to this upwards longer waves re-radiation).
Finally, as heat is trapped in the very first meters above the ground, the gradient of temperature that results leads to normal convectional displacement of the heated layer to the cool layer above through the troposphere until it escapes atmosphere.
Let me restate it: the amount of heat trapped by CO² is already maximum, and only depends on the solar irradiation. Because of that, there is no correlation between CO² level and temperature.
There is no conjecture here, just application of laws of physics.

Quote:

The main heat-trapping gas is carbon dioxide

No, it is H²O as a gas.

Quote:

released when they decompose.

A misleading claim. 'partly released' is more close to reality.

Quote:

We are working to understand ... worse or better... We're optimistic that in the next 10 years we will have a very clear understanding of the way... Uncertainty in the carbon budget...

Your Quote:

I find his contribution entirely credible and he is part of the IPCC.

If there are so many in-understandings and uncertainties, how is it possible to make useful and correct conclusions (not to speak of predictions and policies)? That is not credible.

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:

Because not one of the authors of the Nature's paper officially belong to the AR4 IPCC list of working group I authors, working group II authors, or working group III authors.

Perhaps I did trust the anti-agw crowd too much as they linked the scientists to result seems stunning in that it came from IPCC scientists ?
Yet, Latif worked on IPCC atmosphere GCMs. Jungclaus worked on IPCC Ocean currents . Kornblueh worked on models of simulated climate used by the 4th IPCC. Roeckner worked on cloud models surfaces and other items used by the IPCC . In addition, this group put their data into the UN computers, the ones used by the IPCC and the IPCC models, which is what resulted in the lower temps and laid out in 10 years how the different scenarios come back together and return to increasing temps. Clearly their work was already in the IPCC before they composed the new model of changes and cooling due to changes in ocean currents.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

CO² data from Mauna Loa show no such acceleration as the trend is linea

If you think that graph shows a linear relationship between time and CO2 concentration, you need to go back to look again.

Hint: Connect the first and the last point of the graph with a straight line. *ALL* the other points are below that line, and the more so the further they are from the end points.

What you have there is a classic segment from a parabola --- which just happens to be the plot of the function you get when you have a non-zero accelleration 'a', and integrate twice to get the absolute value at any given time t. The integration involves two freely-choosable constants, which you may think of as the base value and annual increase at the start of your measurements, respectively. However, those just give you a straight line; That lovely curve comes from an acceleration (the quadratic term...).

@umisef

We the see the graph by TMTisfree as LOTS of unused area. This result is from the use of the scale from 0-400ppm. The data scaling creates the illusion of linearity. When the same data is plotted on a graph that is sized to view the data better 300-400ppm we clearly see your point that the data is non-linear LINK . The conclusion of linearity is incongruent with a correct reading of the graph.

@umisef

oh come on. Surely you don't believe you can convince him that his FACTS are WRONG?

you, sir, are one heck of an optimist

_________________
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:

Perhaps I did trust the anti-agw crowd too much

You have not expressed this ability recently, so I doubt it. Anyway, one has the level of informations one deserve.

Quote:

Yet,...

You stated that Nature's paper authors were "IPCC researchers" while clearly IPCC listings prove they were not. That they have developed a model which outputs data conform to IPCC standards is neither new nor the point; the very IPCC goal is to review such work; that does not change the fact that they are not "IPCC researchers" and the validity of my main point which was "the yellowed mass-medium that inundate people with catastrophic predications from prophets of doom".

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".

@umisef

Thanks for the mathematical precision. As we will never know the data before 1960 and predicting the future data is always uncertain, putting a straight line (as a tangent if you prefer) to grossly estimate the current trend is easier (but one can obviously plot a parabola if one wants). That was my attempt to refute the:Quote:

"The data now show that greenhouse gas emissions are accelerating much faster than we thought,"

I fail to see such "a much faster acceleration" in the plot. I have no problem with an increase in growth of emission of CO²: this increase is the same as the 1965-1985 period, but the alarmists fail to point this fact out.


@BrianK

Quote:

We the see the graph by TMTisfree as LOTS of unused area. This result is from the use of the scale from 0-400ppm. The data scaling creates the illusion of linearity. When the same data is plotted on a graph that is sized to view the data better 300-400ppm we clearly see your point that the data is non-linear LINK . The conclusion of linearity is incongruent with a correct reading of the graph.

What a ridiculous non scientific statement. Only misleading plots are done with an absolute scale not beginning at 0.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." Abraham Lincoln

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 22-Feb-2009 at 02:49 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 22-Feb-2009 at 02:43 PM.

_________________
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: @umisef oh come on. Surely you don't believe you can convince him that his FACTS are WRONG? you, sir, are one heck of an optimist

It is not about facts, it is an interpretation by me to refute an exaggerated statement. I fully agree that my interpretation is approximative but I did not need to do the full algebra to be able to refute the exaggerating statement.

Edit: typos and reworded a bit

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 22-Feb-2009 at 03:00 PM.

_________________
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

Let illustrate my point:


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:

You stated that Nature's paper authors were "IPCC researchers" while clearly IPCC listings prove they were not

They prove squat. Instead I link to the actual work that fed the IPCC and you claim that because they're not on this list over here therefore their work is non-IPCC related? Nice try and oh so wrong.

Quote:

As we will never know the data before 1960 and predicting the future data is always uncertain, putting a straight line (as a tangent if you prefer) to grossly estimate the current trend is easier

However as we saw this treatment as a gross estimate results in incorrect conclusions as the trend is not linear. Instead the line method creates a false impression.

Quote:

but one can obviously plot a parabola if one wants

The data itself plots the parabola it's clear the increase in CO2 here is not linear but parabolic. The rate of increase is accelerating.

Quote:

Only misleading plots are done with an absolute scale not beginning at 0.

No misleading plots are done such that the data is distorted or obsecured. This is exactly the case for your provided graph starting at 0. Because the changes were between 300-400 your graph is 3/4 nothing. When we ask the question is the rate of change accelerating, we see you incorrectly argue that it is linear, eg the rate of change is 0. The 1/4 of the graph which is important is squashed and fidelity lost. In such it's bad because it has allowed someone, you in this case, to build a false conclusion of the data.

Instead a good graph is provided at the link in my statement. It moves the scale to 300-400. When we ask the question is the rate of change accelerating, we correctly see the function is parabolic, eg the rate of change is indeed accelerating. This is indeed a correct reflection of the data.

If we are to accept that your graph, including 0, proves a linear relationship, no acceleration, then the graph has lost the ability to correctly reflect the relationships. When the data is viewed independent of the graph we can see the rate of change is growing not a constant. This is not reflected in your graph, or so you want to claim. Clearly it's a poor graph and it includes 0.

Sorry but your graph is a clear example of why 'every graph must include 0' is an incorrect concept.

EDIT: Being more friendly and assuming TMTisFree really doesn't get statistical representation and might actually learn something. EG: unrealistic optimism on my part.

Last edited by BrianK on 22-Feb-2009 at 04:51 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 22-Feb-2009 at 04:16 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

They prove squat. Instead I link to the actual work that fed the IPCC and you claim that because they're not on this list over here therefore their work is non-IPCC related? Nice try and oh so wrong.

They prove that the authors of the Nature's paper are plainly not "IPCC researchers" and that your claim is wrong. Moreover, the paper itself, dating 1 May 2008, could not have been reviewed by IPCC, as its latest official report (AR4) is back from 2007.

As I said:Quote:

I fail to see such "a much faster acceleration" in the plot. I have no problem with an increase in growth of emission of CO²: this increase is the same as the 1965-1985 period, but the alarmists fail to point this fact out.

Edit: 1 typo + a quote

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 22-Feb-2009 at 05:12 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 22-Feb-2009 at 05:04 PM.

_________________
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:

In addition to be not supported by real world data, what this claim implicitly suggests (that temperature will rise accordingly) is also not supported by laws of radiation physics. Specifically, there is no additional heat [ie infrared (IR) radiations emitted from ground] absorbed by CO² because all the possible heat radiated by Earth is already entirely trapped by a small part of the current CO². That means that the current CO² in atmosphere is far from being saturated by heat radiated back from ground. As an analogy if you use a blind over a window on a sunny day, adding more blinds will not make the room any darker. This also means that this is the sun which drives the current level of heat that is back-radiated by Earth. The only thing that happens, is the more CO² is added, the more probable the back-radiated IR is trapped by CO² near the ground. But as 99.6% of the IR is trapped within the first 10m above the ground, that does not change anything that IR is trapped at a height of 3m or 2,5m. In addition, the probability that radiation-less energy transfer (kinetic energy through molecular collisions) occurs is many order of magnitude higher that re-radiation of a photon by CO² molecules. Moreover the extremely low part of this re-radiation (50% downwards, 50% upwards) will always be exactly the same (it is a characteristic of the gas), irrespective of the total number of CO² molecules, the total of energy and the height of the atmosphere (because atmosphere is transparent to this upwards longer waves re-radiation). Finally, as heat is trapped in the very first meters above the ground, the gradient of temperature that results leads to normal convectional displacement of the heated layer to the cool layer above through the troposphere until it escapes atmosphere. Let me restate it: the amount of heat trapped by CO² is already maximum, and only depends on the solar irradiation. Because of that, there is no correlation between CO² level and temperature. There is no conjecture here, just application of laws of physics.

When I read this I confess to some amazement even though I've come across the argument before. If you really believe the above I can see where the rest of your arguments come from and why you so emphatically deny a relationship between co2 and more global warming plus specifically anthropogenic global warming.

Now it is true that a small proportion of the co2 in any particular space does an extraordinarily good job of trapping infrared radiation and is soon saturated, and it imparts its energy to the surrounding gases etc. This being so it would seem blindingly obvious that there is no AGW and all good scientists should be united on this point while we carry on burning more and more coal and oil. So why are they not persuaded? Do you know?

Therefore I ask, do you really believe this conclusion, derived from a simple bit of basic physics?

Noel

Last edited by NoelFuller on 23-Feb-2009 at 04:09 AM.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

"The data now show that greenhouse gas emissions are accelerating much faster than we thought," On what data is based this claim?

Ask Chris Fields. He has the access to the latest research, which is what his answer was leaning on. Of course the IPCC reports are only permitted to make use of peer-reviewed papers published in reputable scientific journals as you know, but he was not making an IPCC report for politicians to consider.

Quote:

The main heat-trapping gas is carbon dioxide No, it is H²O as a gas.

This has been known for most of two centuries but water vapour returns to earth in days and builds up only as a feedback from other sources of heating.

However, it is relevant that co2 is the most persistent gas, though not the most powerful at heat trapping, and there are two contexts in which it is true that the main heat trapping gas is co2,
1. AGW (except in NZ where methane is the most - dairy farming :) )
2. The carbon cycle which is the context from which the quote was taken.


Quote:

If there are so many in-understandings and uncertainties, how is it possible to make useful and correct conclusions (not to speak of predictions and policies)? That is not credible.

His department of course must search out the facts and subject them to the scrutiny of the scientific community. You on the other hand display so much more certainty?

Noel

Last edited by NoelFuller on 23-Feb-2009 at 02:26 AM.

@NoelFuller

Quote:

When I read this I confess to some amazement even though I've come across the argument before. If you really believe the above I can see where the rest of your arguments come from and why you so emphatically deny a relationship between co2 and more global warming plus specifically anthropogenic global warming. Now it is true that a small proportion of the co2 in any particular space does an extraordinarily good job of trapping infrared radiation and is soon saturated, and it imparts its energy to the surrounding gases etc. This being so it would seem blindingly obvious that there is no AGW and all good scientists should be united on this point while we carry on burning more and more coal and oil.

I do not believe in anything. I am convinced with arguments, or not. It appears that the application of some laws of physics does convince me much more than pseudo-predictions by interested politicians and manipulated data by some pseudo-scientists paid by the latter politicians (not to speak of the vocal horde of blind believers).

Quote:

So why are they not persuaded? Do you know?

Ask them.

Quote:

Therefore I ask, do you really believe this conclusion, derived from a simple bit of basic physics?

Do you suggest you are not convinced by the application of the laws of physics in this specific case?

Edit: English grammar, made last question clearer

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 23-Feb-2009 at 08:46 AM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 23-Feb-2009 at 08:35 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".

@NoelFuller

Quote:

Ask Chris Fields. He has the access to the latest research, which is what his answer was leaning on. Of course the IPCC reports are only permitted to make use of peer-reviewed papers published in reputable scientific journals as you know, but he was not making an IPCC report for politicians to consider.

His claim is clearly exaggerative. The emission of CO² is accelerating but the acceleration is constant and identical to most previous periods, so not "much faster" as quoted. In addition, future CO² emission values are unknown although trend is up.

Quote:

This has been known for most of two centuries but water vapour returns to earth in days and builds up only as a feedback from other sources of heating.

You are at least a good reader of old articles from RealClimate, but the molecular absorption spectra of these gases somewhat disagrees:

H²0 clearly absorbs in IR band. Note that I am not saying that H²O is not (additively) a feedback actor.

Quote:

His department of course must search out the facts and subject them to the scrutiny of the scientific community. You on the other hand display so much more certainty?

I'm currently convinced by laws of physics as well as you (or others) believe in AGW. I'm really not convinced by hand-waving and doom predictions based on B(ad)S(science).

Edit: typos + modified first sentence

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 23-Feb-2009 at 10:14 AM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 23-Feb-2009 at 10:12 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:

His claim is clearly exaggerative.

You cannot conclude this, by your own initial question you admit to not having the data. I have only just now read remarks from another scientist referring to the same stuff and others wanting to get hold of it - wait and see.

Quote:

You are at least a good reader of old articles from RealClimate, but the molecular absorption spectra of these gases somewhat disagrees: .... H²0 clearly absorbs in IR band. Note that I am not saying that H²O is not (additively) a feedback actor.

Thanks, I meant to include this but forgot to. Would you conclude from the graph that what co2 misses h20 mops up?

And thanks for the reference to RealClimate, can't think why I did not have it bookmarked but it is now and already I have read some interesting and helpful stuff, very old, several days in fact, but unrelated to this discussion.

Noel

Last edited by NoelFuller on 23-Feb-2009 at 11:41 AM.