Jump to content

Don't Go Being Politically Insane You Climate Change Skeptics


Mr King

Recommended Posts

The fact that historical data was tossed out astonishes me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, rmgill said:

The fact that historical data was tossed out astonishes me. 

A extreme occurrence of that physicists' joke: if the data do not conform to your beautiful, elegant theory, then change the data.

Edited to add: Now has became quite difficult to find traces of that manipulation, and the new google algorithms do not help.

Edited by sunday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was a ridiculously bad take on Venus even by Tony Heller's standards. Take a complex phenomenon, reduce to single equation, and pretend that in an equation of 3 state variable you can pretend it's just 2 where one becomes a fixed parameter so the other can be solved...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee, I don't know, might it have something to do with greater solar radiation intensity? Just one of many things that an attempt to pretend that pressure alone determines temperature ignores...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, jmsaari said:

Gee, I don't know, might it have something to do with greater solar radiation intensity? 

Thats my point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, jmsaari said:

That was a ridiculously bad take on Venus even by Tony Heller's standards. Take a complex phenomenon, reduce to single equation, and pretend that in an equation of 3 state variable you can pretend it's just 2 where one becomes a fixed parameter so the other can be solved...

There maybe some volvanic activity on Venus increasing the number of C=2 molecules, and there'll be some volume variation of the atmosphere. Nevertheless, I think that these variations are miniscule when looking at an entire planet's atmospheric conditions, so his approximation (n and V constant) is valid, just as well the conclusion that Venus's atmosphere is in a steady state with a near-constant amount of energy going in by solar radiation, which must be radiated away unless Venus was to heat up even more (which would then increase the volume of the atmosphere, and hence the radiative survace to get rid on the extra heat) - so it definitely is in equilibrium.

What other factors, do you believe, play a meaningful role in the conditions on the surface of Venus?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ssnake said:

There maybe some volvanic activity on Venus increasing the number of C=2 molecules, and there'll be some volume variation of the atmosphere. Nevertheless, I think that these variations are miniscule when looking at an entire planet's atmospheric conditions, so his approximation (n and V constant) is valid, just as well the conclusion that Venus's atmosphere is in a steady state with a near-constant amount of energy going in by solar radiation, which must be radiated away unless Venus was to heat up even more (which would then increase the volume of the atmosphere, and hence the radiative survace to get rid on the extra heat) - so it definitely is in equilibrium.

What other factors, do you believe, play a meaningful role in the conditions on the surface of Venus?

The equilibrium part is obviously valid, but where Heller gets ridiculous is that right after correctly stating that, he tries to argue that since there's no CO2 content in ideal gas law, and the temperature must be thus only affected by pressure. 

It's a bit pointless to try to treat the whole atmosphere as a single system with ideal gas law already because it's absolutely not homogeneous in terms of any of the state variables, temperature, pressure and density vary by orders of magnitude over the altitude. The ideal gas law really just tells the ratio of three state variables - pressure, temperature, and density/specific volume.

For what the ideal gas law is useful, ratio of state properties, it would be convenient to divide the p*V=n*Ru*T by mass to get p*v=p/rho=Rspec*T, where Rspec is the specific gas constant of gas or gas mixture, and v specific volume or inverse of density rho. So Heller ignores firstly that knowing pressure, there would still infinite number of ways how to combine v & T, but more importantly what that equilibrium state will be for any control volume of gas in the atmosphere, will depend on the energy balance, i.e. heat transfer that defines the energy flows to/from that control volume.

And for that the radiation heat transfer to/from the gas is of course important, and that will depend on the gas composition, temperature, density, and wavelength distribution of incoming radiation. The composition will also affect what gets transmitted out of the gas control volume, both in wavelength of course all the various flows of. On top of that obviously all weather effects like winds, clouds, precipitation etc, albedo (clouds&surface), and whatever various other processes might be going on in the atmosphere.

But supposing none of those last bits exist, the amount of gases & particles that meaningfully interact with radiation at relevant wavelengths will affect the mean beam length in the atmosphere: the shorter mean beam length, the better "insulation" the gas layer will be:  the distance at which some of the radiation gets transmitted back to the surface instead of outward towards space is shorter. And therefore the temperature temperature gradient will have to get steeper, to keep the system at equilibrium and keep transmitting everything coming from the sun back out...

At the very basic level the question if CO2 and other greenhouse gases cause warming is really beyond any doubt, we know how CO2 radiation heat transfer works, Hottel's emissivity graphs should be over half a century old by now and the general principle even older... the only things that anyone could reasonably question is only over what sort of positive and negative feedback loops will come from changes in various circulation patterns, albedo, etc., how will various sinks and sources react to changing conditions, etc, and ideal gas law alone tells us very little of those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/5/3/35

Quote

On Hens, Eggs, Temperatures and CO2: Causal Links in Earth’s Atmosphere
by Demetris Koutsoyiannis 1,*ORCID,Christian Onof 2,Zbigniew W. Kundzewicz 3 and Antonis Christofides 1

Abstract

The scientific and wider interest in the relationship between atmospheric temperature (T) and concentration of carbon dioxide ([CO2]) has been enormous. According to the commonly assumed causality link, increased [CO2] causes a rise in T. However, recent developments cast doubts on this assumption by showing that this relationship is of the hen-or-egg type, or even unidirectional but opposite in direction to the commonly assumed one. These developments include an advanced theoretical framework for testing causality based on the stochastic evaluation of a potentially causal link between two processes via the notion of the impulse response function. Using, on the one hand, this framework and further expanding it and, on the other hand, the longest available modern time series of globally averaged T and [CO2], we shed light on the potential causality between these two processes. All evidence resulting from the analyses suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with T as the cause and [CO2] as the effect. That link is not represented in climate models, whose outputs are also examined using the same framework, resulting in a link opposite the one found when the real measurements are used.
Keywords: causality; causal systems; stochastics; impulse response function; geophysics; hydrology; climate

All evidence resulting from the analyses suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with T as the cause and [CO2] as the effect. That link is not represented in climate models, whose outputs are also examined using the same framework, resulting in a link opposite the one found when the real measurements are used.

Quote

Science is generated by and devoted to free inquiry: the idea that any hypothesis, no matter how strange, deserves to be considered on its merits. The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and politics, but it is not the path to knowledge; it has no place in the endeavor of science. We do not know in advance who will discover fundamental new insights.
Carl Sagan

Quote

10. Conclusions

With reference to points 1–7 of the Introduction setting the paper’s scope, the results of our analyses can be summarized as follows.

  1. All evidence resulting from the analyses of the longest available modern time series of atmospheric concentration of [CO2] at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, along with that of globally averaged T, suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with T as the cause and [CO2] as the effect. This direction of causality holds for the entire period covered by the observations (more than 60 years).
  2. Seasonality, as reflected in different phases of [CO2] time series at different latitudes, does not play any role in potential causality, as confirmed by replacing the Mauna Loa [CO2] time series with that in South Pole.
  3. The unidirectional 𝑇→ln[CO2] potential causal link applies to all timescales resolved by the available data, from monthly to about two decades.
  4. The proposed methodology is simple, flexible and effective in disambiguating cases where the type of causality, HOE or unidirectional, is not quite clear.
  5. Furthermore, the methodology defines a type of data analysis that, regardless of the detection of causality per se, assesses modeling performance by comparing observational data with model results. In particular, the analysis of climate model outputs reveals a misrepresentation of the causal link by these models, which suggest a causality direction opposite to the one found when the real measurements are used.
  6. Extensions of the scope of the methodology, i.e., from detecting possible causality to building a more detailed model of stochastic type, are possible, as illustrated by a toy model for the T-[CO2] system, with explained variance of [CO2] reaching an impressive 99.9%.
  7. While some of the findings of this study seem counterintuitive or contrary to mainstream opinions, they are logically and computationally supported by arguments and calculations given in the Appendices.

Overall, the stochastic notion of a causal system, based on the concept of the impulse response function, proved to be very effective in studying demanding causality problems. A crucial characteristic of our methodology is its direct use of the data per se, in contrast with other methodologies that are based on uncertain estimates of autocorrelation functions or on the more uncertain tool of the power spectrum, i.e., the Fourier transform of the autocorrelation function. The methodology has the potential for further advances, as we first reported here (e.g., the asymmetric time lag window, the definition of a type of data analysis to be used in assessing modeling performance, and the extensions of its scope from detecting possible causality to building a more detailed model).

 

Edited by sunday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the upside, if we all - plus China and India - stop burning coal and oil by the end of this month, we still may have a chance. I remain cautiously optimistic that everybody will recognize the error of their ways. We still have a week to think of something, we can't let Greta down!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...