Secondly, the models have completely failed to predict, or even replicate the lack of spiraling upward temperatures that should go along with increasing CO2.
Thirdly, there's a very obvious experiment to perform, calculate spectra of CO2 in the atmosphere, and see if it matches the naive extrapolation used in GCMs.
Fourthly, the models do not accurately replicate troposphere temperatures.
Finally, many experimental measurements/calculations, like the standard deviation of temperature and such to find when weather turns into climate have not been done, and just handwaved away with claims that averages are easier to predict.
GCMs are nothing more than crude weather models iterated past the (experimentally determined ~ 1 week) Lyapunov exponent of the system. But all that doesn't matter because it's just basic principles of computer science and physics, to say nothing of Navier-Stokes, and I'm sure feeling-based science will replace all those "closeminded oil company stooges".
I mean, it's not at all crankish to demand others accept your ideas because the burden of proof is on them. Here I was thinking that for a scientific theory that's claimed to have quantitative predictive power, the burden of proof was on the person proposing the theory, that is, give some quantitative predictions, or some quantitative reasoning why predictions are only valid in ~100 years.
Do tell me, how much of your life revolves around justifying away the cognitive dissonance created by climatology conspiracy theory strawmen and oil/coal conspiracy theories? I ask, because I would like to be fair and justify my claim that you are an idiot. Are you capable of thinking at all, or do you have to get all of your thoughts and opinions from consensus and such?
So, where's this mythical 2nd paper that repeats the 1935 measurements so the effect of +50ppm CO2 is quantified? Once again, you setup and fail to even knock down your 10 meter tube strawman. You could, you know, bother to check what I *actually* said "I want to know what the observed experimental data is, from a ~10 meter tube, or the observed atmosphere, or such, not computer models.", but that'd completely shatter your argument.
>It's a meaningless calculation because the error will very quickly approach the size of what's being measured. (then some random non sequitur about how the standard deviation is apparently not the quantification of *deviation* of measurement)
Seriously, you *really* need to learn about the standard deviation, or anything else you choose to argue about, because you're basically claiming up is down and black is white.
The equation was given, it matches observations. But, you can pretend that your ignorance (by your own admission) of thermodynamics means as long as I don't "prove" it to you (that is, provide an argument that makes you feel smart about some advanced scientific topic), you don't need to bother with thinking about information outside your worldview. As long as you don't admit you're wrong, project that a given physics derivation and observation is a "moving target" and such, you don't have to "feel" wrong. Ah, fun with causing cognitive dissonance in cranks.
You really need to spend a lot more time on (a) learning how science, specifically physics, is done, and (b) reading comprehension. You then might notice that I did not want values from models, but experimental values. But that would shatter your whole fantasy that you're some heroic "defender of truth".
>I did some thinking about this. It's a meaningless calculation because the error will very quickly approach the size of what's being measured.
You do know that the standard deviation has a very precise definition (really, go look it up), and that what you wrote is so muddle-headed, vague, and just plain meaningless. But that's ok, as long as you feel like your analogy is a substitute for knowledge of simple math.
>No it's not. I give up. Forget it. This is a waste of my time.
Ah, yes. Wikipedia does use *such* difficult to read formatting for equations. And you know, thermodynamics is just a theory, and observations that match the theory doesn't actually strengthen the argument. Reality be dammed, as long as it doesn't make you happy you can ignore any equation that fits the data and provides a theoretical understanding.
"A derivation" has a precise meaning, it means from first (physical) principles. A calculation does not mean the same thing. BTW, providing answers isn't really helpful when the point is to follow the reasoning as to how the answer was arrived at.
I'll check the Physical Review paper at the library tomorrow, do you know if anyone has done a recent study to quantify how the absorption has changed since 1935 (from increasing CO2 and such).
Once again, the specific claim was that no one has taken the observed temperature readings, and calculated the standard deviation. Models are not observations, models *should* match observations, but that's not scientific to assume.
The dry adiabatic lapse rate on wikipedia isn't well formatted enough for you? Since you adamantly refuse to go through the trouble of plugging in constants, whose values are conveniently also on wikipedia, I think we can take that to be an admission that you agree the equation (and derivation) is correct and accurately matches observations. Let me know if you'd like any other physics issues you're confused about clarified and I'll be glad to help you out.
Why is it *so* important that policy be enacted immediately? The human race has a long history not fully understanding nature - if the consequences are *so* dire, then we should be very careful we don't muck things up even more. If it's completely unreasonable to have some rigor, because of looming catastrophe, a "tipping point", where is the data that supports this idea?
You seem to be confused about my questions involving standard deviation and experiments - if you're uncertain about what I'm saying, just say what you don't understand, and I'll clarify it for you. Here they are again, as simple as I can make them.
My specific claim about standard deviation is that no one has taken the observed temperature readings, and calculated the standard deviation from that, for 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, and 1 year. If you've read a paper which has this value, please provide a quote, and link.
"I want to know what the observed experimental data is, from a ~10 meter tube, or the observed atmosphere, or such, not computer models" - the absorption spectrum of CO2 is measured by a spectrometer over ~1cm, I think it's important to have done the (simple) experiment that would verify we know how CO2 behaves over longer distances, if it's a fundamental part of our models.
The derivation is available at the wikipedia article on Adiabatic Lapse Rate, you can find data for the atmosphere of Venus, and the least square algorithm there as well. All the other numbers are accepted values of physical constants. The equation is independent of planet, besides dependence on g, and the value for Earth is 9.8C/km, from the wikipedia article. I don't understand what you consider short-hand - if you don't understand the derivation then you need to pick up a copy of Kittel and Kroemer, Thermal Physics. It's rather disingenuous to expect me to provide a simpler derivation, but you surely can plug in numbers, do the least squares, and check that I wasn't lying about the numbers I gave.
Yes, it holds on Earth (I dunno the max height, prob ~10km), and sufficiently dry. The equations for Venus and Earth are the same, just plug in g, M, gamma, you understand what a differential equation describes, right? It's from meteorology, and is why IPCC models with hydrostatic equilibrium can't simulate clouds. "The varying environmental lapse rates throughout the earth's atmosphere are of critical importance in meteorology, particularly within the troposphere." What this equation says, for both Venus and Earth, is that Pressure is sufficient to create a "livable" Earth.
Assuming Claugh & Iacono (1995) is anything like (2000), I want to know what the observed experimental data is, from a ~10 meter tube, or the observed atmosphere, or such, not computer models. From physics classes, I know how easy it is to screw up a derivation, and that's just undergrad not research. Computer modeling is something, that to regard with anywhere near the same certainty as a derivation, I'd need to at least see the data it predicts implicitly or explicitly.
Standard deviation of temperature, let's say global average. I'm lead to believe (thermometer) temperature records go back at least ~100 years, and are recorded daily. Why isn't the Sqrt(1/N Sum (x_i-mew) ) value used to show the natural variability, and provide hard, experimental evidence for weather->average->climate. This is just basic science, and by not doing it, and absolutely refusing to share data, they end up coming off like jerks that haven't done their due diligence, at best.
I'm not interested in the IPCC models for 3 reasons (1) somewhat vague predictions (at least no one's given a variable that will be statistically outside the observed average), (2) poor documentation and poor "numeric/physical rigor" (see lapse rate and clouds, among others), and (3) I need to check into Douglass et al, and what Santer et al says, but the general level of vitriol, ad homiems, and basic lack of understanding of simple scientific principles, like making it easy to duplicate your work, does not fill me with hope; see absurdity comparing quotes below.
"We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider. - Phil Jones"
"Professor Eddington's analysis of photographs of a solar eclipse confirmed the correctness of Einstein's equations. When asked by colleagues at the November 19th Royal Society Meeting to produce the data to support his claims regarding Einstein's theory Eddington replied, "Giving them the equations and source code would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people are engaged in," he added " We have 1000's of hours of time invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"
In no particular order: Earth, it predicts somewhat well, around the latent condensation level it diverges. Mars, no known atmospheric measurements to test (based on height/pressure). That equation is the dry adiabatic lapse rate, so depending on the humidity, you'd have to use the moist version.
As the moist adiabatic lapse rate equation demonstrates, yes, water vapor has a significant effect on atmospheric thermodynamics. I would like to know, quantitatively about feedback, the length of CO2 in the atmosphere, clouds, and many other processes, either from first principles, or experiment (like what is the decrease in transmission for various wavelengths for say a ten meter insulated tube with various atmospheres, is it still logarithmic over atmospheric distances?), and somewhat fundamentally, the calculated standard deviation of the weather for 1 year, 2 years, etc.
I don't believe there's a conspiracy. I do believe that the accuracy of the models has been greatly oversold, and the problems rationalized, and this "over-investment" has led to the claims about X caused by climate change, ad homiem attacks, and general poor state of understanding of the science, exemplified by "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider." - Phil Jones
I'll repeat, "where are the "sound, repeatable, demonstrable, falsifiable, testable" *experiments* to check that yes, our theory about how CO2 behaves in the atmosphere (or rather "toy atmosphere", for testing), is brilliantly confirmed by observations?" Or, to be perfectly precise, where is the experiment with (1) an insulated tube with various mixes of gases you wish to test (and various lengths), (2) a radiation/light source of variable wavelengths, and (3) measurements of radiation at both ends.
If spectrometry and the radiative forcing equation apply, they accurately predict the experiment, then congrats, you can use those equations. Physics equations aren't magic, and it's dishonest to misrepresent your argument with them without experiment or derivation for confirmation, just as it's dishonest to claim it's settled science, and make ad homiem attacks, when you haven't actually done the fundamental experiment, and it's fraud when you attempt to use intimidation by consensus.
Fortunately, nature has been kind enough to provide us with Venus. The adiabatic lapse rate (convective heat transport in the atmosphere) = dT/dz = -Mg/R*(y-1)/y = ~7.82K/km (I was lazy and used 100% CO2 for this, also y = gamma) which isn't too far off from the ALR calculated from measurements using least squares = ~7.74K/km. Surprise, we have experimental evidence that Venus, a planet with ~20,000X (92atm, ~96% CO2) the concentration of CO2 is quite explainable without resort to vague computer models.
As for newscientist:
Chaos does not disappear by averaging, no matter how many time you repeat it, the averaged N-S equations are just as hard to solve as the instantaneous, and iterating a crude weather model far past the point where it is valid does not magically make climate pop out. The only way you can predict a chaotic system is if it's periodic (or quasi-periodic), and then you have to determine the boundary conditions.
Still waiting on the natural variability of climate calculated from observations, a quantitative reason when weather turns to climate, and (correct) model predictions, say 3 standard deviations (or some equivalent probability) outside natural variability.
All in all a mess of non sequiturs, fuzzy sciencey analogies, and basic lack of understanding of math and physics, as well as the complexities of numerics. You probably should work on learning something about science, instead of just parroting terms and equations if you don't want to look foolish/dishonest. But then again, cargo cult science rarely figures out why planes don't land.
As for the greenhouse effect and convection, assuming CO2 has the warming power attributed to it, Venus would probably be a good place for some clear effects to show. However, the adiabatic lapse rate (convective heat transport in the atmosphere) = dT/dz = -Mg/R*(y-1)/y = ~7.82K/km (I was lazy and used 100% CO2 for this, also y = gamma) which isn't too far off from the ALR calculated from measurements using least squares = ~7.74K/km. Note that this only depends on molar mass, gravitational acceleration, gas constant, and specific heat capacity, so we may safely conclude that the greenhouse effect is caused by pressure. HTH HAND
(the 33K warming if the earth that makes life possible is attributed to CO2/greenhouse effect, which got me interested in the physics of the problem, but it seems to be much more likely to be caused by convection+ideal gas law+pressure (as a sorta intuitive explanation of the physics) )