|
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
biffvernon
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 14022
Location: Lincolnshire
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:07 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| JavaScriptDonkey wrote: | | biffvernon wrote: | JSD, your first pretty graph shows a 16 degree anomaly for the PETM.
Doh. |
Any reason that it shouldn't? |
Yes.
_________________
http://www.transitiontownlouth.org.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SleeperService
Joined: 02 May 2011
Posts: 923
Location: Nottingham UK
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| UndercoverElephant wrote: | And here:
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2012/01/unified-climate-theory-iii.html
| Quote: |
More telling than the hiding of that clear physical effect by the "Unified Climate Theory", however, and indeed more outrageous, is the shape of their NTE function. They tried to give that function some physical support by comparing its shape to that of the Poisson formula for temperature as a function of pressure, but it should be noted (using their own Figure 5) that their NTE function WOULD APPEAR TO BE USELESS for calculating the surface temperature of 5 of the 8 planetary bodies they considered, as all of those 5 bodies (Mercury, Moon, Mars, Europa, and Triton) have practically zero surface pressure, while their surface temperatures vary greatly (in other words, the NTE function is a vertical straight line, at a surface pressure of zero, in their Figure 5). Yet they claim, in their Table 1, perfect prediction of the surface temperatures of 2 of those 5 bodies (Mars and Europa), and near perfect prediction of another (Triton). It is my understanding, in the case of Mars, that its surface temperature varies widely, one would presume precisely because its pressure is so low, thus unstable. Even if their data and calculations are correct in this, this unphysical result explains the extreme form of their NTE function; and the extreme accuracy of their predicted temperatures cannot possibly be true. And sure enough, if one checks their values for the OBSERVED surface temperatures, one finds they claim to know every one of those temperatures to within 0.1K! I do not hesitate to call this delusionary.
|
It is politically-motivated bullshit, SH. The author has been offered lots of money to produce anti-scientific propaganda in order to allow people like you to continue to believe nonsense about climate change. |
A couple of things strike me. The earth (to the best of our current knowledge) has been a snowball and temperate/tropical overall at different stages. To the best of our knowledge the solar radiation level has tended to increase slowly over the same period. Atmospheric pressure has also been fairly stable. What has changed is the composition which, as noted elsewhere, is mostly ignored.
A glance at his lulu page suggests von Daniken on a massive scale
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/hdhsciences
Lastly this all ignores 'tipping points' and/or feedback effects which are generally accepted to apply to most dynamic systems like the atmosphere's.
_________________
On the point of giving up and dropping out.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
snow hope
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 3777
Location: Belfast, N Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| UndercoverElephant wrote: | The next part of the paper contains degree-level mathematics, which I can't cope with, and I doubt many other people posting here can either.
All I can see is a US government employee who has been paid to produce a paper which convinces people like you there is evidence to support climate change denialism, regardless of the fact that you don't understand the maths any better than I do. It is assumed that most people reading it will not understand it.
|
I am not going to reply to all of your (somewhat) bombasic posts UCE. You see what you want to see...... and I can see I am unlikely to change your opinion, especially when you feel that I "continue to believe nonsense about climate change."
I don't understand all the mathematics, but it is certainly not all degree level. I understand the basic physical equations of gases (whether Ideal or Real) and of kinetic energy (the energy an object possesses due to its motion). According to Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas
Under normal pressure and temperature conditions, air, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, etc. behave like an ideal gas and the ideal gas law equation PV=nRT applies. Where P=Pressure, V=Volume, n=the number of molecules, R=the gas constant or Boltzmann constant and T=the Temperature. So the Temperature of the gas from the above equation is
T=PV/nR so Temperature will increase if either the Pressure or Volume of the gas increase, or if the number of the molecules decreases. (R is a constant and thus can't change).
It's not that difficult to grasp how the temperature of our atmosphere may change due to these variables, especially if some of it is being lost to space!
Despite your assertion otherwise, it is an accepted fact that climate has not continued to warm over the last 13 years, whilst CO2 in the atmosphere has continued to rise over that period. There are other periods in the last century when CO2 and temperature have not been in phase together. No matter how annoying this may be to some, it raises doubt about the connection between the two variables.
The paper JSD linked to, elaborates much further on the ideal gas law and Solar Irradiance, etc.
In my opinion, to conclude that, "the theory is not proper science. It is politically-motivated propaganda, dressed up as science" is way out of line and shows up your capacity for understanding physics, gases and scientific argument. Don't forget UCE that in science it is good to be sceptical.
I stand by my views on the paper, until convinced otherwise.
_________________
The economic expansion was driven by financial capital as banks lent more than they had on deposit, confident that Tomorrow’s Economic Growth was collateral for To-day’s Debt. Dr. Colin Campbell.
And that was the fatal mistake. Me |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 7149
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A reduction in the rate of increase of temperature over the last 13 years could be explained by a reduction in solar output and the increasing loss of Arctic ice by the fact that the atmosphere had warmed enough up to 13 years ago top continue melting the ice. The sea temperature has also warmed and that will continue to melt ice from below. Global warming could still be occurring but is being masked by a temporary reduction in solar output.
I understand that in early times the earth had a much greater concentration of CO2 than today. Given a constant depth of the atmosphere and CO2 being heavier that oxygen that would make the atmospheric pressure higher. With a thicker atmosphere it would be even greater.
Just a theory. (and with no expletives or derogatory attacks)
_________________
BLOG
It is very, very, very serious indeed. This is the big one!" Professor Tim Lang, APPGOPO, 25/03/08. And he was talking about food, not oil or the economy! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
biffvernon
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 14022
Location: Lincolnshire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JavaScriptDonkey
Joined: 02 Jun 2011
Posts: 1503
Location: SE England
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| biffvernon wrote: | | JavaScriptDonkey wrote: | | biffvernon wrote: | JSD, your first pretty graph shows a 16 degree anomaly for the PETM.
Doh. |
Any reason that it shouldn't? |
Yes. |
Puzzled.
Is it not Hansen's data?
I don't see any good news in this paper and it certainly isn't denying climate change.
It makes a solid prediction that global temperature will not increase within the next 100years without a change in cloud cover. As we'll be out of oil by then we won't have long to wait to see if it's a crock or not.
Last edited by JavaScriptDonkey on Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:26 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
clv101
Site Admin
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 6193
Location: Bristol
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| snow hope wrote: | | Despite your assertion otherwise, it is an accepted fact that climate has not continued to warm over the last 13 years, whilst CO2 in the atmosphere has continued to rise over that period. There are other periods in the last century when CO2 and temperature have not been in phase together. No matter how annoying this may be to some, it raises doubt about the connection between the two variables. |
I haven't been following this thread, but I did just spot this paragraph and felt the need to comment. That CO2 concentrations and global average surface temperatures don't follow each other perfectly does not "raise doubt about the connection between the two variables". To even suggest that is the simplify the situation to the absurd.
There are dozens interlinked and overlapping, related and unrelated to one another, long term and short term processes that together influence surface temperature - then there's also many depths of the ocean and heights of the atmosphere where energy can increase or decrease.
The concentration of CO2 is one factor of many, the influence of which can be totally over by others over various timescales (daily, seasonally, multi-yearly). And surface temperature only one metric.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RenewableCandy
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 10799
Location: York
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| snow hope wrote: | | Despite your assertion otherwise, it is an accepted fact that climate has not continued to warm over the last 13 years, whilst CO2 in the atmosphere has continued to rise over that period. |
Yes, because there are other factors influencing temperature, like solar cycles, amount of soot in the atmosphere (e.g. from China), El Nino and North Atlantic Oscillations, etc.
And in fact, the last 10 years have contained a disproprtionate number of the 10 hottest years ever, including (iirc) last year.
I personally think that even if we never manage to "prove AGW beyond reasonable doubt" (it's pretty-well there, but...) there are other problems with enhanced levels of CO_2 in the atmosphere, chief of which is its acidifying effect on the sea. And this can't be offset by geoengineering projects like increasing the earth's albedo.
_________________
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l’impossible.
Space and Spaceability
The Year-Long Lunch Break |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
biffvernon
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 14022
Location: Lincolnshire
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| clv101 wrote: | | And surface temperature only one metric. |
A pretty poor metric at that when one considers a comparison of the thermal capacity of the atmosphere with that of the deep oceans.
Of course the planet has been warming continuously for the last 13 years (and more). We've wrapped it up in a dirty great blanket and left the heating on.
It's no good pretending, just because you've stuck your thermometer in the wrong place.
_________________
http://www.transitiontownlouth.org.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
snow hope
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 3777
Location: Belfast, N Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| clv101 wrote: | | That CO2 concentrations and global average surface temperatures don't follow each other perfectly does not "raise doubt about the connection between the two variables". To even suggest that is the simplify the situation to the absurd. |
Well according to the IPCC AR4, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.[8] This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations”
So if you will not accept the fact that global temperatures have not risen over the last 13 years, despite ever increasing CO2 rises, does not cause doubt on GHG causality, then would you accept that if global temperatures don't rise over the coming 13 years, that it may cause some doubt?
| clv101 wrote: |
There are dozens interlinked and overlapping, related and unrelated to one another, long term and short term processes that together influence surface temperature - then there's also many depths of the ocean and heights of the atmosphere where energy can increase or decrease. |
Exactly!
| clv101 wrote: |
The concentration of CO2 is one factor of many, the influence of which can be totally over by others over various timescales (daily, seasonally, multi-yearly). And surface temperature only one metric. |
Agreed. Which makes one question why the IPCC are said to be 95% certain that the majority of the global warming that has ocurred over the last 25 years is down to mankind. 
_________________
The economic expansion was driven by financial capital as banks lent more than they had on deposit, confident that Tomorrow’s Economic Growth was collateral for To-day’s Debt. Dr. Colin Campbell.
And that was the fatal mistake. Me |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fifthcolumn
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 2420
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| UndercoverElephant wrote: | | If this happens then it may be what stops humans from creating a Venus-style runaway warming on the Earth. Not that this will save industrialised, globalised civilisation. |
No. The fact that even at 12800 ppm we get only 5C of warming due to greenhouse gases means that we will never get a Venus style runaway warming on the Earth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
