|
Post by StuartG on Jun 22, 2011 21:04:38 GMT 1
"SOME variables not being known is why, as I understand it, practioners run simulations with a RANGE of parameter values" From that it comes across that the models are run with variables that are not known included. To try to illustrate how things can change, here's a bit from one ot the 'NEWS' posts radio4scienceboards.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=politics&thread=248&post=11965 and physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46193"The double-slit experiment heavily influenced the principle of complementarity devised by Niels Bohr. Complementarity states that observing complementary variables, such as the particle-like trajectories and the wave-like interference in the double-slit experiment, depends on the type of measurement made – the system cannot behave as both a particle and wave simultaneously. Steinberg's recent experiment suggests this does not have to be the case – the system can behave as both." now that suggestion about things changing is OK if it's just a case of modifying a few theories and calming a few ego's, but if this information has a bearing on other processes. lives and fortune, then lets check a bit more. Climate leglislation affects EVERYONE in the World one way or another. So before charging ahead make sure [at least a bit more] before ruining everyone's life, the outcome from ill thought leglislation could be more disasterous for everyone. Recenly the 'Ozone hole' [thinning] has arisen again, with various claims one way or another with how it may affect aerosols and its 'opening an closing' [my words] "Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces: Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion and global climate change" www.probeinternational.org/files/Cosmic-ray-driven%20electron-induced%20reactions%20of%20halogenated%20molecules%20adsorbed%20on%20ice%20surfaces--Implications%20for%20atmospheric%20ozone%20depletion%20and%20global%20climate%20change.pdf"The Solar Cycle and Stratosphere-Troposphere Dynamical Coupling" www.nwra.com/resumes/baldwin/pubs/Baldwin_Dunkerton.pdf""Impact of Polar Ozone Depletion on Subtropical Precipitation," demonstrates that the ozone hole is able to influence the tropical circulation and increase rainfall at low latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere. This is the first time that ozone depletion, an upper atmospheric phenomenon confined to the polar regions, has been linked to climate change from the Pole to the equator. "The ozone hole is not even mentioned in the summary for policymakers issued with the last IPCC report," noted Lorenzo M. Polvani, Professor of Applied Mathematics and of Earth & Environmental Sciences, Senior Research Scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, and co-author of the paper. " archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2011/04/columbia-engineering-study-links-ozone.htmlwww.apam.columbia.edu/announcements/polvani_08/index.htmlThese two addresses are the best to be had as the paper appears to be a 'pays job' from the AAA$ So, anyway things are changing one way or another due to discoveries and different approaches. Old saying "If it ain't broke don't fix it" This short document may need modification at a later date... geochemistry.usask.ca/bill/Courses/Earth%20System%20Science/Lectures/Global%20Energy%20Balance%20print.pdf------ To put it more frankly [IMO]... I'd rather it be cocked up by 'corporate mankind' than a few politicos and scientists who think they know the answers. Do excuse me, I'm off to grab a Valkyrie... www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AlEvy0fJtoAn Aside, found in passing... "The Story of Demeter" www.whyzz.com/who-is-mother-nature StuartG
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 22, 2011 23:30:38 GMT 1
"And the science certainly isn't WRONG" It must be full of cumulative errors, how about the old nugget of temperatures. Where the sensors are placed, lots in some areas, none in others. No single way of presenting or timing temperature reads. Different types and makes of equipment. Rounding, smoothing, averaging, long before it gets to the computer simulation. IPCC ignores things it doesn't understand or deems insufficiently understood*. These raw data are continuously input to various 'climate models' and hey presto! much the same conclusions are drawn, not really surprising. *e.g. The ozone hole is not even mentioned in the summary for policymakers issued with the last IPCC report," noted Lorenzo M. Polvani, Professor of Applied Mathematics and of Earth & Environmental Sciences, Senior Research Scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, and co-author of the paper. " and He's not the only one to note this. indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=52576page 6 of 44 "" • Numerous palaeoclimatic reconstructions suggest that solar/GCR variability has an important influence on climate • However, there is no established physical mechanism, and so solar-climate variability is: ‣ Controversial subject ‣ Not included in current climate models 6 "" ---------- Here's Wolfies dissing of Svensmark et al iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/3/2/024001/pdf/1748-9326_3_2_024001.pdfand some partly agreeing/disagreeing with both... www.arm.ac.uk/preprints/433.pdfOutcome, lets ignore it, that's best... "The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has not considered this effect as significant [8] since the origin of the correlation observed in [1, 2] has been questioned [9]." [from Wolfie's paper]. [9] is here stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Kristjansson_etal_2002.pdfLets just say 'it's not WRONG per se, but if the misunderstood bits are not included and ignored it don't make it RIGHT do it. Duff data in - Data Duffers out. StuartG
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 23, 2011 1:07:36 GMT 1
stuart, most of the time I've no idea what you're on about...............
You seem to be saying, if we don't know everything, we shouldn't say anything. But that isn't the way science proceeds. Plus you seem to be ignoring the fact that climate models CAN be tested against past climate variations, which then gives us some confidence that they are doing something right.
I don't get the point about solar variability, since no one is claiming it DOESN'T have an effect on climate, just that current changes don't correlate with solar activity.
The rest seems to just be -- climate scientists are crap scientists, and the temperature data is crap...............
We'd possibly ruin everyones life if AGW was correct and we ignored it, and given recent report on the state of the oceans, may already be too late.
What IS obvious is that we have introduced a new factor by fossil CO2, and given what CO2 seems to have done in the past, burying your head in the sands of assumed ignorance and hoping it will all go away doesn't seem like a great decision either. If we're wrong about AGw, what would we have done apart from reduced our dependance on a limited supply of fossil fuels, which would seem like a good thing to me.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 23, 2011 12:23:01 GMT 1
There is nothing more entertaining, Stu, that watching clever people pretend to be stupid, don't you agree?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 23, 2011 13:24:01 GMT 1
You get your jollies whatever way you like, M. I was saying that I do find stuarts way of expressing himself sometimes a little gnomic.
Not quite as annoying as your habit of not using the quote button and not providing references.............................
If you don't get what someone is saying, surely truly stupid to not ask for clarification, and even stupider to laugh at that.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 23, 2011 20:45:30 GMT 1
"stuart, most of the time I've no idea what you're on about." So You've got problems, I have to live with it! "I do find stuarts way of expressing himself sometimes a little gnomic." I looked that up, as it's not a word in general usage for me. Perhaps You're relating to my efforts to try to go for the argument and not the person. Please expand. "You seem to be saying, if we don't know everything, we shouldn't say anything" No, just be more open to opposing views, I saw a reference to Kirkby the other day and the staff at CERN were the ones protesting about His ideas, saying that it was allowing 'big oil' a get out. "just that current changes don't correlate with solar activity." Some say, others say Yea! "climate scientists are crap scientists" We've been over that one already today. "the temperature data is crap" Yes. We've done that one before. "We'd possibly ruin everyones life if AGW was correct and we ignored it" I note the qualifications, possibly and was. Like I said today/yesterday/can't remember offhand, If it ain't broke don't fix it. You have just demonstrated an unsure mind, so leave it alone till You are more sure. [no, not 100%] "burying your head in the sands" If that is so then I'm looking for oil. I'm more worried where we are being taken. "recent report on the state of the oceans" Yes, I saw that one too, to use one of Your words alarmist 'crap'. "reduced our dependance on a limited supply of fossil fuels, which would seem like a good thing to me." Yes, if that's as far as it goes. Remember I'm one of the technicians who was involved with the 'Californian Cycle' when it first came to this country to be developed in the late sixties. I was just musing today that my little 125 Yamaha now sports a catalytic converter and fuel injection but it's taken 40 years to trickle down. There seems to be a correlation between population growth and CO2 increase. Given the present day use of hydrocarbons and the present population, how far back in population terms would we have to go in order to stabilise the co2 output so as to give a stable temperature? StuartG
|
|
|
Post by buckleymanor1 on Jun 29, 2011 19:26:15 GMT 1
Not convinced by this explanation at all, if incoming and outgoing balance that in itself does not recognize what happens in between. If it were the case then AGW as a hypothesis would not mean much if anything. Surely it's the retained heat by the planet or "atmosphere" that has any play in GW and if you consider that the "solid" planet is a much better heat conductor than the atmosphere then rotation or not must play a larger part than you give credit fore.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 30, 2011 12:59:05 GMT 1
Except by balancing input and output is HOW you compute equilibrium temperature -- its the way that temperature, rotation, albedo effect incoming and outgoung that is where the physics comes in.
Go look up the science if you don't believe me.
|
|
|
Post by buckleymanor1 on Jun 30, 2011 23:51:56 GMT 1
Except by balancing input and output is HOW you compute equilibrium temperature -- its the way that temperature, rotation, albedo effect incoming and outgoung that is where the physics comes in. Go look up the science if you don't believe me. Does equilibrium temperature tell us that the core of a non rotating planet without an atmosphere will reach the same temperature as the core of a similar planet which rotates. Not sure if it does or if it is taken into account. And if there is a difference and there is an effect I stand by my assertion that Venus is warmer than Mercury because of this. If it was just a simple case of incoming temperature and outgoing balancing then greenhouse effects could be ignored for planets with atmospheres. Surely it's the heat the planet can hang onto before it is able to radiate it into space that determines it's core temperature.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jul 1, 2011 13:11:57 GMT 1
Except the core of a planet like the Earth (or Jupiter) is hotter than the surface because the planet still retains heat from formation, or heat generated by radioactive processes (or heat generated by tidal stresses in the case of several moons). Hence when it comes to the surface, we have a certain amount of heat delivered from below. Hence THAT is how the core is taken into account -- it heats the surface to some extent.
No, Venus is hotter than Mercury because of the greenhouse effect.
It would help considerably if you went and learnt the basics before making stands in daft, untenable positions.
|
|
|
Post by buckleymanor1 on Jul 1, 2011 16:31:28 GMT 1
Simple basic experiment. Take two identical steel wheels with axles. Heat each wheel to say 500 oC. Now submerge both wheels to there axles at the same time in water at 5 oC. Rotate one wheel but not the other. Which one cools quicker.
If you continue to heat the part of both wheels which are above the waterlines the stationary wheel will heat up more. Is that basic enough for you!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 2, 2011 9:18:05 GMT 1
You obviously went to a different academy to STA, buckley.
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Jul 2, 2011 10:17:21 GMT 1
A day (not to be confused with the rotation period) on Mercury lasts 176 Earth day. A day on Venus lasts 116.75 Earth days. So by your reasoning, Mercury should be hotter than Venus because of its longer day (and this is on top of Mercury's closeness to the Sun).
|
|
|
Post by buckleymanor1 on Jul 2, 2011 11:02:57 GMT 1
A day (not to be confused with the rotation period) on Mercury lasts 176 Earth day. A day on Venus lasts 116.75 Earth days. So by your reasoning, Mercury should be hotter than Venus because of its longer day (and this is on top of Mercury's closeness to the Sun). Wrong! It's the rotational period that matters,the amount of time the planet is faceing the Sun. Venus rotates every 243 days.(Earth days)
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Jul 2, 2011 11:21:53 GMT 1
Like I said, do not confuse the day, ie sunrise to sunrise, with the rotation period, ie the time needed to rotate 360 degrees. The day length, not the rotation time, determines how long the sun shines, and these are different because the planets move round the Sun.
Mercury rotates in 59 days, but it orbits the sun in 88 days, so if you were on Mercury you would see the sun rise every 176 days. Venus rotates (backwards) in 243 days and orbits the Sun in 225 days, so the sun rises every 116.75 days.
|
|