|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Here it is: the real impact of global warming
On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 6:58:08 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
So my son-in-law who is a soil scientist is ignorant, as well as his father who taught soil science for decades. So my other son-in-law who has a degree in agriculture is ignorant. So my cousins who are farmers and also have degrees in agriculture are ignorant? They came to these conclusions independently on their own. Your denigration of the people on the front lines as opposed to those in their ivory towers is remarkable. I started out with some people who _are_ "on the front lines". https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45715550 Those unfortunate people in Bangladesh, of course, aren't qualified to say if they're just suffering from the effects of some random bad weather or something that is really connected with climate change. I do not really know why people with degrees in agriculture or soil science would be inclined to dispute the conclusions of people with degrees in climate science about climate. It could be they live in a part of the country where all the newspapers reinforce a certain outlook on life, so that people of all educational levels are dismissive of notions they associate with people living in New York or Hollywood... never mind Boston. I live in Alberta, where selling oil is as important to our economy as it is to that of Texas, so I can certainly understand how that sort of thing can happen. Perceived economic self-interest can affect objectivity. John Savard |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Here it is: the real impact of global warming
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 17:10:41 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote: On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 3:42:50 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: And YOU are a climate groupie who doen't understand the first thing about the models but arrogantly denounces anyone who questions the Climate Gods whom you worship with YOUR dogmatism. He certainly doesn't help matters by coming across as someone who plans to line you up against the wall when the revolution comes. If the revolution comes, it will likely be the result of the stresses of climate change. That's certainly the biggest threat we face. However, by continuing to defend the false, and well-known to be false, proposition that AGW is not based on genuine and valid science, and that opposition to it is worth taking seriously, the only people you will manage to impress are the ignorant. You cannot convince his sort. He cannot reason past his ideological dogmatism. His religion and his politics broke him. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Here it is: the real impact of global warming
On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 9:37:39 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 6:58:08 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: Modtran is a well-respected atmospheric model and it refutes all the AGW alarmist poppycock. It is so well-respected that it stands head-and-shoulders above the climate models and its alarmist groupies. First thing I did was try to find out what Modtran was: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpre...10/25/modtran/ An amateur tried to use Modtran to check AGW, and did not get a refutation. That, of course, doesn't prove anything. (1) Modtran was introduced on this very thread months ago. (2) One must have a bit of sense in order to use a model. (3) The numbers I presented were from my own use of modtran and modtran predicted a 1.1°C temperature rise for doubling CO2 from 400 ppm to 800 ppm. Ah, here we are. Not the author of MODTRAN, but someone who wrote a web interface to it, writes the following page: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...for-deception/ If, therefore, it is that particular fellow from Australia you're using as a source, it shows that you're allowing yourself to be fooled. I never heard of him. I did my own study using modtran. Who do you want to believe: people who know what they're talking about, and are widely recognized as such, or the people who say what you want to hear? John Savard When there is a controversy I try to find out the truth for myself. I trust modtran because it has been used by many, many professionals who depend upon its predictions. The author agrees that: "the energy flux scales with the logarithm of CO2. The log dependence is why the climate sensitivity parameter is often posed as a temperature change for doubled CO2 concentration" So if anyone claims that a change from 400 ppm to 420 ppm is equivalent to a change from 10 to 30 ppm, they are not telling the truth. Those unfortunate people in Bangladesh, of course, aren't qualified to say if they're just suffering from the effects of some random bad weather or something that is really connected with climate change. It wasn't the "people in Bangladesh who claimed that. Rather it was the "scientists" who were studying the problem. Since miscarriages are usually correlated with CHEMICAL effects, it seems to me that those "scientists" were typical AGW koolaid drinkers and were too lazy or too incompetent to find the REAL answers. I do not really know why people with degrees in agriculture or soil science would be inclined to dispute the conclusions of people with degrees in climate science about climate. As I said, they are REALLY on the front lines. Climate affects what they do directly. And we're not talking about whether or not temperatures are increasing, we're talking about whether or not CO2 is causing it. Modtran shows that there IS a relationship, but it also shows that the wild claims by those "with degrees in climate science" have gone off the deep end. It could be they live in a part of the country where all the newspapers reinforce a certain outlook on life, so that people of all educational levels are dismissive of notions they associate with people living in New York or Hollywood... never mind Boston. Come now, the world is not parochial anymore. Here's an interesting fact for your perusal: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018...ts-own-weather I live in Alberta, where selling oil is as important to our economy as it is to that of Texas, so I can certainly understand how that sort of thing can happen. Perceived economic self-interest can affect objectivity.. Now that's an important consideration -- for the climate scientists themselves. “When you point your finger at someone, anyone, it is often a moment of judgement. We point our fingers when we want to scold someone, point out what they have done wrong. But each time we point, we simultaneously point three fingers back at ourselves.” – Christopher Pike Peterson wrote: You cannot convince his sort. He cannot reason past his ideological dogmatism. His religion and his politics broke him. It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. :-)) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Here it is: the real impact of global warming
On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 5:20:11 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 9:37:39 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...for-deception/ If, therefore, it is that particular fellow from Australia you're using as a source, it shows that you're allowing yourself to be fooled. I never heard of him. I did my own study using modtran. Uh oh. Who do you want to believe: people who know what they're talking about, and are widely recognized as such, or the people who say what you want to hear? When there is a controversy I try to find out the truth for myself. I trust modtran because it has been used by many, many professionals who depend upon its predictions. The author agrees that: I trust modtran too. However, I trust modtran to do what it is designed to do. If someone in Australia can put the wrong numbers in, and get a wrong answer out as a result... well, then, it just has the same basic limitation as most computer codes. It calculates based on what it is given, it is a computer program, not a person who can think for himself. So I don't trust the answers you got from modtran not because I think it did its arithmetic wrong, but because I really have no reason to be confident in your work on a question like that. John Savard |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Here it is: the real impact of global warming
On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 8:04:51 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 5:20:11 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: When there is a controversy I try to find out the truth for myself. I trust modtran because it has been used by many, many professionals who depend upon its predictions. The author agrees that: I trust modtran too. However, I trust modtran to do what it is designed to do. If someone in Australia can put the wrong numbers in, and get a wrong answer out as a result... well, then, it just has the same basic limitation as most computer codes. It calculates based on what it is given, it is a computer program, not a person who can think for himself. So I don't trust the answers you got from modtran not because I think it did its arithmetic wrong, but because I really have no reason to be confident in your work on a question like that. John Savard So do your own work! Don't criticize my work until you've done your own. We can then discuss the results. And, BTW, modtran is NOT a climate model. Rather it serves as a sanity check on climate models. It predicts the effect of CO2 is enhanced by about 40% due to a standard water vapor concentration. Present climate models use 100%, which is in the ball park, but climate models used 600% in the past. THAT'S why they got "hockey- stick" projections which "climate scientists" (and Al Gore) used to alarm the populace. I guess they didn't trust modtran. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Here it is: the real impact of global warming
On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 3:12:42 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
It predicts the effect of CO2 is enhanced by about 40% due to a standard water vapor concentration. Present climate models use 100%, which is in the ball park, but climate models used 600% in the past. THAT'S why they got "hockey- stick" projections which "climate scientists" (and Al Gore) used to alarm the populace. Now that's interesting. The effects of an increase in the carbon dioxide level obviously must be limited. Ohterwise, every time you exhale you would be at risk of causing a runaway greenhouse effect. So I presume that Modtran does already account for such things as the fact that an increase in the carbon dioxide level will warm the planet, leading to an increase in water vapor, which will warm the planet some more, leading to a further increase in water vapor... while theoretically, in a mathematical sense, the cycle would have an infinite number of steps, each step is smaller than the one before. And so I would expect Modtran, if it was any good at all - and it certainly is that, as it's widely used and respected - to take account of that and give the final equilibrium result of an increase in carbon dioxide levels, not just the direct, immediate, first-generation increase in water vapor. John Savard |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Here it is: the real impact of global warming
Looking for more information on this, I found the following page:
https://www.science.org.au/curious/e...enhouse-effect Intended as a layman's introduction to global warming, it says that only 1% of the Earth's atmosphere consists of natural greenhouse gases. In that case, *argon* must be a greenhouse gas, and clearly carbon dioxide emissions aren't enough to make a difference. So global warming supporters can at least make typos sometimes... John Savard |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Here it is: the real impact of global warming
On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 7:13:24 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
So I presume that Modtran does already account for such things as the fact that an increase in the carbon dioxide level will warm the planet, leading to an increase in water vapor, which will warm the planet some more, leading to a further increase in water vapor... while theoretically, in a mathematical sense, the cycle would have an infinite number of steps, each step is smaller than the one before. Perhaps it *can* do so, but this climate skeptic web site https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/...dtran-mystery/ notes that it doesn't _have_ to; it claims that advocates of global warming as a problem have used a higher value for instantaneous forcing than does Modtran. If so, then they may indeed be mistaken. But I would have thought that what _matters_, if one is concerned about the ultimate consequence of reaching a certain carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, is the *equilibrium* forcing, not the instantaneous forcing. Which is much higher. John Savard |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Here it is: the real impact of global warming
On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 7:29:11 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
But I would have thought that what _matters_, if one is concerned about the ultimate consequence of reaching a certain carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, is the *equilibrium* forcing, not the instantaneous forcing. Which is much higher. In trying to find out more about this issue, most of the results I got were on the same skeptical web site. This one https://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.co...-the-ipcc-ar5/ has the writer admit he is a "climate heretic" - he believes there are natural processes that cool the planet when it's too warm, and warm it when it's too cool. He's right! Look at all the excess carbon dioxide that got dissolved in the ocean, and is therefore just making it acidic and killing the Great Barrier Reef, instead of contributing to global warming. However, sometimes those natural processes *take a while*. Look at how long the last ice age lasted. Plus, when you put _human technology_ into the mix, something utterly unprecedented in the history of life on Earth... well, you really don't want to try to see just how far you can push those natural restorative processes until they break. John Savard |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Here it is: the real impact of global warming
On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 7:13:24 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 3:12:42 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: It predicts the effect of CO2 is enhanced by about 40% due to a standard water vapor concentration. Present climate models use 100%, which is in the ball park, but climate models used 600% in the past. THAT'S why they got "hockey-stick" projections which "climate scientists" (and Al Gore) used to alarm the populace. Now that's interesting. The effects of an increase in the carbon dioxide level obviously must be limited. Ohterwise, every time you exhale you would be at risk of causing a runaway greenhouse effect. So I presume that Modtran does already account for such things as the fact that an increase in the carbon dioxide level will warm the planet, No. It calculates the heat flux leaving the earth for a given ground temperature. Increasing the CO2 level reduces the exiting heat flux. You must (manually) increase the temperature offset to raise the heat flux back to the same value it was before the CO2 level was increased. leading to an increase in water vapor, which will warm the planet some more, leading to a further increase in water vapor... while theoretically, in a mathematical sense, the cycle would have an infinite number of steps, each step is smaller than the one before. That also must be entered manually. I got lucky because I increased the H2O level too much on the first iteration and it balanced everything. And so I would expect Modtran, if it was any good at all - and it certainly is that, as it's widely used and respected - to take account of that and give the final equilibrium result of an increase in carbon dioxide levels, not just the direct, immediate, first-generation increase in water vapor. John Savard Modtran is NOT a climate model. I explained what it did and what must be done manually to get a climate prediction. To get the H2O increase I used water partial pressure vs. temperature tables and used the result to iterate the modtran inputs. Looking for more information on this, I found the following page: https://www.science.org.au/curious/e...enhouse-effect Intended as a layman's introduction to global warming, it says that only 1% of the Earth's atmosphere consists of natural greenhouse gases. In that case, *argon* must be a greenhouse gas, and clearly carbon dioxide emissions aren't enough to make a difference. But water vapor is a natural greenhouse gas. The partial pressure of H2O at 20°C is 17.5 mm Hg, which is about 2.3% of std pressure. So global warming supporters can at least make typos sometimes... John Savard Apparently :-) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Global Warming Live in real time | Arc Michael | Misc | 0 | October 10th 14 02:30 AM |
Yet another real Scientist debunks Global Warming ... | Hgar | Misc | 6 | May 3rd 14 11:57 PM |
Some real facts about Global Warming ... | Hgar | Misc | 7 | December 19th 13 10:16 PM |
Major analysis confirms global warming is real | Mike Collins[_4_] | Amateur Astronomy | 559 | January 20th 12 12:45 AM |
NASA to Earth: Global Warming Is for Real, Folks! | Sam Wormley[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | February 27th 10 04:27 AM |