Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
rovermorris999 said:
My guess is just about all the older records are adjusted down so the modern ones look hotter but then I'm a cynic.
I know what you're saying, but why would the older records require adjusting?Isn't the adjustment to bring in line the new records with the older ones?
Lotus 50 said:
There's lots of papers published showing how this has been done and it's a perfectly valid scientific technique. Not the dark conspiracy that some would have you believe.
Quite right. Nothing wrong with the adjustments all going one way.
Or stations that can't be persuaded to conform to The Cause being quietly "lost".
Not at all, at all...
We covered this not long ago. They certainly don’t all go the same way. The net effect on land is that the trend is bigger than it would be without adjustments. Over ocean it goes the other way.
The overall effect is that the trend is much reduced from the one you’d see with no adjustments. Basically if there’s some kind of data tampering conspiracy then it has acted to make the effect of AGW look smaller than it appears from the raw data.
The overall effect is that the trend is much reduced from the one you’d see with no adjustments. Basically if there’s some kind of data tampering conspiracy then it has acted to make the effect of AGW look smaller than it appears from the raw data.
AA999 said:
I know what you're saying, but why would the older records require adjusting?
Isn't the adjustment to bring in line the new records with the older ones?
This is exactly the point. The correction have all been done bass ackwards. No one has any idea beyond a wild ass guess as to what the thermometer of 1880 "should" read today, and what adjustment to make to all of it's data. We can only take those measurements at face value. It is really just another symptom of a data set that is not nearly as robust as one would be led to believe. We really only have about 40 years of good data, not hundreds of years.Isn't the adjustment to bring in line the new records with the older ones?
Sorry but that's wrong. If you're trying to link data sets together the general principle would be to take the on that you have the greatest confidence in and adjust the other data so that it is consistent with it. In general we are much better at measuring things in absolute terms now than we were (e.g. temperatures, land surface heights), although the relative measurements taken by older instruments can be surprisingly accurate, so it makes more sense to adjust older data so that it is consistent with new. When this is done the work is normally published so that the approach used (normally stats) and any corroborating evidence can be checked. In most, if not all of the instances where this has been done in data used to develop time series of climate (e.g. sea/air temp, sea level) this is the case. A lot of this stuff is openly accessible (google scholar is a good way of finding it) but go to the source papers rather than believe what you read on t'interweb and take the assertions of bloggers with a big pinch of salt.
AA999 said:
I guess we could talk data data data all day long, but is the fact still so, that there still isn't a visible causality link to the human contribution within the data?
ie. a measured human input resulting in a measured global temperature output/change
There is. There’s a very accurately measured rise in CO2 concentration. This is directly attributable to fossil fuels due to it’s isotropic ratio. There’s a corresponding measured temperature rise. ie. a measured human input resulting in a measured global temperature output/change
If you don’t think this constitutes a “visible causality link” maybe you could explain exactly what does?
AA999 said:
I guess we could talk data data data all day long, but is the fact still so, that there still isn't a visible causality link to the human contribution within the data?
ie. a measured human input resulting in a measured global temperature output/change
That'll be 'data' then. Or do you mean like a video showing a molecule of CO2 exiting the exhaust of a V8 and intercepting an IR photon coming up from the ground? I've never seen anything like that (and I'm not very happy about it).ie. a measured human input resulting in a measured global temperature output/change
hairykrishna said:
AA999 said:
I guess we could talk data data data all day long, but is the fact still so, that there still isn't a visible causality link to the human contribution within the data?
ie. a measured human input resulting in a measured global temperature output/change
There is. There’s a very accurately measured rise in CO2 concentration. This is directly attributable to fossil fuels due to it’s isotropic ratio. There’s a corresponding measured temperature rise. ie. a measured human input resulting in a measured global temperature output/change
If you don’t think this constitutes a “visible causality link” maybe you could explain exactly what does?
hairykrishna said:
AA999 said:
I guess we could talk data data data all day long, but is the fact still so, that there still isn't a visible causality link to the human contribution within the data?
ie. a measured human input resulting in a measured global temperature output/change
There is. There’s a very accurately measured rise in CO2 concentration. This is directly attributable to fossil fuels due to it’s isotropic ratio. There’s a corresponding measured temperature rise. ie. a measured human input resulting in a measured global temperature output/change
If you don’t think this constitutes a “visible causality link” maybe you could explain exactly what does?
Has anyone told the climate it is doing it wrong ?
hairykrishna said:
dickymint said:
This should be interesting! Or more likely a deliberate attempt at misconstruing the question.
If that was miscontruing the question, can you perhaps re-word it?dickymint said:
Is there a linked to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, in global climate data? If so show it.
Isn't that the same question as before? Basic physics tells us that higher CO2 concentrations means that more energy ends up in the climate system rather than radiated out. This has also been directly confirmed with measurements. We've measured increasing temperatures over the same time period as this increasing CO2.
If this isn't what you're looking for, give me an example answer. What could we measure, which we aren't, that constitutes 'visible causal signal'?
Apparently, per BBC, Kalman Filtering has been employed to 'homogenise' the surface temp data set.
This seems inappropriate, since the algorithm requires 'expected' to be derived from physics equations, together with 'actuals + error' in order to provide better actuals.
There are no equations (other than interpolation on a static time basis) applicable, and certainly none on a time variant basis.
The simple fact, therefore, is that the surface temp records are not fit for purpose.
This seems inappropriate, since the algorithm requires 'expected' to be derived from physics equations, together with 'actuals + error' in order to provide better actuals.
There are no equations (other than interpolation on a static time basis) applicable, and certainly none on a time variant basis.
The simple fact, therefore, is that the surface temp records are not fit for purpose.
hairykrishna said:
Isn't that the same question as before?
Basic physics tells us that higher CO2 concentrations means that more energy ends up in the climate system rather than radiated out. This has also been directly confirmed with measurements. We've measured increasing temperatures over the same time period as this increasing CO2.
If this isn't what you're looking for, give me an example answer. What could we measure, which we aren't, that constitutes 'visible causal signal'?
Basic physics tells us that 15 micron radiation emitted from the surface of the planet is absorbed fully within 1 meter of the atmosphere.Basic physics tells us that higher CO2 concentrations means that more energy ends up in the climate system rather than radiated out. This has also been directly confirmed with measurements. We've measured increasing temperatures over the same time period as this increasing CO2.
If this isn't what you're looking for, give me an example answer. What could we measure, which we aren't, that constitutes 'visible causal signal'?
As for 15 micron radiation elsewhere in the atmosphere, it is presumably generated by CO2 as part of the general interaction in an assembly of energetic molecules.
Already 'warmed' by interaction with the surface of the planet.
Ali G said:
Basic physics tells us that 15 micron radiation emitted from the surface of the planet is absorbed fully within 1 meter of the atmosphere.
As for 15 micron radiation elsewhere in the atmosphere, it is presumably generated by CO2 as part of the general interaction in an assembly of energetic molecules.
Already 'warmed' by interaction with the surface of the planet.
Yes, each level of atmosphere is absorbing and emitting photons. Convection dominates heat transfer in the troposphere, radiation further up.As for 15 micron radiation elsewhere in the atmosphere, it is presumably generated by CO2 as part of the general interaction in an assembly of energetic molecules.
Already 'warmed' by interaction with the surface of the planet.
Were you just agreeing with me, or am I missing some problem with my statement that we expect a warmer planet with elevated co2 levels?
Ali G said:
Apparently, per BBC, Kalman Filtering has been employed to 'homogenise' the surface temp data set.
This seems inappropriate, since the algorithm requires 'expected' to be derived from physics equations, together with 'actuals + error' in order to provide better actuals.
There are no equations (other than interpolation on a static time basis) applicable, and certainly none on a time variant basis.
The simple fact, therefore, is that the surface temp records are not fit for purpose.
Whilst this is outside my experience/expertise, a quick google scholar search seems to show that it is appropriate to use filtering in this way.This seems inappropriate, since the algorithm requires 'expected' to be derived from physics equations, together with 'actuals + error' in order to provide better actuals.
There are no equations (other than interpolation on a static time basis) applicable, and certainly none on a time variant basis.
The simple fact, therefore, is that the surface temp records are not fit for purpose.
Ali G said:
Basic physics tells us that 15 micron radiation emitted from the surface of the planet is absorbed fully within 1 meter of the atmosphere.
As for 15 micron radiation elsewhere in the atmosphere, it is presumably generated by CO2 as part of the general interaction in an assembly of energetic molecules.
Already 'warmed' by interaction with the surface of the planet.
Yes, each level of atmosphere is absorbing and emitting photons. Convection dominates heat transfer in the troposphere, radiation further up.As for 15 micron radiation elsewhere in the atmosphere, it is presumably generated by CO2 as part of the general interaction in an assembly of energetic molecules.
Already 'warmed' by interaction with the surface of the planet.
Were you just agreeing with me, or am I missing some problem with my statement that we expect a warmer planet with elevated co2 levels?
hairykrishna said:
Ali G said:
Basic physics tells us that 15 micron radiation emitted from the surface of the planet is absorbed fully within 1 meter of the atmosphere.
As for 15 micron radiation elsewhere in the atmosphere, it is presumably generated by CO2 as part of the general interaction in an assembly of energetic molecules.
Already 'warmed' by interaction with the surface of the planet.
Yes, each level of atmosphere is absorbing and emitting photons. Convection dominates heat transfer in the troposphere, radiation further up.As for 15 micron radiation elsewhere in the atmosphere, it is presumably generated by CO2 as part of the general interaction in an assembly of energetic molecules.
Already 'warmed' by interaction with the surface of the planet.
Were you just agreeing with me, or am I missing some problem with my statement that we expect a warmer planet with elevated co2 levels?
Effectively, all of the molecules in the atmosphere possess energy which are held through:
(1) KE
(2) Rotational
(3) Vibrational
There will be interaction between all three forms through collision with resultant changes in mode - (KE/Rotatation/Vibration)
The only one of which is of concern is the vibrational state of the CO2 molecule which can generate 15 micron radiation.
Now, given that all 15 micron radiation has been already been absorbed within 1 meter of the surface, all other is generated through collision by CO2 with other energetic molecules in the upper atmosphere.
Given that the mean time to collision between nearest neighbour is lower than decay time for CO2 to release photon - upon which the energy transfer is just KE, then you have 'just another collision' between near neighbours with (effectively) a transfer of KE.
To me - this appears to be a re-cycling of energy between molecules - nothing more than a convoluted transfer of KE.
And KE has already been provided to molecules through several mechanisms from the surface.
Therefore, can't see how (m)any 15 micron photons make their way back to the surface from the upper trop - which is required for the 'enhanced' greenhouse effect.
Raising the CO2 content of the upper layers of the atmosphere raises the amount of IR absorption. This is IR that previously would be radiated to space. Increased IR absorption raises the total energy of this bit of atmosphere. This increases the population in the state which leads to IR emission. This emission is isotropic - some goes back down rather than to space. These photons are absorbed by a lower layer, it's energy is raised above what it would be without these 'extra' photons, it's emission is raised etc etc all the way down. It doesn't require a given photon to make it's way all the way through the atmospheric column.
It's easiest to think of the layer from which radiated photons are eventually likely to be radiated to space. As the IR absorber concentration rises the height of this layer rises and the amount 'escaping' reduces.
It's easiest to think of the layer from which radiated photons are eventually likely to be radiated to space. As the IR absorber concentration rises the height of this layer rises and the amount 'escaping' reduces.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff