Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
To start I'd recommend, as I have done before on this thread, "Principles of Planetary Climate" by Pierrehumbert. It's pitched at a undergrad level and assumes you don't know any climate science but come from a hard science background. He goes from black and grey bodies, through basic absorption physics into real atmospheres and on into how climate models with feedback are constructed and what the physical basis of it all is.
A good chunk of it's available free as a pdf or it can be had off Amazon for about 50 quid. For anyone genuinely interested in this subject with a science background it’s a good read. Particularly if you have doubts about basic principles.
A good chunk of it's available free as a pdf or it can be had off Amazon for about 50 quid. For anyone genuinely interested in this subject with a science background it’s a good read. Particularly if you have doubts about basic principles.
turbobloke said:
Toltec said:
hairykrishna said:
You're sceptical because an explanation of the science aimed at kids isn't detailed or accurate enough? That makes no sense to me. Using that mode of thinking you should also be sceptical about atomic physics, gravity, thermodynamics and basically all science.
Why not read a decent university level text about the details and work out if that makes you sceptical?
No, that is not what I said or meant. It is the use of explanations at that level by CC supporters to justify their belief in why they are correct to impose their agenda on everyone else that caused me to become dismissive of their claims.Why not read a decent university level text about the details and work out if that makes you sceptical?
I have been digging through the surface rubbish into the science recently. As you know the physical properties of co2 and other atmospheric gases as regards absorption and scattering etc are well understood. Getting from there to how percentage increase in co2 will cause a runaway heating event is harder to find. Working backwards means trying to chase down references to papers with further references to papers many of which are not publicly available. Any papers referenced then need a search to see if there is later work that validates or refutes the findings.
As to 'university level' texts, I wonder which author(s) hairykrishna would recommend...Mann? Why not consult the scientific literature directly as this statistician did?
http://wmbriggs.com/post/17849/
Surely a text book would contain the references - like having a teacher guide you through it. Much easier than just going straight to the literature I would've thought.
Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 27th September 19:24
kerplunk said:
Silver Smudger said:
durbster said:
No Tricks Zone is a fully discredited source. They consistently list papers without the authors consent, and wilfully misrepresent their contents.
Be that as it may,it is a real paper is it not?Have you, (or plunker or gandahar) actually read the paper that was mentioned?
Do any of you have any comment on the science contained within the paper?
Nothing new there then.
kerplunk said:
Link doesn't appear to match your description.
Surely a text book would contain the references - like having a teacher guide you through it. Much easier than just going straight to the literature I would've thought.
Just spent another hour or so looking for sources, several books are recommended from £30 to £80, however they have mixed to poor reviews and in one case even with better ratings one comment that it lacks mathematical analysis and depth.Surely a text book would contain the references - like having a teacher guide you through it. Much easier than just going straight to the literature I would've thought.
Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 27th September 19:24
Back to basics, a search for 'analysis of atmospheric gases and climate change' pops up with one site-
https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/climate-basics/climat...
Looks promising despite the dubious initial graphic, wander down into the references to find-
Held, I.M.; Soden, B.J. 2000. Water vapor feedback and global warming. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment. 25:441-475.
Follow the link http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev.e...
Looks like it might have some useful information given the contents list, but wait, $32 for seven days access.
Let's try good old HMG-
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/climate-change-explain...
Less explained and more we are telling you this is true, believe us, however lurking at the bottom is a link to a pdf document of references. This turns out to be a PDF version of the web page, except lo and behold a set of references, excellent. Wait a moment all of those bold blue underlined words that look like links to reference documents don't actually do anything.
Now I know paid for access to scientific papers is the norm, however if Climate Change is so important how about making them accessible to the public for free? You never know I may be convinced and stop considering CC to be some kind of new age psuedo-scientific cult that wants to convert everyone to the true path.
If you want us to believe make it so incredibly easy to find the scientific breadcrumb trail that has, if not definitive proof, a coherent set of theories with a methodology for what further measurements will confirm them.
Toltec said:
Just spent another hour or so looking for sources, several books are recommended from £30 to £80, however they have mixed to poor reviews and in one case even with better ratings one comment that it lacks mathematical analysis and depth.
As I said above, what you want is Pierrehumberts book;https://www.amazon.co.uk/Principles-Planetary-Clim...
A pdf of a lot of it is available;
http://cips.berkeley.edu/events/rocky-planets-clas...
Edited by hairykrishna on Wednesday 27th September 22:00
durbster said:
Silver Smudger said:
durbster said:
No Tricks Zone is a fully discredited source. They consistently list papers without the authors consent, and wilfully misrepresent their contents.
Be that as it may,it is a real paper is it not?Have you, (or plunker or gandahar) actually read the paper that was mentioned?
Do any of you have any comment on the science contained within the paper?
Or are you all content to just complain about the website that mentioned it?
NTZ relies on people not doing their own research. You'll need to find a better source if you want your argument to be taken seriously.
Or do you actually have a scientific objection to the paper?
Seems NTZ wields significant power over the truth ....
hairykrishna said:
As I said above, what you want is Pierrehumberts book;
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Principles-Planetary-Clim...
A pdf of some of it is available if you want to check before you buy
I'm pretty sure I've seen this before then lost the link.https://www.amazon.co.uk/Principles-Planetary-Clim...
A pdf of some of it is available if you want to check before you buy
This looks like a lot of it to be fair http://cips.berkeley.edu/events/rocky-planets-clas...
I have skimmed through parts of it, there is a section of chapter six where he writes about the reflectivity of clouds which is a bit odd, clouds do not have a defined surface boundary so they cannot be reflective, this is doubly odd as the previous chapter is devoted to scattering.
Chapter 9 looks interesting, however it is one of the truncated sections.
Looks to be a good primer on the basic theory.
Toltec said:
I have skimmed through parts of it, there is a section of chapter six where he writes about the reflectivity of clouds which is a bit odd, clouds do not have a defined surface boundary so they cannot be reflective, this is doubly odd as the previous chapter is devoted to scattering.
That's not strictly true. Yes the cloud itself doesn't have a defined surface boundary - but a cloud is made up of individual water droplets which do. Light can be reflected and/or scattered by these droplets - and which effect is dominant depends on both their size, composition (e.g. water or ice) and shape.http://dana.ess.washington.edu/lectures_ESS_421/Le...
Silver Smudger said:
So a scientific paper gets published, but as soon as NTZ mentions it, it becomes worthless because that website has lied before?
Or do you actually have a scientific objection to the paper?
No, you've completely missed the point. The science may be perfectly fine, it's just nothing to do with what NTZ says it is. Or do you actually have a scientific objection to the paper?
NTZ has a page with a clickbait headline saying "20 papers that prove climate change is actually caused by badgers" and then lists a bunch of papers that are nothing to do with badgers. Most people just read the headline and don't bother reading the papers themselves because it's already given them what they want: to feel like there is a scientific basis to reject AGW.
If the scientific case against AGW really were as strong as is claimed, why are people forced to rely on such terrible sources.
Silver Smudger said:
Seems NTZ wields significant power over the truth ....
Seems NTZ wields significant power over people who don't read further than a clickbait headline that tells them what they want to hear.Moonhawk said:
That's not strictly true. Yes the cloud itself doesn't have a defined surface boundary - but a cloud is made up of individual water droplets which do. Light can be reflected and/or scattered by these droplets - and which effect is dominant depends on both their size, composition (e.g. water or ice) and shape.
http://dana.ess.washington.edu/lectures_ESS_421/Le...
Semantics or just common usage then, I wasn't dismissing the contents of the book just on that. I'll read through and look for work with experimental data that confirms the concepts, at least some of the chapters have intact further reading lists which may help.http://dana.ess.washington.edu/lectures_ESS_421/Le...
mondeoman said:
kerplunk said:
Silver Smudger said:
durbster said:
No Tricks Zone is a fully discredited source. They consistently list papers without the authors consent, and wilfully misrepresent their contents.
Be that as it may,it is a real paper is it not?Have you, (or plunker or gandahar) actually read the paper that was mentioned?
Do any of you have any comment on the science contained within the paper?
Nothing new there then.
You must know your onions. What are the implications of the atmospheric effect not contributing 33K to earth's average temperature as commonly thought?
That moon paper's bonkers by the way. Published in a predatory journal presumably because nobody else would touch it with a s
tty stick. Spends rather a lot of time applying the work of Gerlich and Tscheuschner which is never a good start. Calculates something wrong in various ways then decides, by extension, that all climate scientists are as wrong as they are.
tty stick. Spends rather a lot of time applying the work of Gerlich and Tscheuschner which is never a good start. Calculates something wrong in various ways then decides, by extension, that all climate scientists are as wrong as they are. kerplunk said:
I notice you don't use any qualification like "If true it's quite damning.."
You must know your onions. What are the implications of the atmospheric effect not contributing 33K to earth's average temperature as commonly thought?
The scientific implications are that we need to entirely rethink our understanding of the atmosphere from first principles. Along these lines perhaps https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/new-insigh...You must know your onions. What are the implications of the atmospheric effect not contributing 33K to earth's average temperature as commonly thought?
From a a politico-economic perspective the implications are far reaching and catastrophic. I have a feeling that Trumps pull out from the Paris agreement was just the c h i n k in the armor that below the parapet dissident climate scientist were looking for, and we are going to see many more papers that disagree with the consensus.
I had to leave spaces in c h i n k because the PH swear filter is an offended SJW with poor vocabulary. FFS
hairykrishna said:
That moon paper's bonkers by the way. Published in a predatory journal presumably because nobody else would touch it with a stty stick. Spends rather a lot of time applying the work of Gerlich and Tscheuschner which is never a good start. Calculates something wrong in various ways then decides, by extension, that all climate scientists are as wrong as they are.
Yeah but it's peer reviewed and therefore 'real'! tty stick. Spends rather a lot of time applying the work of Gerlich and Tscheuschner which is never a good start. Calculates something wrong in various ways then decides, by extension, that all climate scientists are as wrong as they are. XM5ER said:
The scientific implications are that we need to entirely rethink our understanding of the atmosphere from first principles. Along these lines perhaps https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/new-insigh...
Lol. Is it bonkers paper week at skeptic central? XM5ER said:
kerplunk said:
I notice you don't use any qualification like "If true it's quite damning.."
You must know your onions. What are the implications of the atmospheric effect not contributing 33K to earth's average temperature as commonly thought?
The scientific implications are that we need to entirely rethink our understanding of the atmosphere from first principles. Along these lines perhaps https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/new-insigh...You must know your onions. What are the implications of the atmospheric effect not contributing 33K to earth's average temperature as commonly thought?
From a a politico-economic perspective the implications are far reaching and catastrophic. I have a feeling that Trumps pull out from the Paris agreement was just the c h i n k in the armor that below the parapet dissident climate scientist were looking for, and we are going to see many more papers that disagree with the consensus.
I had to leave spaces in c h i n k because the PH swear filter is an offended SJW with poor vocabulary. FFS
(Kramm has form for being a greenhouse paradigm buster btw so he wasn't exactly 'below the parapet' before).
kerplunk said:
XM5ER said:
kerplunk said:
I notice you don't use any qualification like "If true it's quite damning.."
You must know your onions. What are the implications of the atmospheric effect not contributing 33K to earth's average temperature as commonly thought?
The scientific implications are that we need to entirely rethink our understanding of the atmosphere from first principles. Along these lines perhaps https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/new-insigh...You must know your onions. What are the implications of the atmospheric effect not contributing 33K to earth's average temperature as commonly thought?
From a a politico-economic perspective the implications are far reaching and catastrophic. I have a feeling that Trumps pull out from the Paris agreement was just the c h i n k in the armor that below the parapet dissident climate scientist were looking for, and we are going to see many more papers that disagree with the consensus.
I had to leave spaces in c h i n k because the PH swear filter is an offended SJW with poor vocabulary. FFS
(Kramm has form for being a greenhouse paradigm buster btw so he wasn't exactly 'below the parapet' before).
hairykrishna said:
XM5ER said:
The scientific implications are that we need to entirely rethink our understanding of the atmosphere from first principles. Along these lines perhaps https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/new-insigh...
Lol. Is it bonkers paper week at skeptic central? "A recent study has revealed that the Earth’s natural atmospheric greenhouse effect is around 90 K or about 2.7 times stronger than assumed for the past 40 years. A thermal enhancement of such a magnitude cannot be explained with the observed amount of outgoing infrared long-wave radiation absorbed by the atmosphere (i.e. ? 158 W m-2), thus requiring a re-examination of the underlying Greenhouse theory."
Right, so the obs don't fit our revolutionary new theoretical figure for the atmospheric effect so everything we know about planetary atmospheres must be wrong and needs a total rethink. Well obviously it's the only explanation!
I guess I now have an answer to my question about the implications of the higher figure for AGW!
A rather strange twist in the tale - the recent study referred to is by 'Volikin and Rellez' which is Nikolov and Zeller backward - yes they are
Volikin and Rellez said:
As authors of this article (Volokin and ReLlez 2014) we would like to clarify that our real names are Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller. We created the pseudonyms Den Volokin and Lark ReLlez by spelling our names backward. Ned Nikolov is a physical scientist with the USDA Forest Service; he had been instructed by his employer not to engage in climate research during government work hours, nor to reveal his government affiliation when presenting results from his climate studies. Karl Zeller is a retired USDA Forest Service research scientist with no restrictions. Ned Nikolov worked on this manuscript outside of his assigned official work duty hours. Because of the controversial subject matter and the novel findings previously associated with Nikolov and Zeller, we felt that the use of pseudonyms was necessary to guarantee a double-blind peer review of our manuscript and to assure a fair and unbiased assessment. We are sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused the Editorial Board and the readership of SpringerPlus.
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40064-016-3755-3So they did it because they haven't broken any restrictions placed on Nikolov by his employer (so why even mention it?) and to get an unbiased review (because everyone thinks they're nuts). The latter makes a lot of sense at least.
Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 28th September 19:31
Edited by kerplunk on Friday 29th September 10:42
kerplunk said:
hairykrishna said:
XM5ER said:
The scientific implications are that we need to entirely rethink our understanding of the atmosphere from first principles. Along these lines perhaps https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/new-insigh...
Lol. Is it bonkers paper week at skeptic central? "A recent study has revealed that the Earth’s natural atmospheric greenhouse effect is around 90 K or about 2.7 times stronger than assumed for the past 40 years. A thermal enhancement of such a magnitude cannot be explained with the observed amount of outgoing infrared long-wave radiation absorbed by the atmosphere (i.e. ? 158 W m-2), thus requiring a re-examination of the underlying Greenhouse theory."
Right, so the obs don't fit our revolutionary new theoretical figure for the atmospheric effect so everything we know about planetary atmosphere's must be wrong and needs a rethink. Well obviously it's the only explanation!
I guess I now have an answer to my question about the implications of the higher figure for AGW!
A rather strange twist in the tale - the recent study referred to is by 'Volikin and Rellez' which is Nikolov and Zeller backward - yes they are
Volikin and Rellez said:
As authors of this article (Volokin and ReLlez 2014) we would like to clarify that our real names are Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller. We created the pseudonyms Den Volokin and Lark ReLlez by spelling our names backward. Ned Nikolov is a physical scientist with the USDA Forest Service; he had been instructed by his employer not to engage in climate research during government work hours, nor to reveal his government affiliation when presenting results from his climate studies. Karl Zeller is a retired USDA Forest Service research scientist with no restrictions. Ned Nikolov worked on this manuscript outside of his assigned official work duty hours. Because of the controversial subject matter and the novel findings previously associated with Nikolov and Zeller, we felt that the use of pseudonyms was necessary to guarantee a double-blind peer review of our manuscript and to assure a fair and unbiased assessment. We are sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused the Editorial Board and the readership of SpringerPlus.
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40064-016-3755-3So they did it because they haven't broken any restrictions placed on Nikolov by his employer, and to get an unbiased review (because everyone thinks they're nuts). The latter makes a lot of sense at least.
Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 28th September 19:31
Kerplunk, perhaps because I come from a more sceptical place than you, I tend to view hit pieces done on scientist as more of an indication that they might be on to something (getting flack when you are over the target). Has their theory been rebutted scientifically? There are plenty of loonies in climate science, Michael Mann is a perfect example, his paranoia leads him to see a Koch behind every blade of grass, so what?
XM5ER said:
kerplunk said:
hairykrishna said:
XM5ER said:
The scientific implications are that we need to entirely rethink our understanding of the atmosphere from first principles. Along these lines perhaps https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/new-insigh...
Lol. Is it bonkers paper week at skeptic central? "A recent study has revealed that the Earth’s natural atmospheric greenhouse effect is around 90 K or about 2.7 times stronger than assumed for the past 40 years. A thermal enhancement of such a magnitude cannot be explained with the observed amount of outgoing infrared long-wave radiation absorbed by the atmosphere (i.e. ? 158 W m-2), thus requiring a re-examination of the underlying Greenhouse theory."
Right, so the obs don't fit our revolutionary new theoretical figure for the atmospheric effect so everything we know about planetary atmosphere's must be wrong and needs a rethink. Well obviously it's the only explanation!
I guess I now have an answer to my question about the implications of the higher figure for AGW!
A rather strange twist in the tale - the recent study referred to is by 'Volikin and Rellez' which is Nikolov and Zeller backward - yes they are
Volikin and Rellez said:
As authors of this article (Volokin and ReLlez 2014) we would like to clarify that our real names are Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller. We created the pseudonyms Den Volokin and Lark ReLlez by spelling our names backward. Ned Nikolov is a physical scientist with the USDA Forest Service; he had been instructed by his employer not to engage in climate research during government work hours, nor to reveal his government affiliation when presenting results from his climate studies. Karl Zeller is a retired USDA Forest Service research scientist with no restrictions. Ned Nikolov worked on this manuscript outside of his assigned official work duty hours. Because of the controversial subject matter and the novel findings previously associated with Nikolov and Zeller, we felt that the use of pseudonyms was necessary to guarantee a double-blind peer review of our manuscript and to assure a fair and unbiased assessment. We are sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused the Editorial Board and the readership of SpringerPlus.
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40064-016-3755-3So they did it because they haven't broken any restrictions placed on Nikolov by his employer, and to get an unbiased review (because everyone thinks they're nuts). The latter makes a lot of sense at least.
Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 28th September 19:31
Kerplunk, perhaps because I come from a more sceptical place than you, I tend to view hit pieces done on scientist as more of an indication that they might be on to something (getting flack when you are over the target). Has their theory been rebutted scientifically? There are plenty of loonies in climate science, Michael Mann is a perfect example, his paranoia leads him to see a Koch behind every blade of grass, so what?
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff