SoAMadDeathWish
-
Posts
698 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Store
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by SoAMadDeathWish
-
-
The basic equations of fluid dynamics are the Navier Stokes equations for which we do not have a general solution. There not even a general system of convergent approximations yet. Only a few restricted cases of the Navier Stokes equations yield numerical solutions that are known to converge.
From the Wiki article on the Navier Stokes equations:
The Navier–Stokes equations are also of great interest in a purely mathematical sense. Somewhat surprisingly, given their wide range of practical uses, it has not yet been proven that in three dimensions solutions always exist (existence), or that if they do exist, then they do not contain any singularity. (They are smooth.) These are called the Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness problems. The Clay Mathematics Institute has called this one of the seven most important open problems in mathematics and has offered a US$1,000,000 prize for a solution or a counter-example.[1]
I told you turbulence and chaotic dynamics is a tough nut.
Ba'al Chatzaf
You don't need exact solutions of the equations in order to use them for calculation. The approximation methods we do have are sufficient for most purposes and are well-behaved enough that they work just fine except in the most extreme situations. Even then, you can average out anything too turbulent if you use an appropriate time interval. You don't have to be able to predict every little gust of wind in order to calculate the average temperature of a system over 10 or 20 years.
As I've said before, if you believe that the climate models are unfalsifiable, then you should present your reasons for believing so. It should not be so difficult if you actually have any good reasons for your belief.
When you deal with chaotic dynamics you need numerical algorithms that are guaranteed to converge. Such methods are not generally available with the Navier Stokes equations. That is why there is a million dollar prize for finding such methods.
We do not have tractable mathematical methods for chaotic and non-linear dynamics. That is the way it is.
I told you we do not have a well founded climate science, but you won't listen.
Models we have and they can be fiddled.
Ba'al Chatzaf
No, you most certainly do not. There are ways around the problem, such as using the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations,
May I remind you that the general 3-body problem for Newtonian Gravity has never been solved, precisely because of non-linear dynamics. Does that mean that our models of the solar system are unfalsifiable or that we do not have a viable theory of gravitation?
We have several theories of gravitation (classical-Newtonian and the linearzied approximation to Einstein's field equations from General Relativity. Both models are quite accurate for the solar system. Things get hairier for very strong gravitational fields. It is not clear the Einstein's theory holds up near black holes and Newton's theory definitely does not.
In any case we do not have anything this good for climate. Climate is very complicated. It is more than averaging weather.
And for weather, we have no really good theories. The best we can do is predict weather ten days out. Long term weather prediction simply does not exist.
Ba'al Chatzaf
Firstly, climatology is not about weather prediction.
Secondly, just because you keep repeating this claim over and over again, that does not make it true. Where is your support for this belief? I've asked you each time you said it, and each time you have failed and tried to ignore the issue.
If you do not have any good reason to believe what you believe, then just admit it.
EDIT: And don't think I haven't noticed the not-so-subtle backpedaling away from your original position.
-
Naomi, you're quite frantic when it comes to your beliefs.
J
Jonathan,
The word irrational comes to mind.
Swagger, some technical vocabulary and no rational substance.
Michael
I think it's fun watching the left throttle up its talking points, and push them more frantically every day. The "AGW is settle science" thing seemed to kick in as a tactic just the "consensus" "scientist's" predictions were starting to show themselves as drifting farther and farther from reality.
In April, on the Scientific Fraud thread, I posted this:
Here's a hypothetical chart, with the orange areas representing the predictions of "the scientific consensus" (dark orange representing 75% certainty, light orange representing 95% certainty), and the black line representing actual recorded temperatures.
What will happen if, in the future (represented as the blue band), observations from reality become increasingly more distant from the predictions?
The "AGW is settled science" tactic becomes louder and more frantic and repetitive the farther that time goes on into the blue section. I think the idea is that the left realizes that it is running out of time to grab as much control as it can and impose restraints, hardships and death on people. Pretty soon the sheep that they're trying to herd won't trust them anymore, so they have to act now.
J
Your "hypothetical chart" sure does a great job of disproving AGW in "hypothetical reality" (which is not to mention the complete and utter lack of labels on the axes or scales or a source or anything even remotely resembling a fact). Too bad that the rest of the world doesn't live in your imagination.
If you had any real data which contradicted the predictions, you would have posted that instead of a "hypothetical chart".
-
I'm not asking Ba'al to prove a negative. I'm asking him to back up his claims about climate models being unfalsifiable or seriously flawed in some way.
-
However, that in no way means that applying the Navier-Stokes equations is impossible for all the other conditions for which the model does apply. As I've said before, the climate is studied over long enough time-scales that extremely turbulent situations which would cause problems are smoothed over.
Newtonian gravitation has been sufficient to launch space vehicles into the outer part of the solar system. Where the gravitational field is weak the Newtonian solution and the Einsteinian solution for motions are nearly equal.
To deal with weather we need the Navier Stokes equations full strength. Unfortunately we do not know how to solved them full strength.
Our mathematical models for both weather (which deals with ocean and atmospheric conditions short range) and climate (which is long ranger and depends on more than the ambient ocean and atmospheric conditions) are not very good. That is why we cannot predict weather accurately for more than ten days out no matter how many radiosonde balloons we send up.
The modern era of chaotic dynamics was introduced when meteorologist Ed Lorenz attempted to solved a non-linear system of equations in three variable to predict atmospheric convection. He discovered (by accident) that variations in the initial states of as little as one part in ten thousand produced very significantly different solutions.
From the Wiki article on Lorenz:
During the 1950s, Lorenz became skeptical of the appropriateness of the linear statistical models in meteorology, as most atmospheric phenomena involved in weather forecasting are non-linear.[2] His work on the topic culminated in the publication of his 1963 paperDeterministic Nonperiodic Flow in Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, and with it, the foundation ofchaos theory.[2][5] He states in that paper:
His description of the butterfly effect followed in 1969.[2][6][7] He was awarded the Kyoto Prize for basic sciences, in the field of earth and planetary sciences, in 1991,[8] the Buys Ballot Award in 2004, and the Tomassoni Award in 2008. [9] In his later years, he lived in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He was an avid outdoorsman, who enjoyed hiking, climbing, and cross-country skiing. He kept up with these pursuits until very late in his life, and managed to continue most of his regular activities until only a few weeks before his death. According to his daughter, Cheryl Lorenz, Lorenz had "finished a paper a week ago with a colleague."[10] On April 16, 2008, Lorenz died at his home in Cambridge at the age of 90, having suffered from cancer.[1
Two states differing by imperceptible amounts may eventually evolve into two considerably different states ... If, then, there is any error whatever in observing the present state — and in any real system such errors seem inevitable — an acceptable prediction of an instantaneous state in the distant future may well be impossible....In view of the inevitable inaccuracy and incompleteness of weather observations, precise very-long-range forecasting would seem to be nonexistent.
Chaotic behavior is caused by the sensitivity of a system to initial conditions. The initial conditions are determined by measurements, which are only finite in their accuracy. The chaos results from the lack of perfect information on the initial state of the weather, which is what Lorenz said, and which contradicts your claim that the inability to predict the weather results from flawed models. Neither Lorenz nor any other chaos theorist has ever claimed that "we cannot predict weather accurately for more than ten days out no matter how many radiosonde balloons we send up".
Chaos is not a problem in climatology, because, as I've said before, turbulence is smoothed out by time-averaging.
No matter how small the error in initial condition, the equations produce markedly different outputs. This is characteristic of systems describable by non-linear differential equations.
We cannot predict weather long term and we cannot predict climate long term because it depends not only on weather ambient conditions (temeprature, humidity, pressure) but on Orbital states, axial tilt, cosmic radiation, and the suns energy and magnetic states as well as the optical states of the atmosphere (presence of so-called green-house gases). We currently cannot touch climate with a ten foot pole. We need a lot more work on the basic processes that determine climate long term. Merely averaging weather is not an effective predictor because there are many things at work and their dynamics are non-linear. For example a small variation in axial tilt will have a large effect on long range climate. Since the axial tilt variation has a 26,000 year cycle and there is a 100,000 year cyclic change in earths revolution orbit we will get climate cycles of over 100,000 years in length.
Even factoring in "green house" effects your surest bet is another ice age. Who knows when? No one knows right now. Even global warming can trigger another ice age by causing a lowering of dissolved salt levels in the oceans. This will shut down or diminish the halocline conveyors. Thank of England without the Gulf Stream to warm her up. The Thames will freeze again as it did during the "little ice age" (1300 - 1750 approximately). There are positive feedback loops that can cause very serious climatic effects. If lots of clouds are produced (and this is affected by cosmic rays) the temperatures could drop radically and trigger off another ice age.
The statistical models produced by the IPCC simply do not address the complex physical processes involved in climate. They overweight greenhouse gasses and essential ignore solar output, axial tilt variation and orbital perturbations. Also we do not have a good scientific theory to account for internal energy production from the sun. How much energy we receive is affected by magnetic activity in the sun. There is a rough eleven year cycle in solar output but that is not precise.
Ba'al Chatzaf
Prove it, then. Where is all this supposed research that shows that the current models are too inaccurate and don't take important factors into account? I have asked you for these references over and over again in this thread, and you refuse to back up your claims with even the slightest bit of support. You are not an authority on the subject, and as far as anyone knows so far, you're just making stuff up.
-
You don't need exact solutions of the equations in order to use them for calculation. The approximation methods we do have are sufficient for most purposes and are well-behaved enough that they work just fine except in the most extreme situations. Even then, you can average out anything too turbulent if you use an appropriate time interval. You don't have to be able to predict every little gust of wind in order to calculate the average temperature of a system over 10 or 20 years.
As I've said before, if you believe that the climate models are unfalsifiable, then you should present your reasons for believing so. It should not be so difficult if you actually have any good reasons for your belief.
What is needed are numerical algorithms guaranteed to converge to a solution. The n-body problem does not have a closed form solution for n > 2 but it does have a numerical solution. That is why the
orbits of our space craft can be figured out to high accuracy with the aid of computers
In addition the Einstein Field equations can be solved numerically in a low strength gravitational field
Alas non- linear chaotic dynamics and turbulence problems do not yield as well
That's pretty cool. I actually didn't know that it had been solved.
But the solution was discovered as recently as 1991. Does that mean that up until then, there were no viable theories of gravitation?
I'm glad you pointed out the Einstein Field equations, because that's where I was about to go next. Now, as far as I know, there are no numerical methods for solving Einstein's field equations that are guaranteed to converge in the general case. Does that mean that GR is unfalsifiable?
The answer to both of these questions, is, of course not.
Look, if you have a climate model, the worst thing that can happen is that it tells you that the energy or other some such parameter is infinite. If that's the case, then you know right away that the result is nonsensical, and you can limit the model's applicability so that it doesn't include situations that gave rise to the singularity.
However, that in no way means that applying the Navier-Stokes equations is impossible for all the other conditions for which the model does apply. As I've said before, the climate is studied over long enough time-scales that extremely turbulent situations which would cause problems are smoothed over.
-
The basic equations of fluid dynamics are the Navier Stokes equations for which we do not have a general solution. There not even a general system of convergent approximations yet. Only a few restricted cases of the Navier Stokes equations yield numerical solutions that are known to converge.
From the Wiki article on the Navier Stokes equations:
The Navier–Stokes equations are also of great interest in a purely mathematical sense. Somewhat surprisingly, given their wide range of practical uses, it has not yet been proven that in three dimensions solutions always exist (existence), or that if they do exist, then they do not contain any singularity. (They are smooth.) These are called the Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness problems. The Clay Mathematics Institute has called this one of the seven most important open problems in mathematics and has offered a US$1,000,000 prize for a solution or a counter-example.[1]
I told you turbulence and chaotic dynamics is a tough nut.
Ba'al Chatzaf
You don't need exact solutions of the equations in order to use them for calculation. The approximation methods we do have are sufficient for most purposes and are well-behaved enough that they work just fine except in the most extreme situations. Even then, you can average out anything too turbulent if you use an appropriate time interval. You don't have to be able to predict every little gust of wind in order to calculate the average temperature of a system over 10 or 20 years.
As I've said before, if you believe that the climate models are unfalsifiable, then you should present your reasons for believing so. It should not be so difficult if you actually have any good reasons for your belief.
When you deal with chaotic dynamics you need numerical algorithms that are guaranteed to converge. Such methods are not generally available with the Navier Stokes equations. That is why there is a million dollar prize for finding such methods.
We do not have tractable mathematical methods for chaotic and non-linear dynamics. That is the way it is.
I told you we do not have a well founded climate science, but you won't listen.
Models we have and they can be fiddled.
Ba'al Chatzaf
No, you most certainly do not. There are ways around the problem, such as using the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations,
May I remind you that the general 3-body problem for Newtonian Gravity has never been solved, precisely because of non-linear dynamics. Does that mean that our models of the solar system are unfalsifiable or that we do not have a viable theory of gravitation?
-
The basic equations of fluid dynamics are the Navier Stokes equations for which we do not have a general solution. There not even a general system of convergent approximations yet. Only a few restricted cases of the Navier Stokes equations yield numerical solutions that are known to converge.
From the Wiki article on the Navier Stokes equations:
The Navier–Stokes equations are also of great interest in a purely mathematical sense. Somewhat surprisingly, given their wide range of practical uses, it has not yet been proven that in three dimensions solutions always exist (existence), or that if they do exist, then they do not contain any singularity. (They are smooth.) These are called the Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness problems. The Clay Mathematics Institute has called this one of the seven most important open problems in mathematics and has offered a US$1,000,000 prize for a solution or a counter-example.[1]
I told you turbulence and chaotic dynamics is a tough nut.
Ba'al Chatzaf
You don't need exact solutions of the equations in order to use them for calculation. The approximation methods we do have are sufficient for most purposes and are well-behaved enough that they work just fine except in the most extreme situations. Even then, you can average out anything too turbulent if you use an appropriate time interval. You don't have to be able to predict every little gust of wind in order to calculate the average temperature of a system over 10 or 20 years.
As I've said before, if you believe that the climate models are unfalsifiable, then you should present your reasons for believing so. It should not be so difficult if you actually have any good reasons for your belief.
-
The "resignation letter" is backed up by absolutely no one, not even Bengtsson himself, and his interviews reveal that the "abuse" he supposedly received amounted to nothing more than people calling him mean names on the internet.
Has he denied this letter somewhere?
I would if someone made up a letter, said I wrote it, and published it in the mainstream. Just like the rest of humanity.
One more item of foolishness has been logged on your balance.
Michael
Well, he hasn't even acknowledged its existence, so it's hard to say.
-
No. A lot of things determine global climate. Among which are the sun's energy output (it varies), orbital variations including axial tilt, cloud formation which is affected to some extent by cosmic radiation, various gaseous effusions from beneath the earth, dust concentration in the atmosphere, salt concentration which affects the various ocean conveyors etc. Not only that but the underlying dynamics of both weather and climate are non-linear and chaotic so very small variations can produce very large variations in out. There are also feed back loops among the various processes.
Bottom line: Climate and Weather is much more complicated than the basic physics of particles and fields.
At this juncture we do NOT have a solid theory of weather and climate (a result of the chaotic dynamics underlying both). We do have models but unfortunately they have to many parameters and be be twiddled to fit just about any data.
Ba'al Chatzaf
So are living organisms, but that doesn't make the science of biology impossible. And we most certainly do have a solid theory of weather and climate, it's called "fluid dynamics". That they behave chaotically is no barrier to scientific investigation.
We do have models but unfortunately they have to many parameters and be be twiddled to fit just about any data.
Find me even a single example.
-
However, you then claimed the man said the above because he was "scared". Scared of what? The above paragraph does not support that view unless you already assume that he was being intimidated into saying the above. In short, your belief that there is something more to this story than another case of yellow journalism is based on nothing more than your own prejudices and confirmation bias.
You have reached my tolerance for foolishness for one day.
Your capacity to blank out posts--like the dude's resignation letter and interviews--that are right in front of you eyes is either the result of a hopelessly corrupted conceptual faculty or simple garden variety dishonesty.
Neither serve for me. The precious minutes and hours of my life are not to be wasted on garbage like what you are doing.
Personally I now believe you are playing a game to see how far you can push nonsense and get away with it on OL. So I'm back in mulling over what to do about it mode.
One thing is for sure. The intellectual bar will be raised from your kindergarten level to the adult level, with you or without you.
Michael
The "resignation letter" is backed up by absolutely no one, not even Bengtsson himself, and his interviews reveal that the "abuse" he supposedly received amounted to nothing more than people calling him mean names on the internet.
-
So how do they all compare? I'm going to make this even easier.
Your claim of butchered text from Investors.com: Bengtsson, 79, quoted in the Daily Mail, said it was "utterly unacceptable" to advise against publishing a paper on political grounds. He called it "an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views." "The reality" of climate, he said, "hasn't been keeping up with the (computer) models."
The Daily Mail text: Prof Bengtsson, 79, said it was ‘utterly unacceptable’ to advise against publishing a paper on the political grounds. He said: ‘It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn't been keeping up with the [computer] models.
The Times text, from which this was based: He added that it was “utterly unacceptable” to advise against publishing a paper on the ground that the findings might be used by climate sceptics to advance their arguments. “It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn't been keeping up with the [computer] models.
Well... there are minor variations between the different texts, but they all say the same thing. Where's the butchering? Where's the chop chop? Where's the "pure fabrication"?
In the baloney you are trying to put over on everyone?
I can't do this spoonfeeding for you each time you decide to preach propaganda and ape your echo chamber. After all, I have a life.
So please learn how to read correctly. You are intelligent enough to do that. At least I hope your error-laced bluster is due to laziness and vanity instead of comprehension...
Michael
It's exactly as I've said before. If Bengtsson had indeed said something like "It is “utterly unacceptable” to advise against publishing a paper on the ground that the findings might be used by climate sceptics to advance their arguments", then why not quote him directly? Instead, the Times article puts the words in his mouth. You can make anybody say whatever you want, if the only thing you quote from them directly are the two words "utterly unacceptable".
EDIT: I never claimed that Investors.com butchered text from another article. I claimed that Bengtsson's own words were butchered and twisted in that quote.
He said as much in his own words, directly from his own mouth:
“I do not believe there is any systematic “cover up” of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics’ work is being “deliberately suppressed”, as The Times front page suggests. I am worried by a wider trend that science is being gradually being influenced by political views. Policy decisions need to be based on solid fact.
“I was concerned that the Environmental Research Letters reviewer’s comments suggested (emphasis mine) his or her opinion was not objective or based on an unbiased assessment of the scientific evidence. Science relies on having a transparent and robust peer review system so I welcome the Institute of Physics publishing the reviewers’ comments in full. I accept that Environmental Research Letters is entitled to its final decision not to publish this paper – that is part and parcel of academic life. The peer review process is imperfect but it is still the best way to assess academic work.
“I was surprised by the strong reaction from some scientists outside the UK to joining the Global Warming Policy Foundation this month. I had hoped that it would be platform to bring more common sense into the global climate debate.
“Academic freedom is a central aspect to life at University of Reading. It is a very open, positive and supportive environment to work in. I have always felt able to put forward my arguments and opinions without any prejudice.”
It's clear here that Bengtsson was merely concerned about how the reviewer's comments might be interpreted. Not that they were in fact motivated by politics, but that it might come off that way. If this is the case, then the whole premise of the Times article is based on a falsehood.
However, you then claimed the man said the above because he was "scared". Scared of what? The above paragraph does not support that view unless you already assume that he was being intimidated into saying the above. In short, your belief that there is something more to this story than another case of yellow journalism is based on nothing more than your own prejudices and confirmation bias.
-
He never said what the WSJ article claims he did. The whole thing is pure fabrication.
Naomi,
Actually I'm glad you said this because I didn't recall the Wall Street Journal being mentioned except in passing. And this made me look closer than I normally would have.
So what did the WSJ claim that Bengtsson said that you say he never said and is "pure fabrication"?
Well, let's look.
My mistake. It wasn't WSJ, I meant to say Investors.com, the link that Jonathan provided, i.e. this.
The part I claimed that is pure fabrication is the part:
Bengtsson, 79, quoted in the Daily Mail, said it was "utterly unacceptable" to advise against publishing a paper on political grounds. He called it "an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views."
"The reality" of climate, he said, "hasn't been keeping up with the (computer) models."
Notice how they completely chop up the quote and "filled in the blanks" in a very convenient way.
-
Where is all this supposed evidence? Not one person here has presented even a single thing so far.
That is a lie.
You have a great argument with your other personalities.
You just lied and you have not provided studies.
I am done.
I will post studies, however you are incapable of argumentation so I won't argue.
I am actually ecstatic that you are arguing for AGW, because your incompetence will only chase people away so they can actually look at reality.
A...
No it isn't.
-
Bob, be nice, she is not too bright.
Her ability to string an argumennt on AGW from a correct premise and support the argument with scientific evidence is limited at best.
AGW is the global law and any contrary evidence is:
1) unscientific;
2) politically motivated;
3) an outright lie; etc. etc.
Pretty pathetic actually.
A...
Where is all this supposed evidence? Not one person here has presented even a single thing so far.
The effect of the oceanic conveyors (the major currents) is documented up the ying yang.
The Gulf Stream and the northern Atlantic conveyor is the major reason why the Thames does not freeze every winter.
The current around Antarctica is why the middle of Antiarctica is so cold. The Antarctic Ice is not melting fast like the Greenland Glacier.
Why not read a book or ocean current, cloud formation and the the effect of plate tectonics on climate.
Visit your library soon and often.
Ba'al Chatzaf
Are you insinuating that ocean currents completely explain global warming? If so, then why not just state that belief upfront and provide supporting arguments and evidence?
-
Bob, be nice, she is not too bright.
Her ability to string an argumennt on AGW from a correct premise and support the argument with scientific evidence is limited at best.
AGW is the global law and any contrary evidence is:
1) unscientific;
2) politically motivated;
3) an outright lie; etc. etc.
Pretty pathetic actually.
A...
Where is all this supposed evidence? Not one person here has presented even a single thing so far.
-
I quote you "over a period of time" The periods that establish climate range from decades to thousands of years.
We can predict weather at most 10 - 12 days in advance. That is because weather is a manifestation of chaotic dynamics in atmospheric conditions. Climate is established over -long- periods of time.
There is more to climate than just the current temperature and humidity. Secondary and Tertiary cosmic ray input affect the formation of clouds. Then there are orbital variations. Then there are variations in the heat and light cycle of the sun. These are what establish climatic trends. Then there is the layout of the land which affects ocean currents. When Antartica broke away from Pangea and water could circulate freely around it this affected the ocean conveyor currents. When the neck of land from North America joined to South America (this is central America now) it cut off ocean currents and caused world wide changes in the halocline conveyors --- the major currents such as the gulf stream. This is the stuff of climate.
Your knowledge of the matter is shallow and superficial. Go learn some stuff then come back and pontificate.
Ba'al Chatzaf
"Long" is not a well-defined time-scale. Climate, as the definition plainly says, is "weather conditions averaged over time." First of all, note the word "averaged". Weather conditions by contrast are instantaneous (theoretically).
Note also that the time is not restricted to any range of time-intervals. Theoretically, you could study weather patterns over a 10-second range and call it a "climate", but such short time intervals are too chaotic for us to really say anything about them. Nonetheless, the relatively short time interval does not make the average temperature over a ten-second interval of a weather system the same thing as its temperature at any instant. They are simply too very different kinds of variables.
Your knowledge of the matter is shallow and superficial. Go learn some stuff then come back and pontificate.
You claimed that the climate models in the mainstream are unfalsifiable in an earlier post, and I'm still waiting for your brilliant demonstration of that "fact". On top of that, any of my opponents in this thread have yet to challenge even a single AGW claim on empirical grounds.
-
Climate is NOT weather. Weather is short term conditions. Climate is long term trends in the state of the atmosphere and the oceans. The ice age lasted 100,000 years. Last winter's snow storm lasted a day or two.
Ba'al Chatzaf
Quote
I expected better than that from you.
-
OK, we can agree on the above definition of climatology as the study of weather.
So we can use all the experts on weather as our data pool on AGW.
No where are the studies?
Your evasion and question begging does not work here. Question begging being defined as:
...Circular Reasoning, Reasoning in a Circle, Petitio Principii.
Description of Begging the QuestionBegging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.
- Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
- Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."
Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.
You could never be subtle.
A...
It's not question begging to say that A is A.
If a mainstream source says "x", then "x" is what the mainstream source says.
-
I have highlighted in red the sentence which caused all the ruckus. Bengtsson's only complaint was that that statement might be misconstrued to give the impression of an ideological motivation on the part of the referee.
Here's what I know.
That is "Bengtsson's only STATED complaint" after the fact.
Here's what I think. I think Bengtsson is afraid of losing future funding and other scientist world goodies. Easier to back off than to stand. Speculation, granted, but in this context, it is pretty good speculation.
From what I read on your link, there was a crap-load of tut tut tutting...
Michael
Stand on regard to what? He never said what the WSJ article claims he did. The whole thing is pure fabrication.
-
I have read those documents.
Now that you avoided answring, shall we try this again?
Define climatilogy. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Show us some studies that confirm what mainstream climatology concludes is it's mainstream.
You have referred to studies numerous times, studies, not cartoons.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+climatology
Wow... that was hard.
From wikipedia:
You don't need a study to show that a claim made by a mainstream source is a claim made by a mainstream source.
-
Stop right there:
Source that statement.
Define climatology.
Show us some studies that confirem what mainstream climatology concludes is it's mainstream.
A...
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-3.html
What is the Greenhouse Effect?
The Sun powers Earth’s climate, radiating energy at very short wavelengths, predominately in the visible or near-visible (e.g., ultraviolet) part of the spectrum. Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is reflected directly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect. The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce airflow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, but through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet. Without the natural greenhouse effect, the average temperature at Earth’s surface would be below the freezing point of water. Thus, Earth’s natural greenhouse effect makes life as we know it possible. However, human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests, have greatly intensified the natural greenhouse effect, causing global warming.
The two most abundant gases in the atmosphere, nitrogen (comprising 78% of the dry atmosphere) and oxygen (comprising 21%), exert almost no greenhouse effect. Instead, the greenhouse effect comes from molecules that are more complex and much less common. Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide (CO2) is the second-most important one. Methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and several other gases present in the atmosphere in small amounts also contribute to the greenhouse effect. In the humid equatorial regions, where there is so much water vapour in the air that the greenhouse effect is very large, adding a small additional amount of CO2 or water vapour has only a small direct impact on downward infrared radiation. However, in the cold, dry polar regions, the effect of a small increase in CO2 or water vapour is much greater. The same is true for the cold, dry upper atmosphere where a small increase in water vapour has a greater influence on the greenhouse effect than the same change in water vapour would have near the surface.
Several components of the climate system, notably the oceans and living things, affect atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. A prime example of this is plants taking CO2 out of the atmosphere and converting it (and water) into carbohydrates via photosynthesis. In the industrial era, human activities have added greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, primarily through the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests.
Adding more of a greenhouse gas, such as CO2, to the atmosphere intensifies the greenhouse effect, thus warming Earth’s climate. The amount of warming depends on various feedback mechanisms. For example, as the atmosphere warms due to rising levels of greenhouse gases, its concentration of water vapour increases, further intensifying the greenhouse effect. This in turn causes more warming, which causes an additional increase in water vapour, in a self-reinforcing cycle. This water vapour feedback may be strong enough to approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone.
Additional important feedback mechanisms involve clouds. Clouds are effective at absorbing infrared radiation and therefore exert a large greenhouse effect, thus warming the Earth. Clouds are also effective at reflecting away incoming solar radiation, thus cooling the Earth. A change in almost any aspect of clouds, such as their type, location, water content, cloud altitude, particle size and shape, or lifetimes, affects the degree to which clouds warm or cool the Earth. Some changes amplify warming while others diminish it. Much research is in progress to better understand how clouds change in response to climate warming, and how these changes affect climate through various feedback mechanisms.
-
Completely biased journalism, even according to Bengtsson himself:
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-claims-climate-research-was-suppressed/
A scientist caving into peer pressure when a media storm erupts on his head NEVER happens...
Oh no...
At that link, there's a lot of blah blah blah by scientists patting themselves on the back and tut tut tutting. There is only one quote I found interesting:
“In the interests of transparency and informed debate, Professor Bengtsson’s paper should be made public along with reports from the referees and editor."
That certainly would show if sleaze were behind the media storm.
Michael
Bengtsson's draft will never be made public unless he decides to release it to the media himself. As for the reports from the referees and editor, they are in the third link I provided. Here they are:
REFEREE REPORT(S):
Referee one:
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
The manuscript uses a simple energy budget equation (as employed e.g. by Gregory et al 2004, 2008, Otto et al 2013) to test the consistency between three recent "assessments" of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity (not really equilibrium climate sensitivity in the case of observational studies).
The study finds significant differences between the three assessments and also finds that the independent assessments of forcing and climate sensitivity within AR5 are not consistent if one assumes the simple energy balance model to be a perfect description of reality.
The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low, as the calculations made to compare the three studies are already available within each of the sources, most directly in Otto et al.
The finding of differences between the three "assessments" and within the assessments (AR5), when assuming the energy balance model to be right, and compared to the CMIP5 models are reported as apparent inconsistencies.
The paper does not make any significant attempt at explaining or understanding the differences, it rather puts out a very simplistic negative message giving at least the implicit impression of "errors" being made within and between these assessments, e.g. by emphasising the overlap of authors on two of the three studies.
What a paper with this message should have done instead is recognising and explaining a series of "reasons" and "causes" for the differences.
- The comparison between observation based estimates of ECS and TCR (which would have been far more interesting and less impacted by the large uncertainty about the heat content change relative to the 19th century) and model based estimates is comparing apples and pears, as the models are calculating true global means, whereas the observations have limited coverage. This difference has been emphasised in a recent contribution by Kevin Cowtan, 2013.
- The differences in the forcing estimates used e.g. between Otto et al 2013 and AR5 are not some "unexplainable change of mind of the same group of authors" but are following different tow different logics, and also two different (if only slightly) methods of compiling aggregate uncertainties relative to the reference period, i.e. the Otto et al forcing is deliberately "adjusted" to represent more closely recent observations, whereas AR5 has not put so much weight on these satellite observations, due to still persisting potential problems with this new technology
- The IPCC process itself explains potential inconsistencies under the strict requirement of a simplistic energy balance: The different estimates for temperature, heat uptake, forcing, and ECS and TCR are made within different working groups, at slightly different points in time, and with potentially different emphasis on different data sources. The IPCC estimates of different quantities are not based on single data sources, nor on a fixed set of models, but by construction are expert based assessments based on a multitude of sources. Hence the expectation that all expert estimates are completely consistent within a simple energy balance model is unfunded from the beginning.
- Even more so, as the very application of the Kappa model (the simple energy balance model employed in this work, in Otto et al, and Gregory 2004) comes with a note of caution, as it is well known (and stated in all these studies) to underestimate ECS, compared to a model with more time-scales and potential non-linearities (hence again no wonder that CMIP5 doesn't fit the same ranges)
Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.
One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al).
In the same way that one cannot expect a nice fit between observational studies and the CMIP5 models.
A careful, constructive, and comprehensive analysis of what these ranges mean, and how they come to be different, and what underlying problems these comparisons bring would indeed be a valuable contribution to the debate.
I have rated the potential impact in the field as high, but I have to emphasise that this would be a strongly negative impact, as it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place.
And I can't see an honest attempt of constructive explanation in the manuscript.
Thus I would strongly advise rejecting the manuscript in its current form.
Referee two:
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
I would be interested in learning whether or not there are internal inconsistencies in estimates of climate sensitivity and forcing in individual studies and in learning if there are substantial differences among the studies. I would be even more interested in understanding why any apparent inconsistencies and differences might exist. On this second point, the manuscript has little to offer (other than some speculation that aerosol forcing estimates have changed). And unfortunately on the first point, the authors have only superficially demonstrated possible inconsistencies. Moreover, in addressing the question of “committed warming”, the authors have inexplicably used the wrong equation. For all these reasons, I recommend the paper be rejected.
The authors use the wrong equation to calculate the "committed warming". In their equation 3, they should use the equilibrium climate sensitivity, not the transient climate sensitivity. This would then yield the climate system’s eventual equilibrium temperature increase (relative to pre‐industrial temperature) for a given forcing, which they take to be present day GHG forcing. Since the transient climate sensitivity is quite a bit lower than the equilibrium climate sensitivity, they have substantially underestimated the committed warming.
Even before making this error, there is a troubling shallowness in the arguments describing apparent discrepancies in estimates of forcing and equilibrium climate sensitivity. Here are a few suggestions on how to improve this part of the manuscript.
- The casting of ECS in the odd units of K/(W/m**2) is completely unnecessary and not only is confusing, but makes it difficult to check some of the numerical values reported. ECS should be reported in K since it is a temperature change in response to 2xCO2 forcing. Instead of equation 1, simply write ECS = F(2xCO2) * delta-T/(F – N).
- The present manuscript is unacceptably unclear about exactly what values are used in constructing fig. 1. For the 4 cases considered (AR4, AR5, Otto et al., and the CMIP5 models), you should construct a table (source of info. vs. value of each parameter) providing all the values (or range of values) used for ECS, delta-T(2xCO2), F(2xCO2), F, and N. Indicate which values (if any) were not reported by the referenced study itself, but were adopted for use from some other source. With this information you might be able to convince the reader that there are in fact differences and inconsistencies in each of the studies. As the manuscript stands, I am left wondering whether the apparent discrepancies might actually be explained more by differences in ocean heat uptake values used as opposed to uncertainty/differences in forcing and ECS. I note that many of the discrepancies disappear if AR5 assumed a somewhat larger value for N than in the other studies.
- For clarity (and strict correctness), log-log plots should show the relationship between non‐dimensional quantities only (because taking the log of a dimension yields nonsense). So fig. 1 should show log(ECS/delta-T) as a function of log( (F-N) / F(2xCO2) ). This will also make it easy for the reader to understand the meaning of the numerical values plotted: the ordinate indicates by what factor the GMST equil. response exceeds the temperature difference between some perturbed state and the control (preindustrial) states (in this case warming since pre‐industrial times). On the abscissa, F-N would appear normalized by 2xCO2 forcing. An equilibrium climate with 2xCO2 will by construction be plotted at the origin (i.e. ECS/delta_T(2xCO2) = 1 ).
- In the current manuscript, important assumptions are that uncertainty in delta‐T (obs) and N(obs) is negligible and that the values should be the same for use in all 4 studies. I’m not sure this is valid, since the estimates of “present‐day” forcing are for different time periods (I think). Moreover, it does not seem consistent to evaluate N over the period from 1971 to 2010 and GMST change from 1850‐1900 to 2003‐2012. For this to be an appropriate comparison, you must assume the rate of ocean heat uptake is the same during 2003‐2012 as it is during 1971-2010. You also must assume that in the period 1850‐1900 the system is in equilibrium (with N=0 during that period). I note that Otto et al., assume heat uptake of 0.08 +‐ .03 W/m**2 for their reference period (1860-1879). I suspect for 1850-1900, the comparable number might be somewhat larger, which would reduce your N by a non‐negligible fraction. In any case N is highly uncertain, and you should discuss how this affects your results. Similarly, you need to consider uncertainty in GMST. Although this quantity is reasonably well measured over the historical period, we cannot expect it on short time‐scales to necessarily exactly be related to net radiative flux by a constant. These and other uncertainties lead to the range of values shown, for example, in Otto et al. (for the decade 2000‐2010 values range around delta‐T = 0.7 K with a standard error estimate of about 20%, at least as best I can determine from their fig. 1). Again how these uncertainties affect each of the 4 studies you consider should be discussed; it’s possible that the discrepancies could disappear if different studies used different values of N and GMST change within the accepted uncertainties.
- One way to better indicate uncertainties on your graph would be to replace your log‐log plot with a plot of (F-N)/F(2xCO2) along the ordinate and 1/ECS on the abscissa, perhaps labeled non-linearly with values of (1/6, 1/5, ¼, ½, and 1) so the reader could directly read the temperature. On this plot you could then indicate the region compatible with temperature observation uncertainty by plotting a couple of lines emanating from the origin with slope equal to different values of delta-T [nb. delta-T /ECS = (F‐N)/F(2xCO2)]. You could also indicate how the uncertainty in N affects your projection lines corresponding to the current diagonal lines in your fig. 1 by plotting at their central point a vertical error‐bar line (vertical because recall I’ve put F‐N on the y-axis). This figure would resemble fig. 1 of Otto et al., but with their obs. change in GMST replaced by 1/ECS and their shaded diagonal lines of ECS replaced by GMST. You would probably only have to display 2 diagonal lines indicating the uncertainty in obs. GMST change.
- In your current discussion you imply that differences in F‐N across different studies are attributable to differences in F, but N could also be responsible.
- The study would be much more valuable if it attempted to also begin to address the 4 questions posed in the conclusions. I suspect the answers are really quite mundane, although the tone of the discussion implies otherwise.
I have highlighted in red the sentence which caused all the ruckus. Bengtsson's only complaint was that that statement might be misconstrued to give the impression of an ideological motivation on the part of the referee.
It is plain as day to anyone with a functioning pair of eyes and brain hemispheres that the article in the WSJ was quoting Bengtsson selectively to make it appear as if he is saying that he is being silenced by the journal, when really nothing of the sort has occurred.
-
"A noted researcher who questioned the climate's sensitivity to greenhouse gases says his paper is not being published for ideological reasons and because it might fuel doubt in the climate change story..."
Completely biased journalism, even according to Bengtsson himself:
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-claims-climate-research-was-suppressed/
Professor Lennart Bengtsson, professorial research fellow at the University of Reading, said:
“I do not believe there is any systematic “cover up” of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics’ work is being “deliberately suppressed”, as The Times front page suggests. I am worried by a wider trend that science is being gradually being influenced by political views. Policy decisions need to be based on solid fact.
“I was concerned that the Environmental Research Letters reviewer’s comments suggested his or her opinion was not objective or based on an unbiased assessment of the scientific evidence. Science relies on having a transparent and robust peer review system so I welcome the Institute of Physics publishing the reviewers’ comments in full. I accept that Environmental Research Letters is entitled to its final decision not to publish this paper – that is part and parcel of academic life. The peer review process is imperfect but it is still the best way to assess academic work.
“I was surprised by the strong reaction from some scientists outside the UK to joining the Global Warming Policy Foundation this month. I had hoped that it would be platform to bring more common sense into the global climate debate.
“Academic freedom is a central aspect to life at University of Reading. It is a very open, positive and supportive environment to work in. I have always felt able to put forward my arguments and opinions without any prejudice.”
Here are a few other sources which don't quote Bengtsson out of context and give a more detailed account of what happened:
And from the publisher itself:
http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times
-
The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the "Greenhouse Effect". Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.)
Consulting Geologist
First Uploaded ISO: 2009-Oct-13
Revision 5 ISO: 2011-Dec-07
Some former elements of this article such as the laser experiment, radiation budget commentary, and the UHI implications are to be later reproduced in an additional article concerning the mid-20th century revival of the "Greenhouse Effect". This notice will be removed when the new article is uploaded. Abstract
This article explores the "Greenhouse Effect" in contemporary literature and in the frame of physics, finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic definition. The "Greenhouse Effect" is defined by Arrhenius' (1896) modification of Pouillet's backradiation idea so that instead of being an explanation of how a thermal gradient is maintained at thermal equilibrium, Arrhenius' incarnation of the backradiation hypothesis offered an extra source of power in addition to the thermally conducted heat which produces the thermal gradient in the material. The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its revision by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909. The "Greenhouse Effect" is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the "Greenhouse Effect" has, in fact, no material foundation. Compositional variation can change the distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier's Law, but it cannot change the overall temperature of the body. Arrhenius' Backradiation mechanism did, in fact, duplicate the radiative heat transfer component by adding this component to the conductive heat flow between the earth's surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction includes both contact and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in thermal contact. Moreover, the temperature of the earth's surface and the temperature in a greenhouse are adequately explained by elementary physics. Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of "Anthropogenic Global Warming", which rests on the "Greenhouse Effect", also has no real foundation.
The author misrepresents mainstream climatology.
While it is true that a change in the composition of the body alone cannot change the mean temperature, that is not how the Greenhouse Effect works. A change in the composition of the atmosphere changes the way that radiation from the sun is absorbed and re-emitted. That radiation can certainly change the mean temperature of the Earth.
"The atmosphere is relatively transparent to the incoming visible rays of the Sun. Much of that radiation is absorbed at the Earth's surface and then reemitted as infrared, invisible long-wave rays that radiate back away from the surface (Fig. 12-14). The atmosphere, however, is relatively opaque and impermeable to infrared rays because of the combined effect of clouds and carbon dioxide, which strongly absorbs the radiation instead of allowing it to escape into space. This absorbed radiation heats the atmosphere, which radiates heat back to the Earth's surface. This is called the 'greenhouse effect' by analogy to the warming of greenhouses, whose glass is the barrier to heat loss."This explanation is fundamentally confusing because it is seemingly contradictory, as impermeable materials cannot absorb on the minute to minute timescale that applies to the "Greenhouse Effect", even if such an impermeable material has a very high fluid storage capacity or porosity. According to Press & Siever's explanation above, the atmosphere is relatively impermeable due to the presence of clouds and carbon dioxide, which are part of the atmosphere. How then, can the part of the atmosphere that makes it impermeable to infrared, simultaneously facilitate infrared absorption? Moreover, the idea of thermal permeability is a product of the 19th century pseudoscientific notion that heat was actually a fluid (called "caloric"). This led to a great deal of misunderstanding amongst the scientifically illiterate when it came to the findings of Fourier (e.g. Kelland, 1837).
There is so much wrong with this part that it's honestly hard to know where to even begin.
First of all, the impermeability of a material to radiation has nothing to do with its fluid storage capacity or porosity. Rather, the absorption and reflection of radiation depends on the absorption spectra of the molecules in the material and their concentrations. Thus, there is no contradiction in saying that a material is both impermeable to radiation and absorptive of that radiation. That's part of what "impermeable" means. If radiation is neither reflected nor absorbed, then it is permeable. So, if it is impermeable, it follows that radiation must either be absorbed or reflected or both.
Additionally, "thermal permeability" is irrelevant in this context because no one is claiming that the sun is in direct thermal contact with the Earth. Heat is transferred from the sun to the Earth via radiation.
Namely, that terrestrial heat radiated into the atmosphere is there absorbed and re-emitted back to earth to raise surface temperatures beyond what is possible from the incident radiation alone.
Here he misrepresents his opponents yet again. No climatologists claim that the greenhouse effect causes a rise in surface temperatures beyond what radiation from the sun can account for. On the contrary, it is precisely this incident radiation which is the only source of heating caused by the greenhouse effect.
APS and the Global Warming Scam
in Science & Mathematics
Posted
You can mock me all you like, but it won't change the fact that your belief has no basis in reality whatsoever.